South Dakota, Mississippi, & Utah--Who Sucks Worse?
It's hard for a radical feminist man-hating lesbian--but frigid, because all those lesbians got half their genetic material from their DADS, who are men, which I hate--witch like myself to decide which state legislature sucks the worst when it comes to abortion rights. Is it a tie between South Dakota and Mississippi, which are attempting to outlaw abortions in all cases except when the woman's life is in danger? Yes, raped women and young victims of incest, tough shit for you.
Or is it Utah, which requires even victims of incest to notify their parents that they are having an abortion? There used to be a judicial exception, so that, if your dad was raping you, the judge could grant you permission to have an abortion without having to notify your father. But no longer.
Let this sink in. Utah legislators are requiring girls who were raped by their fathers to inform their fathers if they are getting an abortion. Even though that was spelled out for them by Salt Lake City Democratic Sen. Scott McCoy , they still went ahead and passed the law.
Why?
West Jordan Republican Sen. Chris Buttars says "Abortion isn't about women's rights. The rights they had were when they made the decision to have sex," Buttars said. "This is the consequences. The consequence is they should have to talk to their parents."
Yes, young girls of Utah, if you make the decision to let your dad rape you, you have to deal with the consequences of having to tell him that his raping you is leading to an abortion.
That will surely teach you to let your dad rape you, you sluts.
God, Utah wins. It sucks the worst.
posted by Aunt B at 3/02/2006 07:44:00 AM
30 Comments:
...because getting raped by your father happens all the time.
i love how feminists dream up scenarios in which abortion laws could possibly maybe might per chance inconvenience 1/1,000,000 of the population.
but what if a girl got impregnated by a jewish monkey rapist and her mom doesn't approve of jews, primates, or rapists? then what utah? damn you and your oppressive notification laws!
While I have never met a Jewish monkey that I know of, nor would I approve of my daughter marrying one, and I think any man who performs any kind of inappropriate sexual act on their child, male or female should be castrated, I do agree with the idea of notification. However, in the case of incestuous rape, I think maybe we can forego the notification, or at least have the notification come by way of a couple of police officers showing up at your door to take you to your castration appointment followed by jail time. There someone named Bubba or some such can explain to you the finer points of rape.
"Betsy"
Point to where on the doll the Jewish Monkey touched you.
Unfortunately, Betsy, it does happen all the time. To take an easily verifiable example, let's talk about Pennsylvania. In 2002, Pennsylvania sexual assault centers served 10, 273 child victims. 9,700 of those were girls. 1,539 of those girls were under the age of ten. 1,471 of the 9,7000 were not "merely" touched inappropriately; they were forcibly raped. 27.3% of those raped had been raped by their father. That's a single state, in a single year -- and those are only the 1/3 of the cases that wind up being reported. (You know how the Pennsylvania State Police are, though...they probably are just feminazis who want to push a liberal social agenda by playing fast and loose with their statistical data.) That's roughly 1200 girls -- in a single state, in a single year.
Here's the site where the data is aggregated, though I used only the PA State Police reports:
http://www.pcar.org/about_sa/stats.html
If you've got alternate empirical data, by all means, bring it on. Until then, let's get our heads out of our collective asses about the infrequency of father-daughter rape.
Betsy, your failure to understand that the role of the government is, in part, to protect the individual is sad. We don't decide that, if only a few people are "inconvenienced," we don't have to consider how laws affect them.
I mean, shoot, only eight people out of every hundred thousand are going to be murdered this year. Shall we do away with laws against murder because they affect so few people?
David, if indeed the notification came as a incestuous rapist was being carted off to jail, I might be on-board for that.
"Betsy, your failure to understand that the role of the government is, in part, to protect the individual is sad. We don't decide that, if only a few people are "inconvenienced," we don't have to consider how laws affect them."
Um, actually we do. Its called economic analysis of law. Pick up something by Posner and get back to me on that.
Betsy,
I have read Posner -- more than one book, more than once. In fact, I read lots and lots of legal and political theory, including things I don't agree with, so if you want to throw down on legal theory (feminist or not), I'm your huckleberry. Even though I've read the work you're alluding to, I still don't see your point. In fact, I'm not even so sure you understand the concept to which you've referred. So rather than tossing off some authorities, why don't you advance some arguments -- with some data to back you up? Then we'll have something real to talk about and you can educate Aunt B's readers and persuade them you are indeed correct. Unless you are fronting, in which case you should try another blog.
In fact, I'm not even so sure you understand the concept to which you've referred.
bridgett-
do you have a jd? i do. have you taught graduate level courses on economic analysis of law? i have.
thanks for your concern, but i more than "understand the concept."
we can get into the nuts and bolts if you'd like, i was merely refuting B's laughable assertion that laws can never have a detrimental effect on citizens. if you can't see how that directly contradicts posner, then maybe you don't understand the concept.
In fact, I read lots and lots of legal and political theory
Watch out folks, we've got an expert on our hands!!
Are you an astronaut? Have you walked on the moon? I have.
A man hiding behind a girl's name can claim just about anything.
In the official conservative model of sexual relations (hetero only, "normal" positions and only after marriage), good women only accept sex reluctantly. Their power is limited to henpecking their husbands and denying them sex, which said husbands have to roll their eyes and accept. Everyone knows women don't really enjoy sex unless they are slutty whores who deserve whatever bad things happen to them.
Once you remember that fundamental principle, all the rest falls into place.
Unofficially or semi-oficially it's another matter. Young men sow their wild oats, presumably with the unfortunate population of slutty whores. Young women fall back on their natural goodness to resist the entreaties of these young men until one of the men agrees to make an honest woman of her and let her fulfill her highest womanly destiny by having a baby. Some of the young women do prove to be slutty whores, however, and that's what complicates life for everyone else.
That point of view is pretty twisted, the way it refuses to evolve from a primitive, natural circumstance (women can get pregnant when you poke them)and adds the utterly unnatural notion that people can completely resist their sex drive. It places most of the burden on women to do the resisting. Your sexual choices are either "poke and hope" or "don't poke at all."
What a strange relationship to nature. I guess it's all consistent. "I like my environment and my women the same way: raped."
Of course a lot of these conservative bulls love Alaska and Wyoming to go hunting and whatnot, but that matches the profile as well: "I like my environment and my women the same way: forbidding."
I like my coffee the way I like my women: Wet, Hot and Full of Booze.
No, I'm a PhD -- five years more graduate education than your JD. And I, too, teach graduate classes in law. So I guess this is a case of very well-educated people in the same field disagreeing about something, which almost never happens, right?
Since you are so well-credentialed, it should not be difficult for you to teach us what you mean using clear and concrete empirical data pertinent to the subject at hand. In this case, that would be those 1200 underage girls in Pennsylvania who were "inconvenienced" by being forcibly raped by their fathers in 2002. And the thousands in other states every year. And the hundreds of thousands in a decade.
Your original point was, I believe, that parental rape was a minor "inconvenience" for a small portion of the population...hmm. Since you've advanced a numbers-based argument, why not run with that? How many girls need to be impregnated by their dads before you'd be willing to extend the protection of law to them, particularly since a perfectly acceptable solution (courts acting in parens patriae) already exists? If one counts "relative" rape -- uncles, brothers, cousins -- as incestuous crimes too, that would bump the numbers up to around a million a decade. Is a million girls too few to worry about? What would Posner say? Better, what do you think?
Definitely Utah. There's no booze.
Ya gotta love that polygomous Utah insists on notifying, even for incest.
F'ing Mormons
I'm still wondering why we think more laws are a good thing?
Laws governing speech? Wha?!?!?
Personally, I would hope that a woman considering an abortion would let the father/semen provider/whatever know. But I get that it is completely ridiculous to assume that everyone who gets pregnant is in the same type of relationship with a man.
This type of stuff has me fast losing patience with Republicans. Laws about "who you need to tell" are one of the most direct abridgments to freedom imaginable. I didn't like them when they were applied to gun control and I don't like them when they are applied to abortion.
jewish monkey rapist
Forgot to add--what the HELL!?!?
Seriously.
The HELL!??!
How on earth can this phrase be a good thing?
Not that I'd pass a law against saying it, but "Jewish Monkey" reeks of about 10 kinds of ick.
do you have a jd? i do. have you taught graduate level courses on economic analysis of law? i have.
If you have a J.D. you should have learned that the first rule of cross-examination is to never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.
So clearly he isn't really a lawyer.
It's fun to pretend to be someone on the Internet!
I'm an ignorant hillbilly. What's a JD?
I think a big problem with legislating anything in regards to abortion is that it is a very personal issue with an uncountable number of variables involved. Each and every person that deals with abortion will bring more variables, religion, age,gender, political views, morals, ethics, power, etc and so on. The combinations are endless and it is impossible to narrow them down to one legislatable point. Each person should have the freedom to make their own choice. I very much disagree with anyone else making that choice for me.
I appreciate the choices that I get to make because I live in this country. Guns or no guns, big SUV or small electric vehicle, Organic or chemically altered food,death penalty or life in prison and reproduction or not. This is a very basic freedom and personal not legislatable. Is there really this much crying and bitching in India, China and other countries(other than Ireland)?
How about getting over it and rebuilding the Gulf Coast and New Orleans instead so I can go on vacation.
we can get into the nuts and bolts if you'd like, i was merely refuting B's laughable assertion
See, the thing of it is... you can't really refute it without at least a few nuts and bolts. Just saying 'pick up something by Postner' doesn't actually refute anything. Unless you actually discuss some nuts and bolts the odds are most of us reading this are going to think you're tool with no credibility. Besides, who's Postner? There's lots of people out there with that name.
Kevin Postner, he directed and starred in "The Postman" and "Dances With Jewish Monkeys".
W--
J.D. = Juris Doctor.
Basically, it means you're a lawyer.
If you're my brother it also means you can throw "I should know because I have a Doctorate!!!" into every argument, including one about what kind of toilet paper is the best.
Literally.
Or Tom Postner, the guy on Newhart....
No, the dude to which betsy refers is this guy, who is a law scholar at the University of Chicago and who used to be the chief justice of the 7th Circuit court of appeals. He's a very smart guy who writes about why and how Americans make, use, and think about law, but he's hardly a Scripture-grade authority.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r/
"These conservatives are really something, aren't they? They are all in favor of the unborn, they will do anything for the unborn, but once you're born, you're on your own! Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that they don't want to know about you, they don't want to hear from you . . . no neo-natal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked.
Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach military age. Then they think you are just fine, just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
Good old George Carlin.
I'm inclined to go with South Dakota, since their legislature is defining pregnancy as the fertilization of an egg. No physician I've ever heard of uses that definition. It will have the effect of redefining a bunch of commonly used forms of birth control as abortifacients, and physicians who prescribe them as abortionists.
I think that makes SD worse than UT.
nm
"No, I'm a PhD"
pwnt
i was merely refuting B's laughable assertion that laws can never have a detrimental effect on citizens.
Maybe it is just my nitpicking, non-legal mind at work, but if you're going to laugh at someone's assertion, shouldn't they first have to make said assertion? What does Posner say about clumsy Straw Man arguments?
"betsy" said...because getting raped by your father happens all the time.
Maybe it's just me, but the thought that even one little girl who had been raped by her father- one out of billions of little girls in the world- the thought that one little girl would be forced to give birth to a baby that was conceived because her father raped her, is absolutely disgusting.
I thought cruel and unusual punishment was unconstitutional.
BTW, I do know a lady who got pregnant by her father at age 11. She had an abortion. Best thing that ever happened to her, at that point in her life, anyway.
Why don't people want to do adoption rather than killing? To kill a baby is horrible.
Post a Comment
<< Home