Pulled this gem from Right Wing Watch.
Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel stopped by VCY America’s “Crosstalk” yesterday to discuss his group’s attempt to stop judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama. Staver praised Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore for flouting the ruling of a federal court on the matter and lashed out at the Supreme Court for rejecting Alabama’s appeal of the marriage case, saying that Alabama “does not have to obey” any future Supreme Court ruling “that there’s some invented right to same-sex marriage and therefore you can’t have marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
“That is so far off the beaten path, so far removed from the Constitution that it is no rule of law,” Staver said. “There is a limit to what the court can do, there is a limit to what the people can stomach. If that court were to say, the laws of gravity were fine for the founders but we have progressed, we’re a progressive society and we think they have changed, you would say, ‘That’s nuts, have they lost their mind?’ The question is: Have they lost their mind by saying there’s a constitutional right for same-sex marriage?”
Because everybody knows the laws of physics and a civil contract between two people are the exact same thing!
*headdesk*
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
February 16, 2015
January 26, 2015
Rights for Me, But Not for Thee
(Sorry for the length, folks. But when you see something as stupid as this, you just gotta fisk it.)
Today’s rant tackles a theme I’m sure many of you are talking about: the Supreme Court finally taking up gay marriage. According to what I’ve read, the court will decide two questions. 1) Do bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment? and 2) Must states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?
Of course, the prospect of gay marriage being decided in this country once and for all brought out the unhinged, including the person I’m ranting about, Steve Deace. His little “con” article in my USA Today insert was a masterpiece of frothing incoherence.
Just to comment on a few things:
The American view of law and government is summarized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, by these three things:
This first sentence aptly illustrates the inanity of his argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not our founding document. That would be the Constitution. You know, the thing that specifies how this country is to be run? The document that can be amended, and has been, twenty-seven times?
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution re: same-sex marriage. No more, no less. The Declaration of Independence isn’t even in this picture.
Furthermore, Mr. Deace’s little “American view of law and government” house of cards falls apart with its first assertion, that being: There is a God. Since he cannot empirically prove such a being exists, much less that said being is sitting in the White House or the Chief Justice’s chair, all his subsequent assertions are falsified as well. I would also add: Whatever rights we have come from the society and time in which we live, not any Supreme Being. As such, those rights have changed throughout human history (otherwise, the Magna Carta would never have been signed, African-Americans might still be in slavery, and women would not have the right to vote), and will continue to change as societies evolve. As this case will hopefully illustrate.
Next, he bleats about the Supremes “redefining the institution of marriage” as if that doesn’t happen all the time, without courts having anything to do with it. I believe child brides were once a thing, and still are in many parts of the world. In this country, however, the idea of forcibly marrying a girl off at twelve or thirteen is beyond the pale. Polygamy was also very common in generations past (remember Solomon’s seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines?), and still happens in many countries. Yet in this country (so far) we’ve restricted marriage to two people. (As the Latter-Day Saints found out, to their sorrow.) Yeah, that redefinition thing just keeps trotting right along, doesn’t it?
(As for the “slippery slope” of gay marriage leading to polygamy—I’m not aware of any polygamists, LDS or otherwise, petitioning the courts at the moment. When and if they do, the conversation, as long as it involves consenting adults, would certainly be worth having. The main obstacles to a group marriage, it seems to me, would have more to do with mundane things like taxes, property rights, and inheritance.)
Then he tosses off this hooey:
This argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not two people of the same gender who care about each other can live together like heterosexuals can. There is no one in prison today, or faced with it, because they violated their state’s amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman.
Since we’re talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, which part of this paragraph qualifies? Why, the first and second sentences! Are “living together” and “marriage” the same thing in the eyes of the law? I believe that was the whole point of the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, that the legal benefits of marriage are slightly different that simply sharing a house and a bed!
Also, you damn betcha there’s no one in prison because they violated their state’s amendment defining marriage. No, gay people aren’t in prison; they just can’t get a marriage license like everyone else! Which is, I believe, why they’re citing the Fourteenth Amendment in their petitions to the Supreme Court. You know, that whole “equal protection under the law” thing?
Mr. Deace then cites instances of people losing their jobs for simply being Christians. In the case of the Atlanta fire chief, I find it interesting that the article cited didn’t reveal what Kelvin Cochran said in his book (that he admitted distributing to employees) that got him fired. Another article on the firing, however, does:
Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”
In other words, Mr. Deace repeats the typical anti-gay-marriage whine: he wants proponents to have their free speech without consequences. If I substituted “miscegenation” for “homosexuality,” wrote that interracial sex is “vile, vulgar and inappropriate,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and distributed a book stating such things to my employees, would Mr. Deace expect me to escape with my job intact?
By the way, promoting shit like this used to get gay people killed. I notice Mr. Deace says nothing about that.
He ends his column with this over-the-top paragraph:
Make no mistake, that is the end game here. To make religious people and institutions choose between following God, which the constitution protects, or following political correctness.
"Oh noes! If the Supreme Court strikes down laws disallowing same-sex marriage, I’ll have to divorce my wife and marry a man!"
Sorry, Steve. That won’t happen, and would be as much of an outrage as those anti-gay-marriage laws have always been. Nor would any church be required to marry a gay couple, and rightfully so. (He forgets to mention that many Christian congregations and pastors welcome the gay people in their midst, and would be delighted to marry them.)
He also does a little factual twisting, to put it mildly, in regards to the oaths Supreme Court justices swear:
Does freedom come from God, as every Supreme Court justice acknowledges when they swear their oaths of office to Him?
This is hogwash. Here are the oaths Supreme Court justices take.
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Is the word “freedom” in either one of those oaths (other than “taking this obligation freely,” which is not at all the same thing), much less linked to the closing “so help me God” words? In fact, both oaths speak of supporting, defending, discharging and performing the duties of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, not a Supreme Being or any religious text.
You know, that whole Fourteenth Amendment thing? And administering justice “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich”? That’s the heart of this case. As it should be.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for those ignorant boors who are so desperately fighting the same-sex-marriage tsunami. They know they're on the wrong side of history and they're going to lose, and they're just like dinosaurs being sucked down in the tar pit.
Today’s rant tackles a theme I’m sure many of you are talking about: the Supreme Court finally taking up gay marriage. According to what I’ve read, the court will decide two questions. 1) Do bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment? and 2) Must states recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states?
Of course, the prospect of gay marriage being decided in this country once and for all brought out the unhinged, including the person I’m ranting about, Steve Deace. His little “con” article in my USA Today insert was a masterpiece of frothing incoherence.
Just to comment on a few things:
The American view of law and government is summarized in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, by these three things:
- There is a God.
- Our rights come from God, not government.
- Government’s only role is to preserve and protect those God-given rights.
This first sentence aptly illustrates the inanity of his argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not our founding document. That would be the Constitution. You know, the thing that specifies how this country is to be run? The document that can be amended, and has been, twenty-seven times?
In this case, the Supreme Court will decide the applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution re: same-sex marriage. No more, no less. The Declaration of Independence isn’t even in this picture.
Furthermore, Mr. Deace’s little “American view of law and government” house of cards falls apart with its first assertion, that being: There is a God. Since he cannot empirically prove such a being exists, much less that said being is sitting in the White House or the Chief Justice’s chair, all his subsequent assertions are falsified as well. I would also add: Whatever rights we have come from the society and time in which we live, not any Supreme Being. As such, those rights have changed throughout human history (otherwise, the Magna Carta would never have been signed, African-Americans might still be in slavery, and women would not have the right to vote), and will continue to change as societies evolve. As this case will hopefully illustrate.
Next, he bleats about the Supremes “redefining the institution of marriage” as if that doesn’t happen all the time, without courts having anything to do with it. I believe child brides were once a thing, and still are in many parts of the world. In this country, however, the idea of forcibly marrying a girl off at twelve or thirteen is beyond the pale. Polygamy was also very common in generations past (remember Solomon’s seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines?), and still happens in many countries. Yet in this country (so far) we’ve restricted marriage to two people. (As the Latter-Day Saints found out, to their sorrow.) Yeah, that redefinition thing just keeps trotting right along, doesn’t it?
(As for the “slippery slope” of gay marriage leading to polygamy—I’m not aware of any polygamists, LDS or otherwise, petitioning the courts at the moment. When and if they do, the conversation, as long as it involves consenting adults, would certainly be worth having. The main obstacles to a group marriage, it seems to me, would have more to do with mundane things like taxes, property rights, and inheritance.)
Then he tosses off this hooey:
This argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not two people of the same gender who care about each other can live together like heterosexuals can. There is no one in prison today, or faced with it, because they violated their state’s amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman.
Since we’re talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with each other, which part of this paragraph qualifies? Why, the first and second sentences! Are “living together” and “marriage” the same thing in the eyes of the law? I believe that was the whole point of the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, that the legal benefits of marriage are slightly different that simply sharing a house and a bed!
Also, you damn betcha there’s no one in prison because they violated their state’s amendment defining marriage. No, gay people aren’t in prison; they just can’t get a marriage license like everyone else! Which is, I believe, why they’re citing the Fourteenth Amendment in their petitions to the Supreme Court. You know, that whole “equal protection under the law” thing?
Mr. Deace then cites instances of people losing their jobs for simply being Christians. In the case of the Atlanta fire chief, I find it interesting that the article cited didn’t reveal what Kelvin Cochran said in his book (that he admitted distributing to employees) that got him fired. Another article on the firing, however, does:
Among other things, he called homosexuality a “perversion,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and said homosexual acts are “vile, vulgar and inappropriate.”
In other words, Mr. Deace repeats the typical anti-gay-marriage whine: he wants proponents to have their free speech without consequences. If I substituted “miscegenation” for “homosexuality,” wrote that interracial sex is “vile, vulgar and inappropriate,” compared it to bestiality and pedophilia, and distributed a book stating such things to my employees, would Mr. Deace expect me to escape with my job intact?
By the way, promoting shit like this used to get gay people killed. I notice Mr. Deace says nothing about that.
He ends his column with this over-the-top paragraph:
Make no mistake, that is the end game here. To make religious people and institutions choose between following God, which the constitution protects, or following political correctness.
"Oh noes! If the Supreme Court strikes down laws disallowing same-sex marriage, I’ll have to divorce my wife and marry a man!"
Sorry, Steve. That won’t happen, and would be as much of an outrage as those anti-gay-marriage laws have always been. Nor would any church be required to marry a gay couple, and rightfully so. (He forgets to mention that many Christian congregations and pastors welcome the gay people in their midst, and would be delighted to marry them.)
He also does a little factual twisting, to put it mildly, in regards to the oaths Supreme Court justices swear:
Does freedom come from God, as every Supreme Court justice acknowledges when they swear their oaths of office to Him?
This is hogwash. Here are the oaths Supreme Court justices take.
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Is the word “freedom” in either one of those oaths (other than “taking this obligation freely,” which is not at all the same thing), much less linked to the closing “so help me God” words? In fact, both oaths speak of supporting, defending, discharging and performing the duties of the Constitution and the laws of the United States, not a Supreme Being or any religious text.
You know, that whole Fourteenth Amendment thing? And administering justice “without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich”? That’s the heart of this case. As it should be.
Sometimes I almost feel sorry for those ignorant boors who are so desperately fighting the same-sex-marriage tsunami. They know they're on the wrong side of history and they're going to lose, and they're just like dinosaurs being sucked down in the tar pit.
December 1, 2014
#BlackLivesMatter
This is the finest comment I have seen about Ferguson, from the irreplaceable Jay Smooth. As Martin Luther King said, "A riot is the language of the unheard."
October 7, 2014
They All Fall Down
This is the Ninth Circuit Court's decision striking down Idaho and Nevada's gay marriage bans, issued today.
Judge Reinhardt, who wrote the decision, evidently has something of a sense of humor; one of his footnotes, on page 21, reads:
He also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.
Which made me both laugh out loud and shake my head at the stupidity of such an argument. As if many opposite-sex couples weren't already doing all those things.
There's also a very interesting concurring opinion, written by Judge Berzon, starting on page 50 of the 95-page document. He argues that not only do "these same-sex marriage prohibitions fail because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," but because of "impermissible gender classifications," based on "the baggage of sexual stereotypes."
The opinion is quite long, but well worth your time. Hopefully, this will apply to all the other states in the Ninth Circuit....which means that my home state of Arizona will have to wave its discriminatory little amendment bye-bye.
About damn time.
Judge Reinhardt, who wrote the decision, evidently has something of a sense of humor; one of his footnotes, on page 21, reads:
He also states, in conclusory fashion, that allowing same-sex marriage will lead opposite-sex couples to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, take on demanding work schedules, and participate in time-consuming hobbies. We seriously doubt that allowing committed same-sex couples to settle down in legally recognized marriages will drive opposite-sex couples to sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.
Which made me both laugh out loud and shake my head at the stupidity of such an argument. As if many opposite-sex couples weren't already doing all those things.
There's also a very interesting concurring opinion, written by Judge Berzon, starting on page 50 of the 95-page document. He argues that not only do "these same-sex marriage prohibitions fail because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation," but because of "impermissible gender classifications," based on "the baggage of sexual stereotypes."
The opinion is quite long, but well worth your time. Hopefully, this will apply to all the other states in the Ninth Circuit....which means that my home state of Arizona will have to wave its discriminatory little amendment bye-bye.
About damn time.
January 28, 2013
Monkey Poo To You Too!
Man. Just when you think the monkeys have stopped flinging poo, they're back at it again.
Hospitals would need to check the immigration status of uninsured patients under a new bill introduced by an Arizona lawmaker. Rep. Steve Smith’s (R) H.B. 2293 would require hospital staff to “reasonably confirm” patients’ status during check-in or treatment, and immediately report those who do not have the required papers to immigration officials.
I suppose this means that people who are actively dying would, you know, still have to go in search of their papers.
This is ridiculous. Hospitals are not in the business of enforcing immigration laws, nor should they be. Hospitals are in the business of saving lives. And Representative Smith conveniently overlooks the obvious fact that if this bill were to pass, undocumented immigrants simply would not go to the emergency room.
Even if they died as a result. For many Republican hard-liners, this would be a feature, not a bug.
I'm sorry, I cannot be that callous, not in the service of any law. Don't repeat the old canard to me about "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?" If you agree with this law, that means to me that you have no concept of what it means to be a compassionate human being.
There are some laws that would richly deserve civil disobedience, Martin Luther King style. This would be one of them.
(Sock Puppet by Chambeshi; licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Unported)
May 12, 2012
"The Constitution is the only safeguard of our liberties"
Sid Schwab hits the nail on the head.
Gay rights are civil rights. The only arguments against gay marriage and other rights are religious ones, based on a book full of contradictions on much more serious matters than marriage. Killing your kids, for one. To believe gays should be discriminated against, you have to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that it's religiously prohibited. The first is clearly scientifically wrong (what??? You mean right-wingers reject facts to maintain their deep-seated prejudices and belief in pre-failed policies??); the second has no business in civil law. If you believe in the Constitution (you know, like all those teabaggers) then you can't reconcile the idea of states voting away the civil rights of a class of citizens based on sexual preference any more than you can do so based on skin color. Or gender. And, yes, I'm well aware that there are plenty of right-wingers who'd happily do both.
I don't agree with everything he says in this paragraph, but it's true that religious prohibitions have absolutely no place in this country's making of law. We are ruled by the Constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text. If you read the Constitution (and I have, thanks to the little booklet sent me by the ACLU) you'll know that religion is not mentioned, and the Ten Commandments are nowhere to be found.
I'm a person of faith, but it's also clear to me that atheists and agnostics can come up with just as good a statement of ethics and human living as any Judeo-Christian, and they can certainly write just as good a governing document for a country. (Of course, there's that little pesky thing about "three-fifths of a person," but the beauty of the Constitution is that as society evolves, and decides that discrimination against people of color and women is no longer acceptable, the principles of the Constitution can evolve along with this--at least for those who acknowledge that it is indeed a living, breathing document, and not an ossified, rigid, unchangeable relic of a group of people long dead.)
At any rate, read the whole thing.
Gay rights are civil rights. The only arguments against gay marriage and other rights are religious ones, based on a book full of contradictions on much more serious matters than marriage. Killing your kids, for one. To believe gays should be discriminated against, you have to believe that homosexuality is a choice, and that it's religiously prohibited. The first is clearly scientifically wrong (what??? You mean right-wingers reject facts to maintain their deep-seated prejudices and belief in pre-failed policies??); the second has no business in civil law. If you believe in the Constitution (you know, like all those teabaggers) then you can't reconcile the idea of states voting away the civil rights of a class of citizens based on sexual preference any more than you can do so based on skin color. Or gender. And, yes, I'm well aware that there are plenty of right-wingers who'd happily do both.
I don't agree with everything he says in this paragraph, but it's true that religious prohibitions have absolutely no place in this country's making of law. We are ruled by the Constitution, not the Bible or any other religious text. If you read the Constitution (and I have, thanks to the little booklet sent me by the ACLU) you'll know that religion is not mentioned, and the Ten Commandments are nowhere to be found.
I'm a person of faith, but it's also clear to me that atheists and agnostics can come up with just as good a statement of ethics and human living as any Judeo-Christian, and they can certainly write just as good a governing document for a country. (Of course, there's that little pesky thing about "three-fifths of a person," but the beauty of the Constitution is that as society evolves, and decides that discrimination against people of color and women is no longer acceptable, the principles of the Constitution can evolve along with this--at least for those who acknowledge that it is indeed a living, breathing document, and not an ossified, rigid, unchangeable relic of a group of people long dead.)
At any rate, read the whole thing.
March 24, 2012
"Women are not inherently anything but human"
"Men--their rights and nothing more; Women--their rights and nothing less." ~ Susan B. Anthony
This is a sad, horrible commentary on the state of this country.
I hope, forty or fifty years from now when I'm on my deathbed, I won't be reminiscing about an America "when women were free."
This is a sad, horrible commentary on the state of this country.
I hope, forty or fifty years from now when I'm on my deathbed, I won't be reminiscing about an America "when women were free."
March 21, 2012
"Anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living"
"It is always the moralists who do the most harm. Abortion is the logical outcome of civilization; only the jungle gives birth and moulders away as nature decrees. Man plans." ~Max Frisch
In today's Arizona Republic, there is a little column that I wanted to share. It sums up the anti-abortion faction in my rapidly regressing state. It's an email from a state representative, in reply to a constituent who voiced her opposition to a new bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks (no matter what that pesky Supreme Court says, dagnabit).
Personally, I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a 'surgical procedure.'
Personally, I'd like to remind you that as a woman, I am a adult human being, and you have no business mandating that I watch any kind of procedure.
If it's not a life, it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't harm a woman, then she shouldn't care.
Because apparently I am too stupid to know what an abortion really is, and I need to frightened and/or shamed into reconsidering. Notice how the Almighty Legislator thinks she should dictate what should matter to me, or what I should care about. Only someone who believes pregnant women are less than human could twist their brains around this kind of reasoning.
And don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.
This would only hold water if everyone were compelled to watch any sort of surgery their doctors were recommending, from removing an ingrown toenail to having a heart transplant, before undergoing the surgery themselves. I don't see that happening, do you? To suggest such a thing would be ridiculous. Everyone knows what a heart transplant is, just as everyone knows what an abortion is--it's terminating a pregnancy. If I didn't want to be pregnant anymore, I wouldn't be asking for it, and I don't need you treating me like a halfwit, incapable of knowing what I really want.
Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain--I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living--I will be voting YES.
So apparently this legislator will only accept talking to the dead as legitimate evidence, not modern-day scientific research. Yet women will share the pain they feel, and she ignores them.
Not to mention the fact that I don't see anyone rushing to mandate that men contemplating vasectomies first watch the procedure before they are allowed to have it. Why, those little swimmers must be alive! Look how they wriggle, even though they don't have any brains or conscious awareness! We need to shame or frighten men into not having a legal procedure that will restrict these little peoples' chances to be born!
The Founding Fathers wisely wrote a "no religious test" clause into the Constitution. However, I wish they had included a "Humanitarian Clause." That is, no one who denies full autonomous rights to half the population should ever be allowed to hold public office.
In today's Arizona Republic, there is a little column that I wanted to share. It sums up the anti-abortion faction in my rapidly regressing state. It's an email from a state representative, in reply to a constituent who voiced her opposition to a new bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks (no matter what that pesky Supreme Court says, dagnabit).
Personally, I'd like to make a law that mandates a woman watch an abortion being performed prior to having a 'surgical procedure.'
Personally, I'd like to remind you that as a woman, I am a adult human being, and you have no business mandating that I watch any kind of procedure.
If it's not a life, it shouldn't matter. If it doesn't harm a woman, then she shouldn't care.
Because apparently I am too stupid to know what an abortion really is, and I need to frightened and/or shamed into reconsidering. Notice how the Almighty Legislator thinks she should dictate what should matter to me, or what I should care about. Only someone who believes pregnant women are less than human could twist their brains around this kind of reasoning.
And don't we want more transparency and education in the medical profession anyway? We demand it everywhere else.
This would only hold water if everyone were compelled to watch any sort of surgery their doctors were recommending, from removing an ingrown toenail to having a heart transplant, before undergoing the surgery themselves. I don't see that happening, do you? To suggest such a thing would be ridiculous. Everyone knows what a heart transplant is, just as everyone knows what an abortion is--it's terminating a pregnancy. If I didn't want to be pregnant anymore, I wouldn't be asking for it, and I don't need you treating me like a halfwit, incapable of knowing what I really want.
Until the dead child can tell me that she/he does not feel any pain--I have no intentions of clearing the conscience of the living--I will be voting YES.
So apparently this legislator will only accept talking to the dead as legitimate evidence, not modern-day scientific research. Yet women will share the pain they feel, and she ignores them.
Not to mention the fact that I don't see anyone rushing to mandate that men contemplating vasectomies first watch the procedure before they are allowed to have it. Why, those little swimmers must be alive! Look how they wriggle, even though they don't have any brains or conscious awareness! We need to shame or frighten men into not having a legal procedure that will restrict these little peoples' chances to be born!
The Founding Fathers wisely wrote a "no religious test" clause into the Constitution. However, I wish they had included a "Humanitarian Clause." That is, no one who denies full autonomous rights to half the population should ever be allowed to hold public office.
January 19, 2012
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement"
"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." ~Margaret Sanger
This article is eight years old (one of my Twitter-peeps led me to it), but in many ways it's more relevant than ever. The steady erosion of Roe v. Wade at the state level makes it a nightmare for many women to access a legal medical procedure, and the possibility that it may be overturned altogether is not out of the question.
Not that abortion's legality or lack thereof will stop a woman who has determined in her own mind and heart that she cannot, and will not, have a baby.
The arguments would be endless, but they would be irrelevant to the facts: From the moment I started looking for an abortion, not once did I even consider going through with the pregnancy. Not for one second. It simply was not going to happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was going to stop me, and it could have cost me my life. And this is what I had in common with millions and millions of women throughout time and history. When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. And whether we like it or not, humans, married and unmarried, will continue to have sex -- wisely, foolishly, violently, nicely, hostilely, pleasantly, dangerously, responsibly, carelessly, sordidly, exaltedly -- and there will be pregnancies: wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted.
A society that does not accept the facts is a childish society, and a society that makes abortion illegal....is a cruel and backward society that makes being female a crime.
I watched the Republican debate in South Carolina tonight. Close to the end, there was approximately a ten-minute back-and-forth about abortion, with the four rich white guys on the stage (who will never have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy) basically trying to out-pro-life each other. What struck me, though, that throughout all of this freewheeling more-forced-birther-than-thou, not once was the word "woman" ever mentioned.
Not once was the carrier of said holy fetus, a real person with hopes, dreams, wants, needs, and actual human rights despite possessing a uterus, ever brought up.
If that doesn't say something about the deplorable state of the modern-day Republican Party, I don't know what does.
This article is eight years old (one of my Twitter-peeps led me to it), but in many ways it's more relevant than ever. The steady erosion of Roe v. Wade at the state level makes it a nightmare for many women to access a legal medical procedure, and the possibility that it may be overturned altogether is not out of the question.
Not that abortion's legality or lack thereof will stop a woman who has determined in her own mind and heart that she cannot, and will not, have a baby.
The arguments would be endless, but they would be irrelevant to the facts: From the moment I started looking for an abortion, not once did I even consider going through with the pregnancy. Not for one second. It simply was not going to happen. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was going to stop me, and it could have cost me my life. And this is what I had in common with millions and millions of women throughout time and history. When a woman does not want to be pregnant, the drive to become unpregnant can turn into a force equal to the nature that wants her to stay pregnant. And then she will look for an abortion, whether it's legal or illegal, clean or filthy, safe or riddled with danger. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. And whether we like it or not, humans, married and unmarried, will continue to have sex -- wisely, foolishly, violently, nicely, hostilely, pleasantly, dangerously, responsibly, carelessly, sordidly, exaltedly -- and there will be pregnancies: wanted, unwanted, partly wanted, partly unwanted.
A society that does not accept the facts is a childish society, and a society that makes abortion illegal....is a cruel and backward society that makes being female a crime.
I watched the Republican debate in South Carolina tonight. Close to the end, there was approximately a ten-minute back-and-forth about abortion, with the four rich white guys on the stage (who will never have to worry about an unplanned pregnancy) basically trying to out-pro-life each other. What struck me, though, that throughout all of this freewheeling more-forced-birther-than-thou, not once was the word "woman" ever mentioned.
Not once was the carrier of said holy fetus, a real person with hopes, dreams, wants, needs, and actual human rights despite possessing a uterus, ever brought up.
If that doesn't say something about the deplorable state of the modern-day Republican Party, I don't know what does.
March 25, 2011
Where's the Respect?
So. The odious bill I talked about the day before yesterday has been passed, and is on its way to Governor Brewer's desk.
I find it interesting (in a sick peering-at-a-car-wreck way) that criminal penalties have now been added to the bill, making it a felony violation for anyone to knowingly perform a race- or sex-based abortion. This, of course, would apply to the doctor, who could face up to seven years in jail and the loss of their medical license.
I also find it interesting that no penalties are put upon the woman, who presumably made the decision to have an abortion in the first place.
This is nothing new, of course. Bills like these inevitably treat women as little more than disobedient children who really didn't know what they were doing, so of course us All-Wise Male Legislators have to "protect" them. A more condescending, patronizing attitude I have rarely run across.
A good example of said attitude, as well as outright ignorance, is Republican Representative Steve Montenegro, who stated that "he pushed the legislation to protect against bigotry and prejudice, saying he fears women would choose to abort because they didn't like the gender or the race of the baby." Never mind that roughly 90% of abortions are performed at or before (mostly before) the 12th week of pregnancy, before the sex of the fetus can be known. Perhaps Mr. Montenegro believes women are psychic.
Also, he must think women are, as a class, genuinely rotten people, if they would make such a decision as that. What a respectful way to speak about half of the human race.
The people who write these bills certainly don't consider women to be fully-fledged human beings who have the legal right to choose abortion, no matter what the All-Wise Male Legislators think of it. Do we put these restrictions on any other commonly performed medical procedure? No, we do not. For other medical procedures, we consider the recipient to be an adult human who has made up his or her mind, and we let them proceed as they wish (no matter if we personally disagree with what they are doing).
The fact that conservative legislators keep pushing these bills proves they do not consider women to be adult human beings with rights. They are obsessed with overturning Roe v. Wade and reducing women to the status of uterine chattel. After all, if you're constantly pregnant and burdened with children, you can't compete with the All-Wise Males.
And so, one step--one more restrictive abortion bill--at a time, thus brings us closer and closer to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. A religious dictatorship. For the good of the women and children, of course.
I find it interesting (in a sick peering-at-a-car-wreck way) that criminal penalties have now been added to the bill, making it a felony violation for anyone to knowingly perform a race- or sex-based abortion. This, of course, would apply to the doctor, who could face up to seven years in jail and the loss of their medical license.
I also find it interesting that no penalties are put upon the woman, who presumably made the decision to have an abortion in the first place.
This is nothing new, of course. Bills like these inevitably treat women as little more than disobedient children who really didn't know what they were doing, so of course us All-Wise Male Legislators have to "protect" them. A more condescending, patronizing attitude I have rarely run across.
A good example of said attitude, as well as outright ignorance, is Republican Representative Steve Montenegro, who stated that "he pushed the legislation to protect against bigotry and prejudice, saying he fears women would choose to abort because they didn't like the gender or the race of the baby." Never mind that roughly 90% of abortions are performed at or before (mostly before) the 12th week of pregnancy, before the sex of the fetus can be known. Perhaps Mr. Montenegro believes women are psychic.
Also, he must think women are, as a class, genuinely rotten people, if they would make such a decision as that. What a respectful way to speak about half of the human race.
The people who write these bills certainly don't consider women to be fully-fledged human beings who have the legal right to choose abortion, no matter what the All-Wise Male Legislators think of it. Do we put these restrictions on any other commonly performed medical procedure? No, we do not. For other medical procedures, we consider the recipient to be an adult human who has made up his or her mind, and we let them proceed as they wish (no matter if we personally disagree with what they are doing).
The fact that conservative legislators keep pushing these bills proves they do not consider women to be adult human beings with rights. They are obsessed with overturning Roe v. Wade and reducing women to the status of uterine chattel. After all, if you're constantly pregnant and burdened with children, you can't compete with the All-Wise Males.
And so, one step--one more restrictive abortion bill--at a time, thus brings us closer and closer to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. A religious dictatorship. For the good of the women and children, of course.
February 5, 2011
Boehner's Hypocrisy
How about that. John Boehner feels it’s perfectly all right for Americans to exercise autonomy over their own bodies by choosing to smoke or not to smoke a legal product--but wants to deny women the same autonomy.
Let’s look at the relevant quote.
“Bob, tobacco is a legal product in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And the American people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “The American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
Now let’s rewrite it a bit.
“Bob, abortion is a legal procedure in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And American women have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “Women ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
See how that works, if you’re truly against government intrusion into people’s lives?
But of course the Republicans aren’t, which they are showing us every day. Freedom (and the Constitution) be damned.
Let’s look at the relevant quote.
“Bob, tobacco is a legal product in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And the American people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “The American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
Now let’s rewrite it a bit.
“Bob, abortion is a legal procedure in America,” Mr. Boehner replied. “And American women have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not.” Noting that many things are bad for a person’s health, he added, “Women ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own.”
See how that works, if you’re truly against government intrusion into people’s lives?
But of course the Republicans aren’t, which they are showing us every day. Freedom (and the Constitution) be damned.
September 23, 2007
The 50% Solution
I was going through some old posts on another blog and found this comment. I reproduce it here to give an idea of how extremist some "pro-lifers" can be.
Spineless broads like you are the problem with the pro-life movement. Bob Enyart was correct when he said that the pro-life movement started to go south when groups put more women on their boards in response to the criticism of the pro-abort groups charge that "pro-life groups are headed by men".
Spineless broads like you are the problem with the pro-life movement. Bob Enyart was correct when he said that the pro-life movement started to go south when groups put more women on their boards in response to the criticism of the pro-abort groups charge that "pro-life groups are headed by men".
Murder is murder. When we don't acknowledge that moms who have their baby's arms and legs and heads ripped off and thrown in the trash are in fact murdering an innocent human person, we give the message that its really not that big of a deal to have their baby aborted. We tell them that its not really murder, its something less than that. They need to hear the words "murder" and "murderer".
The groups who say "Whatever dicision you make we support you" are the worst groups out there. That is a vile response to the murder of innocent persons to say "If ya murder your baby or not we support you!"
Its extremely vile. It murder. All those who consider murdering their children need to think immediately that if they abort their baby that will make them a murderer.
This is EXTREMELY important in order to re-stigmatize abortion to the level it needs to be stigmatized.
Those who murder their children are to be given a fair and speed trial and upon conviction executed. That goes for children murdered outside of the womb as well as inside the womb.
Those who consider murdering their child need to have a GREATER fear of being executed in response to their crime then their fear about how they will take care of their child and get by living as a mother.
Ugh, ugh, ugh. There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. Let's take it paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraph #1--Typical pro-lifer misogynism. The original poster sported the name "Zeke." This doesn't prove the gender of the writer in and of itself, but I find it hard to imagine a woman writing such hateful, ungrammatical, misspelled tripe. Also note the enlightened opinion that the pro-life movement would "go south" when not headed by those who will never be pregnant.
Paragraph #2--From this description, you would think the poster is talking about a nine-month baby. This is misleading at best, as most (88%) of abortions are done at or before twelve weeks. A twelve-week fetus is not quite three inches long and cannot survive outside the womb. It's also noteworthy what this site says about a five- to eight-week embryo.
Even though from the outside the embryo now looks very developed, if we were to look inside the embryo's head for a brain, we would find only a very thin layer of cells surrounding a large fluid-filled space (almost like a water-filled balloon).
So even if the heart is beating, there is no brain, no consciousness and therefore no humanity. The embryo does not know it is even there, and certainly has no awareness of its termination. This site has a good definition of when the fetal brain actually begins to function. Most aborted fetuses are simply not "persons" yet, despite all pro-life yammering to the contrary. Yes, the fetus is alive...in the same way cancer cells are alive.
Paragraphs #3-5: Since we're not talking about a person, there is no murder involved. What is involved, however, is an actual woman...and since she is definitely a person, her health and welfare should take priority.
Paragraphs #6-7: This is the heart of this entire vile, ass-backward reasoning. Of course, this is extreme--but this is the pro-life rhetoric taken to its logical conclusion. If abortion is the deliberate killing of a pre-born person, then women should be executed or put away for life, no exceptions. It's as simple as that. Are you really proposing imprisoning or executing one-third of American women?
If you think the threat of such will lower abortion rates, think again. It doesn't happen. From this article in The Economist:
Indeed, some of the world's highest abortion rates are to be found in Latin America, where it is all but outlawed. The Mexican legislators who voted to decriminalise abortion cited the brutal effects of this gap between theory and practice: an estimated 5,000 women die in Latin America every year from botched back-street or self-administered abortions; a further 800,000 have to be treated in hospital.
So all an abortion ban will do is kill women. Period.
Of course, strident pro-lifers never think about that. In their minds, the minute a woman conceives, her autonomy and basic human rights simply vanish. She is held hostage to her womb and its contents, chained to that organ until the contents emerge.
Another term for this is "slavery." No, slavery is not completely eradicated from this planet--but pro-lifers would have us enslave 50% of the human race.
Is this what we as a society want?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)