Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys underground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Eck!" -- George the Cat


* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck, A/K/A Dolt-45,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset.

Monday, August 1, 2022

The Right-to-Lifers Hate Women and Want Them to Die

This is the story of a young woman who wanted to have her child. But the fetus didn't develop a skull, the condition meant that there was a good chance of sepsis, and that termination was the only safe option. The local doctors were afraid to abort the fetus, so the family went with the mother, out-of-state, to have the procedure.

There, of course, they were met with the usual Bible-thumping asshole protestor who yelled at them, even when told it was to save the life of the mother.

Women are going to die because of those six black-robed ideologues who believe in their own personal divinity.

This is not hyperbole. All you have to do is look at the hoops that people with cancer and chronic pain have to deal with, because states and the Feds have severely cracked down on prescriptions of pain medicine. Doctors may not like the idea that their patients suffer, but they like the idea of running afoul of an overzealous prosecutor and cops even less.

9 comments:

buggrit said...

But not before they spawn, apparently.

Nebris said...

Note: this was first posted Feb 15, 2013. I've edited it accordingly.

"Each side waves the Red Flag soaked in The Blood of The Children. The Right's bears a fetus and The Left's a gun. But all this is just so much sound and fury.

As I Posted/Tweeted a few years ago, “No domestic industry left. Massive unemployment. Crushing personal debt. The bankers still free. Drone strikes. Drug war. Social violence. Paralyzed politics. Diminishing public services. 65 US vets committing suicide every single day. 200,000 homeless children nationally.

I could go on and on. That is what Collapse looks like, not tattooed barbarians racing along the highways. The steady slide downward.”

The Rulers are hoarding resources while The People fight over symptomology and are blind to the causes. The People battle ferociously over Guns and Abortion while The Rulers quietly buy up water rights...and so on.

But each side has become so ideologically entrenched that has become impossible for them to see anything else. And each is going to pay a very harsh price for that intransigence."

dinthebeast said...

They don't necessarily want women to die, they just want to be able to own them.

-Doug in Sugar Pine

pigpen51 said...

I certainly am not a representative of the right wing people who tend to think that their opinions should be the rule of law for every other person. I do occasionally stop by to read your blog, but I try to stay away from commenting, unless it is something that I think that I can comment on that might at the least add to the discussion.
That being said, while I do not like the idea of abortion on it's face, as a Christian I can certainly support the idea of abortion to save the life of the mother. And while perhaps physically a very young woman, actually a child, could carry a baby to term, there is no way that someone so young could carry a baby to term without it being a terrible threat to her well-being for her entire life.
As far as the decision that threw the issue of abortion back to the states, while not popular with many people, there is a pretty broad consensus that the Roe v Wade decision was a poorly made decision in the first place, based on what the court at the time wanted instead of what they could support via a legal framework.
I read many at the time say that a couple of the justices lied to congress about how they would rule on this issue. I don't agree, as they didn't say how they would rule, instead merely dodging the questions. And while some might not agree with that assessment, they would first have to look back to the confirmation of both Kagan and Sotomayor, and the way that they answered questions about their views on the 2nd amendment. They basically did the same thing, in dodging the questions. That has pretty much become the standard when it comes to Senate confirmation hearings, if a Senator attempts to pin down a candidate for any job that requires their approval. And while it is certainly frustrating, especially for the opposite party, it is probably the only safe way for a nominee to answer, since as we have seen lately, the civility of the past has left all confirmation hearings. Watching the hearings of President Biden's recent nominees it has been proven quite well that civility has become a thing of the past.
One thing that the Democrats never seem to learn, is that when they change the rules when they are harming their agenda, eventually they come back to bite them, and bad. They should have learned that when they changed from a supermajority to a simple majority on former president Obama's nominees, that it eventually would be a bad thing. And a couple of years later, when the Republicans did the same for SCOTUS nominees, they could not fight much. The supermajority was what the founding fathers intended, to act as a brake on the legislative process. The Democrats didn't like that the extreme partisan politics were holding up former president Obama's nominees.
Now the Democrats are trying to gain support for changing the term and manner of seating Supreme Court Justices. If they end up doing this, which is unlikely, they will also end up being sorry. The thing is, both parties are guilty of similar tactics. I am reminded of a sports team, since I played sports in my long-departed youth. Instead of training harder to win with the rules that you have, both sides seem dedicated to changing the rules to suit their manner of game play and forget about the foundation of their team. In other words, if the parties, either one, put up quality candidates with solid and fresh ideas, and ways to implement them that help the citizens instead of harming many, to help a few, then they would not have to attempt to manipulate voting blocks, or gerrymander the heck out of districts, or such tactics. With good ideas and reliable and quality candidates, the party would have to beat off voters with a stick. Because to be honest, neither party has set the world on fire with what they have offered on the national stage over the past decade or more.

Dark Avenger said...

Murc’s Law is that only Democrats have agency, Republicans never. Thanks for confirming this iron rule, pp51.

Eck! said...

A few things.

My stance on abortion is it should be restricted. How much 20-23 weeks unless there are other reasons that are medical impacting the health of the mother.
With that its a private decision with the only other players being doctors.

Its also not my call. Anytime people, especially men talk
about womens' rights and they formed as even remotely subservient
to their rights that is a very unique and toxic form of misogyny.
Its a form of rule that is one has more control without the
responsibilities.

As to how the justices would rule. They lied in bold face terms.
They said they would respect prior settled law and went back on that.
they were asked directly about it and glad handed and fobbed off
the answers or non answers.

The basis of Roe was about Privacy and Personal Security. That applies
to personal and very private medical decisions.

In every case of someone claiming it was bad law the spokesperson
or individual was avowed anti-abortion. It was not about the decision
it was making it go away. Those are also some of the people involved
in shooting doctors, burning buildings, and direct harassment of women.

Where does privacy and private come from. The 4th and the 9th directly.
Add to that standing law known as HIPPA, That's about privacy and security
of you personal information medical and even your name and puts the
security of that information on the heads of doctors and any institutions
including insurance that may need that to complete transactions.

Criminalizing medical services kills people, women. Making the uterus
a liability under law is heinous. Since only women may have uterus
making it part of criminal law is discrimination. Making pregnancy
outcomes a legal risk if it does no satisfy some code despite
live and healthy birth never being an assured outcome is the
worst law yet.

The side effect is now they can apply the same thinking,
what is private and secure, to many other things and the
bandwagon is now rolling. Think of all the other rulings
based on that. Ponder how they might affect you or
people you know.



Eck!

pigpen51 said...

Eck,
I don't accept your premise that the 4th and 9th amendments give privacy and personal security. That is the exact kind of stretch that I was thinking of, when speaking about how there are many who find that the original Roe v Wade was bad case law. Not a lawyer, but I have read a bit about the ruling.
Just because Roe v Wade had been a decision in effect for some 50 years, doesn't make it the right one. I looked up the Dred Scott decision, and it was in 1857 that the Supreme Court basically allowed to stand the idea that the constitution was not meant to protect black people, slave or free. That decision was not overturned by the courts, but rather by the American Civil War and the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments. But I don't think that anyone would argue that the Dred Scott decision was a good one. There are a number of famous cases like that, poorly rendered SCOTUS decisions, that were in place and then overturned by a different Supreme Court.
The idea that a woman should have control over her own body is not anything that I disagree with. However, the baby that she carries when pregnant only contains half of her DNA, and the other half is from the father. So the father should have at least some say in what happens to his child. If a woman chooses to abort the baby that is half of the father's, he has no say in it. But if the man doesn't want the baby and wants the woman to abort the baby, because he is not able or willing to be a father at that time, again, he has no say in it, and he will be forced to pay child support for the child, for the next 18 years. To say that the man somehow deserves to pay, because the woman is primarily responsible for the care and raising of the child is just as biased as some men are misogynistic towards women. There are men who are much better fathers than some women are as mothers.
As to other rulings and how this ruling could possibly have effects on them, I think that you give too much power to this ruling. The only thing that this ruling does is to say that the legislative bodies have the job of legislating, not the courts. And the Supreme Court kicked it back to the state legislatures, or to the federal legislatures to wrestle with, which is what should have happened in the first place. Does that mean that the congress might take a long time to come up with a policy to make abortion on a federal level both constitutional and workable to all states? Probably, but that is how the founding fathers intended for things to work. When faced with the difficult decisions, they wanted the house to be able to move rather quickly, but the senate to have to wrestle with things, and to have to convince their counterparts of the validity of their point of view.
I knew this would meet with some disagreement, and that is ok. The entire nation is split over this, and likely will remain so, for a long, long time. But 3-5 years down the road, most states will have come up with a workable solution, that serves their individual needs best. And that is mostly the way that I think our nation was intended to work, with the states surrounding a limited federal government. Other than certain inalienable rights, that all people possess, some states have different needs than others. What is workable for California on abortion would be much too liberal for West Virginia or Utah, etc. And that is why it perhaps is best to leave issues like abortion up to individual states, when the constitution is silent on the issue. Because no matter how you try to stretch it, the constitution doesn't say anything about abortion.
As always, I am not angry about this issue, it is just the way that I see things. If you want to be angry with me, be angry, but don't bother telling me about it. I don't want to turn this decent person's blog into a fighting arena.

Dark Avenger said...

To say that the man somehow deserves to pay, because the woman is primarily responsible for the care and raising of the child is just as biased as some men are misogynistic towards women. There are men who are much better fathers than some women are as mothers.

Oh, please, don’t go there.

You don’t want to be a father, don’t stick your John Thomas in a fertile woman without using birth control of some sort on her/your part.

What about the mens rights when it comes to abortion? When men can get pregnant, and possibly risk their life giving birth, then I’ll worry about them.

Oh, please

Eck! said...

PP I was not angry with you until...

You stepped on the third rail with so called mens
rights regarding a potential child.

While you expressed disdain for the court that created Dred Scott
you move on to...

"The idea that a woman should have control over her own body is not anything that I disagree with."

How nice of you.


"However, the baby that she carries when pregnant only contains half of her DNA, and the other half is from the father. So the father should have at least some say in what happens to his child. If a woman chooses to abort the baby that is half of the father's, he has no say in it. But if the man doesn't want the baby and wants the woman to abort the baby, because he is not able or willing to be a father at that time, again, he has no say in it, and he will be forced to pay child support for the child, for the next 18 years. To say that the man somehow deserves to pay..."

That's a conundrum, no doubt. There is always birth control or vasectomy.
Seems that is a very large can of worms, with a larger caution label.

As far as his DNA He makes more every day. To me its like
giving a pebble to a contractor and demanding the house
when its done because of that one pebble.

Its not a right. Rights are the product of responsibility
and when believed the other way around then that right
incurs the problems of responsibility.

The despite all this you (men) are at risk. The people
championing anti-abortion are generally the religionist right.
That means they may target all those sinner men that fornicate
freely without marriage. Rather than having the state bear the
costs of the likely child they would track down the male.
To enforce that we could have a forced DNA registry so that
pregnant women has recourse and can collect. Just dystopian
craziness but it would assure your rights as the father
although it may be an unintended obligation.

So watch that third rail. Its a killer, it is best to
not play.



Eck!