Do you remember the bill in South Dakota that proposed to legalize murders of abortion providers? The idea caught on, and now Iowa and Nebraska are considering similar legislation. The people who are pushing for these bills are the same people who call themselves pro-life. These are also the same people who screech about how much they hate governmental intrusion into citizens' lives while advocating governmental intrusion into women's bodies in the most egregious way possible.
Just to think that a bunch of sexually repressed maniacs who hate any reminder that others do enjoy actual sex lives would make such a public spectacle of three states.
Who's next, I wonder?
5 comments:
"Just to think that a bunch of sexually repressed maniacs who hate any reminder that others do enjoy actual sex lives would make such a public spectacle of three states"
Your credibility suffers when you deviate from the issue and instead resort to school-yard bully name calling tactics.
Pro-lifers come from all walks of life and backgrounds and I count myself among them. The issue here is not whether pro-lifers are 'sexually repressed', but why this group would see a need to create such a law. Under what practical, reasonable circumstances could it be applied that isn't already covered via self-defense? I see none - thus it is a bill which serves no public good and ought to be defeated/repelled.
People's bodies belong to their owners and not to society. This is why regulating bodies "for the public good" is a barbaric intrusion. If even your body doesn't belong to you and cannot be safe from governmental intrusion, then what can?
I don't believe that I deviate from the issue in the least. I am entitled to my analysis of any issue that comes to my attention. It is my firm belief that the only reason people would be passionately (and often violently) invested into regulating other people's bodies is their profound sexual dissatisfaction.
It's funny that you refer as "pro-lifers" to people who want to legalize murder. What "life" are they supporting? That of a couple of non-viable cells? Which are somehow more valuable than the lives of actual living human beings?
After these events nobody can seriously refer to this movement as "pro-life."
It's not pro life - not if they're for murder, the death penalty, etc.
But "pro life" is of course a euphemism for "opposed to abortion rights and/or reproductive freedom for women." People who think they are "saving babies" are woefully misinformed.
I'm wondering how many abandoned babies whom nobody needs those baby savers have adopted. It's easy to get on the soapbox and proclaim how much you care about the "unborn" (as opposed to living people who are the "undead"). It's harder, however, to show your love for abandoned babies by adopting a couple of dozen.
Undead, haha! I had forgotten about this post - you already posted about Nebraska etc., so my comment on another post is old news.
@Patrick - yes it's about trying to repress / punish women's sexuality. In practical terms there's no other reason to be "pro life."
Post a Comment