Rape is Rape
Todd Akins, a member of congress said this about rape. In his words, "If it's legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."
So, if there is a pregnancy, the rape is no longer legitimate? Do these people even understand the science behind sex? A woman doesn't even need to be turned on. She could be in severe pain during sex. The body doesn't know the difference between rape and accommodating her man. Pregnancy happens.
Yet, the republicans think still, that abortion in all cases should be outlawed, even in cases of "forcible rape". HB-358, or the "Protect Life Act", isn't really protecting life at all. When the life of the mother could save her life, it won't happen, they want to make sure that an abortion does NOT happen. Even if the mother's life is in grave danger. Thing is, what is the likelihood that the baby will live, if the mother has to die before the due date? The stress of the mother's ailing body is enough to cause defects some how in the baby or at least quality.
My first pregnancy was a difficult one, where I was very ill. I had ridiculously high blood pressure. Extreme edema. Spilling proteins in my urine. It was bad. Really bad. So, anyway, one of the effects of all this is that the placenta may tear off the uterus, thus cutting life support to the fetus, and the mother can bleed to death. Yes, my first baby died, and I was 2 inches away. Should I be arrested for being ill during my pregnancy? Should the doctor have been sued because of the lack of action on the part of my doctor?
Anyway, I read somewhere that 520,000 women die as a complication of labor and delivery. That's just for normal births. Once upon a time, labor and delivery was the #1 killer of women. Yet we want to restrict certain procedures to ensure that more babies MIGHT be born, rather than save the mother, who will most likely live to see another day and have another child who will be born, and live.
My take is that this protection of life just means that it allows to let the life of the woman be less important than men. And of course, because another woman, who will also be second rate, can be hired as a nanny to raise the children of your dead wife, correct? That sounds sacrilegious from the very people who say that they value the sanctity of "traditional" or "Biblical" marriage. But your wife can die, and we'll pray that the child lives. I don't get it.
No, I don't think that abortion should be used as an "oops, I'm pregnant, shucks" type birth control. That is irresponsible. But, on the other hand, when we need it for rape, incest and the life of the mother, it should be readily available, regardless of who is abusing the system.
But anyway, back to the point of what is legitimate or illegitimate rape... So, what, if the woman is drunk, and can't speak for her self, it's illegitimate because, why, she was drunk? So, if a man is drunk and I lift his wallet, it's not really theft because a drunk deserves to get rolled, right? Wrong. So why is it that we don't prosecute rape cases as we do theft?
But of course a victim who pleads with her rapists to wear a condom, in case of disease or to prevent pregnancy, is illegitimate too, even though this victim still feels as dirty and violated as the next one.
Yet then, a woman having "too many" pregnancies can have a negative effect on her life, so rather than help by prevention, we would let the mother of 7, pregnant with the 8th to die during the delivery process, just to ensure that we don't end life? Well, now you've just made sure that the kids don't have a mother!
So even if this career politician may have apologized, that Akins supports women who have been victimized, he still doesn't agree with abortion for rape victims. Gee, what does THAT supposed mean? It's a contradiction in terms.
It is just disgusting that a measure like this HR 358 even got passed. Sex abusers should be the ones that get laws passed against them. But no, rather than ensuring that the offenders get locked up, we want to make laws against the women who may get pregnant from the offense. Then we ignore the fact that men can be victims too.
To see how you can help, please go to the Youth Voice Initiative website, and sign the petitions. There are 3. One for the Federal April's Law, a Wisconsin April's Law, and for Sean's Voice. April's Law is to put stiffer sentencing on those who prey on our children sexually. Sean's Voice is to get equal support of men who are the victims of abuse.
So, if there is a pregnancy, the rape is no longer legitimate? Do these people even understand the science behind sex? A woman doesn't even need to be turned on. She could be in severe pain during sex. The body doesn't know the difference between rape and accommodating her man. Pregnancy happens.
Yet, the republicans think still, that abortion in all cases should be outlawed, even in cases of "forcible rape". HB-358, or the "Protect Life Act", isn't really protecting life at all. When the life of the mother could save her life, it won't happen, they want to make sure that an abortion does NOT happen. Even if the mother's life is in grave danger. Thing is, what is the likelihood that the baby will live, if the mother has to die before the due date? The stress of the mother's ailing body is enough to cause defects some how in the baby or at least quality.
My first pregnancy was a difficult one, where I was very ill. I had ridiculously high blood pressure. Extreme edema. Spilling proteins in my urine. It was bad. Really bad. So, anyway, one of the effects of all this is that the placenta may tear off the uterus, thus cutting life support to the fetus, and the mother can bleed to death. Yes, my first baby died, and I was 2 inches away. Should I be arrested for being ill during my pregnancy? Should the doctor have been sued because of the lack of action on the part of my doctor?
Anyway, I read somewhere that 520,000 women die as a complication of labor and delivery. That's just for normal births. Once upon a time, labor and delivery was the #1 killer of women. Yet we want to restrict certain procedures to ensure that more babies MIGHT be born, rather than save the mother, who will most likely live to see another day and have another child who will be born, and live.
My take is that this protection of life just means that it allows to let the life of the woman be less important than men. And of course, because another woman, who will also be second rate, can be hired as a nanny to raise the children of your dead wife, correct? That sounds sacrilegious from the very people who say that they value the sanctity of "traditional" or "Biblical" marriage. But your wife can die, and we'll pray that the child lives. I don't get it.
No, I don't think that abortion should be used as an "oops, I'm pregnant, shucks" type birth control. That is irresponsible. But, on the other hand, when we need it for rape, incest and the life of the mother, it should be readily available, regardless of who is abusing the system.
But anyway, back to the point of what is legitimate or illegitimate rape... So, what, if the woman is drunk, and can't speak for her self, it's illegitimate because, why, she was drunk? So, if a man is drunk and I lift his wallet, it's not really theft because a drunk deserves to get rolled, right? Wrong. So why is it that we don't prosecute rape cases as we do theft?
But of course a victim who pleads with her rapists to wear a condom, in case of disease or to prevent pregnancy, is illegitimate too, even though this victim still feels as dirty and violated as the next one.
Yet then, a woman having "too many" pregnancies can have a negative effect on her life, so rather than help by prevention, we would let the mother of 7, pregnant with the 8th to die during the delivery process, just to ensure that we don't end life? Well, now you've just made sure that the kids don't have a mother!
So even if this career politician may have apologized, that Akins supports women who have been victimized, he still doesn't agree with abortion for rape victims. Gee, what does THAT supposed mean? It's a contradiction in terms.
It is just disgusting that a measure like this HR 358 even got passed. Sex abusers should be the ones that get laws passed against them. But no, rather than ensuring that the offenders get locked up, we want to make laws against the women who may get pregnant from the offense. Then we ignore the fact that men can be victims too.
To see how you can help, please go to the Youth Voice Initiative website, and sign the petitions. There are 3. One for the Federal April's Law, a Wisconsin April's Law, and for Sean's Voice. April's Law is to put stiffer sentencing on those who prey on our children sexually. Sean's Voice is to get equal support of men who are the victims of abuse.
Should Sex Offenders or Victims get restricted?
No comments:
Post a Comment