What the hell is wrong with conservatives and the total maniacal agenda they espouse? Every day brings on a new statement or proposal that goes against everything civilized nations have come to understand as being rational and decent. The latest comes from conservative writer Dana Loesch who pathetically defended a bill which was approved by the Virginia state House requiring any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound.
As Dahlia Lithwich noted in a Slate piece, most abortions take place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy which therefore cancels out women having a typical noninvasive type ultrasound most people are accustomed to. Instead, Virginia women seeking an abortion “will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.”
Short version: Virginia women seeking abortions will be subjected to state-sponsored rape.
And then Dana Loesch offered up this piece of perverted logic in defense of the Virgina bill.
That’s the big thing that progressives are trying to say, that it’s rape and so on and so forth. [...] There were individuals saying, “Oh what about the Virginia rape? The rapes that, the forced rapes of women who are pregnant?” What? Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.
Tell me there is not something seriously wrong with anyone (in this case, a woman!) who equates consensual sex with a state-mandated act which involves inserting a probe inside the vagina of a woman who has not requested the procedure. These people have lost their minds.
On the bright side, let the right make this election all about social issues. Let them take their 1950s outlook and argue against abortion, contraception, women’s rights and same-sex marriage. Let their bigotry and narrow-minded hate shine like a beacon for all to see. Polls clearly indicate that the majority of Americans have moved beyond these issues. All that needs to be done is for those progressive attitudes to show themselves in the polls come November.
__
Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.
Then that means that if a woman has ever consented to sex, you or anyone else can force her to have sex and it not be considered rape (well, she consented once). Same logic.
Libs really love making a big deal out of nothing. If a woman is already willing to have an abortion then she’s consented to having surgical tools inserted inside her to have the fetus (HUMAN BEING) removed. Suddenly having a probe inside her is rape? Puh-lease!!! Destroying human life has its consequences. Deal with it. The state of Virginia has.
The issue here is the same one we were going up against this time last year: The conservative draw toward defining rape as a violent act involving a penis. By the definition given in Rep. Chris Smith’s H.R. 3, rape would be a “forcible” act, and accepted as such provided the woman fought back. In most cases, by that definition, it would be an act that most victims wouldn’t survive.
In the case of the new Virginia amendment, it’s impossible for conservatives to equate an unwanted procedure involving the penetration of the vagina with a medical device with the act of penetrating the vagina with an unwanted penis. They can’t possibly imagine a scenario where a woman would feel hurt (physically as well as emotionally), used, or disgraced by such an invasive procedure, especially given the circumstances for those seeking to abort their unwanted pregnancies. As usual, it’s purely a matter of empathy with the right, or lack thereof. For a multitude of reasons, those on the right lack the ability (or worse, the desire) to identify with the feelings of someone who doesn’t share verbatim their socio-economic status, cultural background, sexual orientation, or in many cases, gender.
@ Mr. Spock, You mention that the fetus that is removed is a human being. That is based solely on your religious opinion. If a woman is of the Jewish faith she can show you in one of her holy books that a zygote, embryo or even a fetus are NOT considered a human but only a POTENTIAL human, the abortion question in talmudic law revolves around the legal status of the embryo. For this the Talmud has a phrase, ubbar yerekh immo, which phrase is a counterpart of the Latin pars viscerum matris. That is, the fetus is deemed “a part of its mother,” rather than an independent entity. The Talmud does not consider the baby to be human and achieve “person-hood” until the crown has been delivered. The potential life can be removed at any time up to delivery if it is in the interest of the mothers health, this includes her mental health.
The Christian religion existed for about 1,700 years before abortion was considered murder. All during the middle ages abortion was not considered murder but only a sin, albeit a lesser sin than that of fornication and probably gained its sinful status because it was often employed to conceal the sin of fornication.
We humans should stay out of the business of deciding what God, if there really is one, thinks about various matters. If God exists and abortion is an unforgivable sin I think he will know how to mete out punishment without our help.
I am not arguing from a religious bent. I’m not religious in the way you think I am. We can call a fetus whatever we want. A person, a half-person, a potential person, I don’t care. What I know is that if left to its own means, that fetus would develop into a human being.
My comment had to do with referring to the Virginia law as rape. It is not. It is an accepted medical procedure that happens to involve a woman’s vagina. What’s the fuss about?
They are so far out in right field it’s scary. I don’t know if there are any centrists left in the Republican party.
Charlie Sommers I have always thought that you were a pretty smart guy, but now I am starting to find you wise as well.
Mr. Spock: you said “What I know is that if left to its own means, that fetus would develop into a human being.”
Assuming that you meant exactly what you said…well you are very wrong. As Charlie pointed out the embryo, fetus, zygote can not live outside the mother’s womb. At the time when it can, as a premie, with lots of assistance from those expert in neo-natal care most of us would believe it to be a baby and subject to the term “person” for purposes of civil law. When it is viable the rules change under the present law.
Religious or not there is nothing in the Bible that says a word about human abortion, so Christians made up the part that they now insist is God’s law about abortion. If it is God’s law he forgot to mention it when he was dictating the Bible. Odd that the Almighty would leave that part out if it was so vitally important, isn’t it?
As to your final comment…Is it not rape for anyone to enter a womans vagina without her permission? A Dr. can not take out your tonsils without your written permission nor can he/she treat you in any way without your permission or that of your legal gardian. There was a time when states steralized retarded people, we put a stop to that wisely because the state has no right to invade the bodies of citizens against their will, for any reason.
The Bible on Abortion:
Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?
Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.
Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?
The Bible on Infanticide:
1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.
Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.
Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.
Opposition to abortion cannot be justified on biblical grounds.
BTW Santorum doesn’t even follow most of the dictates of his own religion. The Catholic church teaches against the death penelty. Santorum is very strongly in favor of the death penelty as one small example of Santorums smorgasbord approach to the religion he wants to force on the nation. He is a dishonest man who wants to become the moral
leader dictator of our nation, not the president of our United states of America.The good news is that the real leaders of the Republican party won’t allow Santorum to be their final candidate. They know that the American voters won’t vote for a religious zealot who can’t win. What a shame that their biggest motivation is hatred of President Obama. That hatred might just be what defeats them in the end.
I stand corrected E.A. Blair. I meant the word abortion and incorrectly refered only to the New Testament, since I was taught in Sunday school that the New Testament was “viewed by Christians as forming the record of the new dispensation belonging to the Church” since Jesus came to … well you know the rest.
I did find a reference to abortion of camels caused by a thunder-storm, (again in the Old Testament) but didn’t think that counted …I know not a good joke and probably will land me in the lake of fire. How stupid is that ?;)
Seriously you made the point perfectly. I am afraid however that you might be one of those erudite types that the Newtster is warning us about.