Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Encore mes devoirs: Un peu de polémique.

J’ai regardé Le Journal télevisé de France 24 et j’ai lu le reportage à Le Monde:

Le gouverneur du Texas, Greg Abbott, déclare qu’il croit que tout le monde a le droit à la vie. C’est fascinant puisque le Texas a à la fois la peine de mort et la loi du « stand your ground ». Les lois sur la légitime défense modifient le concept de légitime défense pour le faire dépendre de la peur subjective de la personne qui invoque cette défense légale. En revanche, Emmanuel Macron veut « relancer le combat pour l’abolition universelle » de la peine de mort dans un discours prononcé au Panthéon pour marquer le 40e anniversaire de l’abolition de la peine de mort en France. Il y a une différence manifeste entre l’attitude envers le droit à la vie au Texas et en France.

Le Texas semble croire que la peine de mort soit efficace pour prévenir le crime : même les exécutions extrajudiciaires. Mais la peine de mort est-elle efficace pour prévenir le crime ? L’un des anciens bourreaux de la Grande-Bretagne, Albert Pierrepoint, n’est pas d’accord. Il a dit : “Cela ne les a pas dissuadés à l’époque et cela ne les a pas dissuadés lorsqu’ils ont commis ce pour quoi ils ont été condamnés. Tous les hommes et les femmes que j’ai affrontés à ce moment final me convainquent que, dans ce que j’ai fait, je n’ai pas empêché un seul meurtre…”. Robert Badinter, l’ancien garde des sceaux qui avait fait voter l’abolition en 1981, agrée « conviction absolue : la peine de mort est vouée à disparaître dans le monde car elle est une honte pour l’humanité. Elle ne défend pas la société, elle la déshonore (…). Vive l’abolition universelle ! »

On passe des questions de justice pénale à celles de la santé lorsqu’on relie le droit à la vie aux choix de planning familial. Au lieu de cela, le Texas a choisi de faire un remake d’Une affaire de femmes de Claude Chabrol. C’est une histoire qui se déroule pendant l’occupation allemande de la France. Il s’inspire de l’histoire vraie de Marie-Louise Giraud, une des dernières femmes guillotinées en France. Le crime de Mme Giraud était de fournir des avortements aux femmes pauvres de France. La loi du Texas n’est peut-être pas si extrême, mais l’effet est le même : ce sont les pauvres qui seront touchés par cette loi. Les femmes aisées pourront se rendre là où l’avortement est légal, ce qui n’est pas une option pour les pauvres. Les fournisseurs d’avortement pour les pauvres seraient des femmes comme Mme Giraud, pas des professionnels de la santé, mais des femmes qui voudraient aider d’autres femmes.

Je dois me demander si le Texas comprend vraiment ce qu’un système de justice pénale devrait faire ? Est-ce qu’il cherche la justice ou la vengeance ?

Call the Midwife!

Is the Title of a BBC drama about a woman who is a midwife in the East End of London in the 1950s and based on the memoirs of Jennifer Worth.

I was curious if it would make it to the US airwaves given it deals with two no-nos in US politics–woment’s health and nationalised health care.  According to this website, it sounds unlikely.  And given that the repubnlicans are waging a war on women’s reproductive rights, that is yet another no-no.

One can’t have a show on TV praising “socialised medicine” and talking about women’s reproductive issues.

Even though US’s Public Broadcasting pretends to be a true Public Broadcasting service, it is still beholdent to the commercial interests which can stifle information and debate. The problem is that while there may be no governmental intereference in the markertplace of ideas, there certainly is private censorship,

Still, this is a series which should be seen by people in the US for precisely the above reasons. Why are these topics taboo in a society which is allegedly free?

People in the US can probably find this online for download if they know the right places to look. I am a strong believer in the region free DVD player jsut for the ability to break down the international barriers to information.

I can add that the book and audiobook are available for sale in the US.

Sikhism and Abortion

Yet another treasure I found while looking up other things:

Sikhism does not define the time at which the soul enters a human foetus and so there is no official position on abortion. Even if the time was defined, it would be a personal decision and as with any important decision in our lives, we should use compassion and intelligence.

I found this while looking up Sikhism in relation to Nimrata Randhawa Haley (AKA Nikki Haley). Does Nimrata use her compassion and intelligence, or is she trying to be a Farangi idiot?

Come on, Nimrata, act proper Desi! Somebody put a Bhangra tape on the sound system at her next speech! Maybe we can get her to do a Parveen Babi imitation!

Same goes for you Piyush Amrit Jindal, stop acting like a Farangi idiot!

See also:
Aaj Ki Raat Hai Baaki {Bollywood Mashup}

Sorry, Barb, but…

The social services are necessary.

As is family planning, including the ability for a woman to have abortion.

And don’t give me the shit about “right to life” since a right to life implies that a person’s life is sacred:

a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

So, don’t come pro-life to me if the right ends at birth. A child shouldn’t be punished for the parents’ mistakes.

As for head start, it was a lot more than just education. It included meals and other things to make sure that the children weren’t disruptive. I add in that children have a right to an education, which they won’t appreciate if they are starving. Perhaps that is why they are disruptive.

The charter schools can be just as corrupt as the public ones, but public schooling is a lot less expensive than housing people in prisons. Although, I know you prefer private schools since they are not run by the government. So, they can cost far more than the public alternative, but you prefer them.

Sorry, Barb, but your policies COST society far more in the long run. It’s pretty obvious that the policies you advocate have bankrupted the US.

So, as I have said before, don’t bother posting here as you only prove you are an ignorant cow who would prefer to live in a world where there was child labour and deep poverty because they deserve to be poor.

Musing on the sanctity of life

O.K., he’s crude, but the questions are valid.

From David P. Gushee, PhD, The Sanctity of Life

One way of moving beyond slogans to a more substantive understanding of the sanctity of life is to define the term with some precision. This is my working definition: The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

Notice several things about this definition.

First, the sanctity of life is a concept that one believes in. It is, in other words, a moral conviction.

Second, it is a moral conviction about how human beings are to be perceived and treated. Belief in the sanctity of life prescribes a certain way of looking at the world, in particular its human inhabitants (with implications for its non-human inhabitants—a subject for another article). This perception then leads to behavioral implications related to how human beings are to be treated. Moral conviction leads to perception and flows into behavior. Notice that in constructing my understanding of the sanctity of life in this way I am emphasizing worldview dimensions first (convictions), character qualities next (perceptions), and behavioral prescriptions last. I think this is actually how the moral life works.

The third thing to notice about this definition is its universality. Rightly understood, the sanctity of life is among the broadest and most inclusive understandings possible of our moral obligations to other human beings.

All human beings are included (each and every human being), at all stages of existence, with every quality of experience, reflecting every type of human diversity, and encompassing every possible quality of relationship to the person who does the perceiving. What all are included in is a vision of their immeasurable worth and inviolable dignity. This means that each of these human beings has a value that transcends all human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must not be dishonored or degraded.

This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life. It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human.

Every effort to point out someone else’s violations of life’s sanctity implicitly requires us to examine our own fidelity to this exalted and demanding moral norm. This may be why the language of life’s sanctity has perhaps faded from public debate to some extent. Anti-abortion advocates who argued for the sanctity of (unborn) human life were met by anti-poverty advocates who argued for the sanctity of (born but poor) human life. Thoughtful moral theorists recognized that this was precisely right, and that a true understanding of life’s sanctity required a both/and rather than an either/or approach. But this hardly fits the culture wars paradigm. The sanctity of life is not so helpful as a political cudgel after all, which may mean its real value is as a bracing statement of human moral obligation.

Again, why aren’t these people protesting for gun control?

More “Pro-life”

Aaron Gouveia and his 16-weeks-pregnant wife went to a women’s clinic in Brookline, Mass. for an abortion after discovering that their baby had a congenital deformity with no chance for survival. On their way in, they were confronted by images of dismembered fetuses and two women yelling, “You’re killing your unborn baby!” Enraged, Gouveia decided to confront the protesters while his wife was in surgery, and he caught the whole interaction on his cellphone.

Why aren’t these assholes protesting gun dealers who sell to straw purhasers? Seriously, why aren’t they in the gun control movement working to prevent people from being killed? Did the victims give up their right to life after they were born?

Instead, they harass people who are making personal decisions about speculative lives.

Needless to say, I have loads of problems with the “pro-life” crowd and love this video.

Assisted Suicide

There has been talk in the UK about assisted suicide, or assisted death: in particular the cases of Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis. Also, Sir Terry Pratchett, fantasy author (the Discworld and Truckers series, amongst others), has announced that he has Alzheimers and wants assisted suicide. I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy.

Kay Gilderdale is now calling for a change in the laws regarding assisted death. This makes sense since those with money are already able to travel to Switzerland. This points out a disparity in the law that those with money can leave the jurisdiction to end their lives.

Similarly, laws against abortion only harmed the poor since the wealthy were able to find alternative sources to the illegal back alley abortions.

Assisted death should be a legal option for those who wish for it in a civilised country. That absolutely isn’t to say assisted death should be forced upon anybody, or even encouraged, merely that the option should be available to those who a) are suffering from a condition from which they cannot recover, and b) expressly desire it.

Some opponents of assisted death argue that man should not “play God”. As Sir Terry says, “the problem with the God argument is that it works only if you believe in God”. Legalising assisted death need have no impact on the lives of those who do believe in God: they can go on dying as naturally as God intended. But it should be there for those who don’t believe in God, and yearn desperately for the salvation of assisted death, a salvation that God tends not to offer.

ed. I had originally called him just plain old Terry Pratchett, but decided to call him SIR Terry Pratchett. Why not?

There is a God!

The Senate Tuesday afternoon voted 54-45 to kill Sen. Ben Nelson’s amendment to the health-care overhaul legislation that would have banned the use of federal taxpayer money for abortions.

Thank you, Blue Gal for getting me the News about this!

Maybe the US isn’t that far gone. Although, I have serious worries when I read the works of the keyboard warriors on the internet.

Posted 08/12/2009 by lacithedog in abortion, Health care, Health Insurance

I couldn’t say it better myself..

I keep wanting to do a post on using “Wedge Issues” as a distraction. Then, this video turned up in some research I was doing for the previous post.

Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:

What makes a poor man vote for a rich polititian? All this and more are explored in a singing indictment of America Gone Wild! An entertaining yet forboding parody of the current political and social landscape which suggests that the only thing standing in the way of a second civil war is a third world war. So hold onto your helmets! It looks like it’s time for Armegeddon again.

Posted 18/11/2009 by lacithedog in abortion, god, guns, wedge issues

Say what?

I have to admit being taken aback when I see someone arguing that you can be pro-life and pro-gun at the same time.

Well, I guess you need the guns to kill abortion doctors.

There is a serious problem with this position, but I don’t expect that someone who is stupid enough to believe one can be pro-life and pro-gun would comprehend the disconnect.

First off, up to a point, the foetus is a speculative life. The foetus can miscarry. That seems a simple enough concept to grasp. Up until birth, there is the possibility that the foetus can miscarry. Modern technology has reduced the level of infant mortality, but birth also isn’t a guarantee that a child will live.

On the other hand, those who have been born sacrifice their “innocence”.

We can put a face on a foetus, but we make gun violence victims into statistics.

I know I sounded callous in my Bart Stupak post, but that is the type of disconnect I see in people who are pro-life and pro-gun. Even more disconcerting, is that Stupak’s family suffered from gun violence.

People like Nicole Dufresne, BJ Stupak, Melanie Hain, and others are the real face of gun violence in America, not the overestimated and anecdotal DGUs the gun cretin crowd cite.

Another problem is that the assertion that guns are the only effective method implies that only deadly force is effective for self-defence. That deadly force is the only effective means of self-defence in of itself should be enough to make it ridiculous to assert that one is “pro-life”.

Once people start rationalizing the deliberate taking of life, they are on a slippery slope. Before they know it, they are in a situation of having to destroy a village in order to save it, are in a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Could a person in an ICBM launch control center or on a submarine, ready and willing to turn the keys that would launch the missiles carrying nuclear warheads aimed to kill over 100 million people in half an hour, possibly be considered “pro-life”? If so, then it may be futile to seek limits to the killing in which one is willing to engage.

Personally, the lack of gun control impacts society in such a way, that one cannot possibly call themselves pro-life and pro-gun.

The problem is that more than 12,000 homicides by gun were reported in the United States in 2005. But the number who are wounded and survive gunshot assaults is much greater — nearly 53,000 were treated in emergency rooms in 2006, the same federal database shows.

A report in the journal Spinal Cord a decade ago estimated the direct lifetime charges for every shooting victim at $600,000, or nearly $800,000 in today’s dollars. Some estimates put the indirect costs, including lost wages and productivity, at double that amount.

In a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Cook and his colleagues concluded that gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 produced $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs. Taxpayers footed half of that through Medicaid, Medicare, workers’ compensation and other programs.

In a follow-up book, “Gun Violence: The Real Costs,” published in 2000, Cook and Jens Ludwig estimated that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year, with medical costs only a small part of that.

This is just the financial cost, but there are other societal costs to gun violence in harm to families and destruction of neighbourhoods.

As I keep saying “Pro-life” society would work to make sure that basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

Of course, this is an effort to take seriously the possibility of a “pro-life” philosophy and to examine what that might entail other than opposition to abortion. Of course, another possibility is that antiabortion people are not really interested in developing a “pro-life” philosophy but rather are just using the “pro-life” label because it will enhance their political effectiveness. Labeling oneself as “pro-life” is a form of self-aggrandizement, in part because it casts aspersions on one’s adversaries, implying that these opponents are “anti-life.” It is very unlikely that anyone would willingly seek or accept the label of “anti-life.” In that respect, the situation may be similar to those created by the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy and the National Right to Work Committee; who would volunteer to be the advocate of an “insane nuclear policy” or oppose the right of people to work?

But, why try to hide the fact, that this may not be a “pro-life” position, but one that is far more insidious.

Posted 28/10/2009 by lacithedog in abortion, Bart Stupak, pro-life, Stupak

Bart Stupak–Sick Motherfucker!

It comes to my attention that Bart Stupak claims to be pro-Life. The origin of this rant is that this “pro-life” dickhead claims enough votes to stop health care bill over abortion.

Health care is a “pro-life” concept even if it has provisions for abortion on demand. As I said before:

In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay.

Anyway, if you didn’t know it, Stupak’s son, BJ, killed himself with a firearm on May 14, 2000. Yet does this asshole do anything about trying to prevent gun violence? fuck no? In fact, the fucker blamed accutane rather than the gun.

I’ve got news for you, Dickhead, I’ve gone through two courses of accutane and only came out of it with a bad sunburn.

But I had two things going for me, I wasn’t mentally ill and I didn’t have access to a firearm.

Instead of trying to stop other senseless deaths, it seems that Stupak claims to be “pro-life“. That means he works to curtail women’s access to birth control and if they have a “whoops”: safe abortions. That means they would ultimately have to find some illegal source to terminate the unwanted pregnancy which could result in serious injury or death.

I guess he’s one of those “kill a doctor for life” crowd.

There is a really sick trend in the US to calling yourself “pro-life” yet instead of doing things that promote and work to make life better, they try to make life hard for people. They want to punish. Punish women for having sex.

If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

An unborn baby is an “innocent life”, yet Stupak’s fucked up son wasn’t worth putting his guns in a gun safe. Get the picture?

Naw, I’m not cynical or biased, these sick bastards will treat victims of gun death as scum the moment they get popped.

Remember Meleanie Hain?

Anyway, Stupak, call it like it is: you aren’t pro-life. You’re a fucked up, asshole and a piss poor father.

Your son deserved to die.

As the pro-choice crowd says, If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child.

In your case, it’s if you aren’t parent enough to keep your guns locked up in a safe, then your kid deserved to die.

It was his choice after all.

Pro-life” my ass.

Punish your own sick ass, Stupak, not other people.


I have long joked that the anti-abortion movement should adopt the motto “kill a doctor for life”, but it seems they are now whining that Harlan Drake, an anti-abortion activist has been shot.

Of course, you can’t ask for gun control. Nevermind the Second Amendment was intended to prevent the militia formed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution from being disarmed and no private purpose intended. Part of the use of abortion and gun control to keep the US political system as divisive as it is requires perpetuating the lie of an “individual right” (whatever that means) under the Second Amendment. And Heller didn’t say shit since the holding said that Heller was able to register the gun provided he passed the registration requirements.

Donald Granberg said it pretty well in his post found at

In a “pro-life” society, certain basic needs would be assured, including a nutritious diet, sanitary water, decent shelter from the elements, a safe environment, and humane medical care. Programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and food stamps are assertions that satisfying these basic human needs should not be determined by one’s ability to pay. Structural violence in society occurs when people’s basic needs go unfulfilled because they are too poor to purchase goods or services.

On the matter of health, it almost goes without saying that the “pro-life” person would refrain from smoking, oppose government subsidy of domestic tobacco production and sale to overseas markets, encourage physical fitness, and donate blood for transfusions to people whose lives might thereby be saved. Also, insofar as a surplus existed, one might also expect the society to provide relief to needy people in other societies in the form of nonmilitary foreign aid, directly providing goods or teaching developmental skills.

The U.S. is a violent society, as reflected in the statistics showing the very high rate at which we kill each other and the frequency with which we go to war. We are a nation armed to the teeth, in terms of civilians owning guns and in terms of the amount we spend on the military.

At both levels there are sincere and well-intentioned people who believe that having more weapons makes for more safety, peace and security. Statistics, however, do not bear this out. There is no evidence that would indicate that a family is less likely to die from gunshot wounds if it keeps guns in the house. In fact, the contrary is true.

What does that mean in practise?

Well, if you are truly pro-life, then you should be supporting health care and really concerned about gun control.

But the issue isn’t really “pro-life” or Scalia wouldn’t have put his name to that piece of shit called the Heller decision. It is anti-abortion.

So cut the crap folks: if you don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one.


I have a serious problem with the US believing in gun rights, but denying the basic human rights of health care, housing, or education.

What is wrong with the situation where some asshole can show up at a rally where the president will be speaking with an assault rifle, scream tyranny and decry healthcare? Maybe we should send him to Iran or North Korea and learn about Tyranny.

Seriously, any other country and he would have been cuffed face down on the ground. In a tyrannical society they would have shot him without a by your leave.

That would have served him for being enough of an idiot to show up with a weapon. Maybe he will be more intelligent in his NEXT life.

Yanks are such cretins that they don’t realise that a couple of people with the same type of rifle carried by the cretin in AZ held the US capitol hostage for a couple of weeks. There are people running around openly carrying guns. These people allow for the carnage at LA Fitness by blocking laws that would prevent access to firearms by psychos because they are Psychos who know they wouldn’t be allowed firearms if registration were required.

Unfortunately, the US has this bizarre myth that requires them to attack and harm innocent people. On the other hand, there are people who go bankrupt from serious illnesses because the healthcare system in the states sucks. Yes, the US is #37 in the world as far as actual healthcare services go according to the World Health Organisation. Quote:

In spite of improvements, on various measures of health outcomes the United States appears to rank relatively poorly among OECD countries. Health expenditures, in contrast, are significantly higher than in any other OECD country. While there are factors beyond the health-care system itself that contribute to this gap in performance, there is also likely to be scope to improve the health of Americans while reducing, or at least not increasing spending.

What is wrong with the picture of a person carrying an assault rifle to protest people having health care? Is it just me?

The US has some serious problems if the Second Amendment allows for George Sodini the firearms to kill and maim at LA fitness, yet Heather Sherba, one of Sodini’s victims, has to have a car wash to pay for treatment.

Pro-life my arse.

It’s 9 O’Clock. Do you know where your daughter is Mr. and Mrs. Palin?

Now, I know everyone is saying: lay off poor Bristol Palin (editorial note: WTF did the Palins give their kid a name which means “breasts” in British slang?) and her parents, but these are people who purport to believe in family values. Despite Sarah’s claim that she is against corruption, she did fire an Alaskan State Trooper because he was having custody problems with Ms. Palin’s sister.

Now, why couldn’t they have used the troopers to suss out the boy their daughter is dating? I mean, I don’t run about saying “family values” like its a mantra, but I sure as hell would like to know about who is dating my daughter. I mean if the kid calls himself “a fucking redneck” who doesn’t want children on his myspace, I sure as hell would like to know.

We can tell he is pretty irresponsible without him getting my daughter preggers.

Also, doesn’t “family values” mean that you talk with your daughter about sex and the possibility of getting pregnant? Or are you hoping that your daughter will be abstainent?

OK, The Palins don’t believe in abortion and poor little Bristol will now have a taste of responsibility, which isn’t fair as she wasn’t responsible in the first place. It’s fine that the Palins don’t believe in abortion for themselves, as I said in a previous post, they can have 100 children through rape, incest, irresponsibility, etcetera.

On the other hand, Choice means that one can make up their own mind whether or not to have an abortion. I would want my child to have the option of having an abortion. I can also afford to send my child somewhere it would be legal to have an abortion, but that is not an option for everyone.

If Ms. Palin believes that government should keep out of people’s business, then she should believe that government has no right to dictate a person’s personal choice, especially where having children is concerned.

On the other hand, Ms. Palin also believes in Censorship and caused the Wasilla Librarian to resign.

Now, I am pretty certain that the Palins subscribe to the Insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is the belief that armed resistance is acceptable against tyranny. I believe that the imposition of others’ religious opinions and the violation of First Amendment rights falls square under the defintion of tyranny.

Additionally, I am not sure that Ms. Palin totally supports the US Constitution given her voicing support for the Alaskan Independence Party and dubious connections to that party. She may not have been a registered AKIP member, but she has made enough comments to make me wonder about her loyalty to the United, er Failed States of America.

I mean, I should run for president if this woman is running for vice-president and I make no bones that the US government is illegitimate as it was based upon a rebellion that was not supported by all the citizens. Additionally, as is the case with these fake elections, the political system has failed.

I owe allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain.

So, Sarah, come out of the closet and show your true colours, which are Navy and Gold, not red, white and blue.

You have nothing in common with those citizens of the “lower 48”.


It totally bothers me that the US is so obsessed with abortion. While they have no qualms about using deadly force for self-defence, they don’t mind bringing unwanted children into the world. Something about a “right to life”.

Nevermind that the unborn child is a speculative life.
Nevermind that unwanted children contribute to the world’s ills.

Paraphrasing the bumpersticker: if you can’t trust a woman with a reproductive choice, how can you trust a person with a firearm?

Anyway, it seems that this fanatic hatred of abortion has led to the blocking of the word abortion from a database used by researchers. The restriction was put in place because of articles from an abortion advocacy magazine available on the site. The issue in question focused on abortion as a human rights issue and profiled abortion rights advocates around the world.

“We are disappointed,” Anu Kumar, the executive director of Ipas (an international reproductive rights organization) said, “We know that 40 million abortions take place every year and nearly 20 million of them are unsafe. Women are literally dying while we’re dithering about these words.”

The problem is that the lives of real, living women are being harmed by a lack of access to abortion. On the other hand, some fanatics are worried about some “unborn” who may not survive term to actual life. What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, why can’t you pay to raise the children you bring into the world with education, housing, health care, and proper nutrition? No, it’s cheaper to put them in prison.

Now, I would tend toward the opposite extreme as far as “reproductive rights” go, given that there are too many people in the world. Most of these people are idiots, in particular, the RKBA crowd. I would reinstitute the “Mississippi appendectomy” which was a clandestine hysterectomy for welfare mothers. While we’re at it. We can do something similar with the criminal population and give them forced vasectomies.

Fuck, sterilise the population at large. The wrong people are breeding and the world is full of idiots.

The RKBA crowd don’t want laws to protect us from unsafe guns: So, sell them exploding firearms and ammunition. Maybe the RKBA will empirically prove that David Hemenway is correct while killing themselves off. Florida is already seeing a rise in gun crime due to the lax gun laws.

Of course, illegal abortion and legal guns is the sort of screwed up logic I’ve come to expect from the American public.

Posted 09/04/2008 by lacithedog in abortion

Why none of the "public interest groups" want a definitive answer on Heller.

Quite frankly, if the SCOTUS does the sane and sensible thing by reiterating US v. Miller in idiot proof, plain English, then there will be an end to the interminable fund raising letters, e-mails, etcetera I receive. Not to mention the road will be indeed cleared for the possibility of a gun ban. Perhaps we will see much needed talk of gun responsibilities, rather than fictitious “gun rights”.

On the other hand, finding “an individual right” outside of militia service will guarantee that there will be loads of litigation. We’ll see loads more trash written about the “individual right”. It’ll be the gravy train for “Second Amendment” lawyers and scholars. Someone reading these blogs might offer me a lucrative job, especially if whatever opinion generated is not unanimous.

On the other hand, probably not since I would much prefer that my real Second Amendment right of being free from standing armies were implemented rather than some nonsensical right which never was intended to be part of the whole shebang. I would want to see an end to this and make the Second Amendment the dead letter it is for firearms ownership once and for all.

To be quite honest, I don’t mind expanding rights in a Roe v. Wade fashion if it truly impinges upon something which affects only a person and his/her personal life. I do mind when the right leads to high social costs which is undeniable about “gun violence”.

The RKBA crowd has a sticker which says “fear the government that fears your gun”.

I say “fear the government which tells you how to run your personal life and doesn’t care about the welfare of its citizens”.

I don’t want the government telling someone that she can or cannot have children. Worse, forcing children into this world without parents who want them. Especially if that government is unwilling to shoulder the burden of raising those children. Even more so when it is all too willing to pay to incarcerate those children rather than pay to properly educate them.

The government has no business telling me what I should believe as far as religion goes. Even more so since the Constitution says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” and that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means public officials should keep their arses out of proselytising.

I agree with Justice McReynolds when he said the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment included an individual’s right “to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, and generally to enjoy privileges, essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

This means that I can do what I will if it doesn’t lead to harming others. Unfettered firearms ownership does harm others. The cost of gun violence in terms of law enforcement, legal process, health care, etcetera is astronomical. Firearm ownership also makes no sense in a city for a multitude of reasons. And if a legislature also reaches that conclusion, it is not the place of the courts to come and second guess the legislative process.