Monday, March 06, 2006

Law would force rape victims to give birth


How far is the Religious Right willing to go to impose their theocratic ideals? Very far. Take the actions of Republican governor Mike Rounds of the sad state of South Dakota. This monster just signed into law legislation that makes abortion a crime. I forces women to act as breeding machines even if they have been raped. No exception is made even in case of incest.

Under the law a physician who helps a women terminate an unwanted pregnancy could spend five years in prison. The women will be sentence to 9 months hard labor, followed by at least 18 years of involuntary servitude.

There is a saying that politics is like cistern tanks --- the big chunks float to the top. And Rounds is clear a very big chunk.

The governor argues that the non-existent child is “the most vulnerable and most helpless... in our society.”

The whole purpose of the bill is to force the matter into the Supreme Court where the Taliban hope that Bush’s packing of the court with compliant conservatives will over turn Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion.

Of course unborn children are vulnerable. That which does not exist is always vulnerable to that which does. The goat of the Religious Right is to make that which exists subservient to that which does not exist ---- sort of the way they want everyone to be forced to obey their god.

Now before the Left gets too upset they should remember they have a similar doctrine called sustainable development. With that theory they argue that people who exist today must not consume resources that people who do not exist (future generations) may need. The existent is subservient to the non-existent.

It seems to me that humans who exist have precedence over human who don’t exist.

18 Comments:

Blogger Derreck said...

Well, be damned. These men seem to have sawdust in their skulls, where the brain use to sit. Abortion is a very important way for some people, to be able to keep up their household, for kids are money-monsters, and to help the world from overgrowing itself.

And if abortion becomes illegal, it won't be long before that dick in Rome gets his will, condoms and other birth-prevention methods will be illegal too in a very short itme. Think about it... When it is illegal to get rid of an unborn child, what a crime it would be to prevent your two parts of unborn child to come together? I'm talkin' eggs and seeds here, but When getting rid of an unborn child becomes criminal, what a crime it would be to prevent it from ever entering the world!

Anyway, people should know how to divide religion from politics in your buetifull America, as this is probably linked to the catholic "under-world."

March 07, 2006

 
Blogger SkittishKat said...

Don't know if Gov Rounds has 'saw dust' in his head or if the legislation referred to is actually without exception.

But as far as woman being sentenced to nine months of hard labor and 18 years of servitude - let's get real and remember that the woman "voluntered" for those consequences, they weren't conscripted.

As for what Darwin says about life going from the simple to the complex: that little 'non existent child' possesses the complete complex DNA that makes it a "distinctly, individual person".

Catholic conspiracies, rape, incest and the 'religious right' are at best just 'straw men' set up to cloud the real issues, at worst real 'conspiracy paranoia'.

The facts are concrete reality, not the day dream world of dividing religion from politics.

March 08, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Skittishkat: Yes the law is as described. Secondly consent to sex is not consent to a the giving away the next 19 years of life. One is not volunteering to all potential consequences and people remove consequences to actions all the time.

Does the non existent child have DNA? Yes, so does my the hair on my hairbrush. It has all the complete complex DNA that makes a distinctly, individual person. But it doesn't have rights. Sperm has all the DNA necessary as well but that doesn't make masturbation genocide.

March 08, 2006

 
Blogger SkittishKat said...

godlesszone,
1. Consent to sex "is" consent to all the consequences possible! A scientific fact of nature.
2. People may remove consequence from actions all the time as you say, but: that doesn't make it sane, logical behavior.
3. Your sperm does not have enough DNA to be a another distinctivly, individual human being. It does have enough evidence to convict 'you' of rape.
skittishkat

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Skittishkat: You need some lessons in science before you talk about what you think is a scientific fact. You argue (actually you don't argue you merely assert) that sex "is consent to all the consequences possible!" You even put the exclamation point in to show you are getting worked up.

One possible consequence is VD. So in your mind it is wrong to take pencillin for it because you consented to the VD as it was a possible consequence. Or do you talk first and think later and didn't really mean such nonsense? You say removing the unintended consequences is not "sane, logical behavior." I smell a Jesus addict here. The rationality of that comment is so absurd that I suspect someone infected with faith is responsible for it. Please tell me it's not true? Just kidding I don't actually care if you are or not.

My final reason for suspecting a religionist out trolling is the last remark about how my sperm is "enough evidence to convict 'you' of rape." Such slanderous remarks are so inherently Christian --- probably of the born again type. It's the kind of vile statement that I expect from the god addicts.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger SkittishKat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger SkittishKat said...

1. V.D. and pregnancy are possible consequences of the sex act. Are you saying they aren't possible consequences of the sex act? Or can you answer the question without bringing up one of your bazaar, psychic accusations.
2. No, I don't like to talk first and think later, rather, you like to act first and think later.
3. Your sperm could also prove you innocent. Your screamed slander rather then address the central issue.
4. Your bogeymen don't an arguement make.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Skittish: I have deleted your multiple postings of the exact same message. Once is enough.

Your point #1 indicates you don't pay attention. I did not say VD or pregnancy are not possible consequences of sex (the sex act sound so clinical and fundie like). I said they are consequences. My point was that you absurdly argued that any possible consequence of sex is consented to by having sex and that it is illogical and to remove the consequence. I asked if you thought this about VD as well. Instead of answering you tried to pretend that I was saying these are not consequences. They are. And it is not illogical to remove unwanted and unintended consequences of an action. I asked if you think it is wrong to remove VD which is a known, possible consequence of sex. You refused to answer and diverted the quesiton. Answer it instead.

2. Oh, I'm crushed. Your evasion mentioned in immediately above indicates you do talk first and think later --- later is kind, it is starting to appear to be not at all.

3. It is slander because there is no such issue on the table. And to even imply that it is an issue is just nasty.

Ooops, I almost missed a couple of things. I assume you mean bizarr not bazaar. I assume you know the differences. Second, you obviously don't know what psychic means either. I merely said I suspect thou art a god addict. Saying one suspects something is not psychic at all. Psychic is sort of like faith. It doesn't exist but people claim it all the time. I don't. I merely said I suspect your are hooked on religion. You can deny it if you want -- you haven't done so you have merely evaded it. Are you? Were my suspicions correct?

They say California is that state for nuts. Is that true?

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger SkittishKat said...

1. Re: your derogatory salutation: Almonds are a staple of the economy locally.
2. Yes, I did mispell the word.
3. Your "beliefs" and "suspicions" are not on the table, they are irrelevant and of little interest.
4. My "beliefs" are not on the table, they are irrelevant.
5. The issue is: the statement that the results of voluntary sex
acts are "non-existant".

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger Pirate said...

Let's see under your rule as a King a baby would be killed because his daddy was a very bad man. The problem I see with your thinking is the next step is to punish you for actions of your relatives.

I mean heck if your folks were once horse thiefs we can hang your family from the nearest tree.

Let's say your folks once owned slaves. Well fork over your cash bud. You have some reperations to pay for.

My wonder is why are you so afraid of God? I assure you that the population that claims their faith in Christ is as diverse as any other group. To attach positions or comments made by one Christian to all Christians is dangerous and not all that intelligent. It seems like it is a closed minded way to look at the world. I wonder what your phobias are.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Skittish, I note, has still refused to answer the question. Having said that all possible consequences of sex are agreed to by having sex, and that it is wrong to change the consequences refuses to say whether that makes its wrong to treat the VD since that is clearly changing the consequences. Then I said that I suspect that skittish is a god addict and asked if this were the case --- no answer again. The only attempt, and only an attempt, to answer questions was the last comment that claims I said that the results of sex are non-existant. False. I did not say that. But Skittishkat doesn't read things through well. I said that a fetus is a non-existant person not that the fetus doesn't exist but that it does not yet exist as a person. Eating an apple seed is not eating an apple tree since the seed is not yet a tree even though it has all the DNA necessaryt o become a tree.

Pirate, on the other hend, goes on for several sentences and I have zero idea what the babbling is about. Slaves,killing babies because the father is bad, etc. I don't know where that comes from or what that relates to and Pirate has not told us. Very unclear. Second a disbelief in a god is not a fear of a god anymore than disbelief in the tooth fairy is based on fear of fairies.

Second, that there are diverse beliefs among Christians is not an issue. It is one that this site has recognized repeatedly. So when we deal with daft Mormons and their doctrines we don't attribute them to Catholics and their wacko theories about transubstantiation. There are fundamentalists who are clearly dangerous and "moderates" who are not as dangerous or dangerous in other ways. But the moderates give respectability to the concept of Christianity which the fundies then use in dangerous ways. Moderate Muslims do the same for fanatical Muslims.

Non-belief in a god is no more a closed minded view of the world than not beling in Santa, the loch ness monster, space aliens, healing crystals, etc.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger Pirate said...

Then why are you so worried if you have all the answers?

Another's belief in Santa shouldn't ruin your winter holiday.

you sound like someone has hurt you deeply so you want to disgrace their faith. your anger is aimed in the wrong direction. you should be upset at yourself for not letting go of your fear of surrendering to the Lord.

God loves you no matter how hard you try to run from him. But remember one day, and there will be a day, when you ask for his help he will come running to you.

you're blessed and have no idea how much.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

I know I don't have all the answers. But I also know the Bible has virtually none of them considering the knowledge of the people who wrote it. Another's belief in Santa does not ruin my holiday. But Santa's believers don't go around trying to use government to impose their theology on others. Christians do. Muslims do. Santa's friends don't. A big difference.

You really should keep your amateur Freudian analysis to yourself. It makes it appear that you simply can't understand that people can rationally conclude that your beliefs are nonsense. What utter rubbish. I could easily say that you are looking for simple answers not the complexity of the world. You are looking for a premade formula that tells you have to live because you are terrified of making those choices as best you can. You may even know that you are utterly incapable of doing so. In fear you turn to religion so that some hands you ready made answers. And if you don't understand you just obey the church leaders who know more than you.

March 09, 2006

 
Blogger Pirate said...

typical response of a vacant mind. the belief of outshouting or belittling the opposition leads to your view being corrct is folly at best. Or to borrow from your vocabulary, "virtually" sophmoric.

My guess you're coming into your third term of your sophmore year at some local liberal arts college. Your efforts to parrot the hollow diatribe of the "public through eating" professors who have led your skull full of mush around the rewriting of history is quite apparent. My guess you are living off your mom and dad's wallet and a idler's point of view. Full of angst and spirit but misguided. The days of self-reliance and maturity lie before you. let's pray you have enough common sense to navigate with your own ideas into the world and have the confidence to design your own thought in the future.

March 10, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Pirate, I have to say you are entirely dishonest and wrong about virtually everything. You made some silly neoFreudian analysis and I said you really should not do that since you are far off the mark and that if I did the same thing to you I could say various things. I didn't say those things I said that IF I used your tactics I could say them. In other words I am clearly not saying those things. You can't see the difference .

Let us look at your guesses. Nope, not a third term of my sophmore year. I wish. Not at a local liberal arts college either. In fact I wish I were in my sophmore year but I fear that was 30 years ago. Boy are you way off. I challenged my professors who were Leftists because they believed in big government. I do the same now to Republican theocrats because they make those old Leftists look like Hayek or Friedman. I don't live off my parents and never have. My father died when I was in junior high. My mother died several years ago. My family didn't have the money to support me or pay for my education or anything else. I had to do all that myself. I worked my way through school. And over the years have written for some of the top journals, magazines and newspapers in the world and author several books as well.

So your brillant analysis that I'm a student, living off his parents, with no real life experience, parroting what he is told in university is about as wrong as one can possible be. My only analysis of you so far is that you are religious and you have demanded to know why I think that. I told you why and await your confirmation. You are avoiding that question. While your analysis is wrong totally is mine correct? I suspect it is.

March 10, 2006

 
Blogger Pirate said...

Thank God or budda or the aomeba, you know Frederick Hayak? I have no qualms with your argument that Bush lends himself to Keynesian economics then that of laisse faire.

I apologize for the neoFreudian analysis of your writing. I am confident we are more alike then you might imagine. Mid to late 40s, self-reliant, rugged individuals stirring the pot and lighting it up at times.

March 10, 2006

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Of course I know Hayek, especially his brilliant "Why I am Not a Conservative" essay from Constitution of Libertyl. I know him and recommend him. I have read most of Hayek's books, all of Mises. I read economics extensively. And I have written on economics. I not only know Hayek but those who preceeded him: Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, etc. I have sat in lectures with Israel Kirzner, the dean of the Austrian school.

As to more alike?I wish I were in mid 40s again. I am an individualist to the core. Even about religion.

March 10, 2006

 
Blogger Pirate said...

I bow to you.

March 10, 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites