MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Over My Dead Body, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

August 25, 2012 Martha Thomases 8 Comments

Lucky for you folks, Congressman Todd Akin made his ridiculous statements after my deadline last week, so I’ve had a chance to calm down. In case you missed it (and if so, how did you do it, and can I hide there, too?), here is what he said, quoted from The New York Times:

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

There are, as you might imagine, so many unbelievable aspects to this statement. I don’t know which one to react to first. Let’s start from the bottom and work our way up.

“The punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

It’s interesting that, when considering the crime of rape, Akin considers only the rapist — the criminal — and the evidence — the child. At no time does he consider the victim, the woman who was raped. I guess that’s because the rapist is most likely male, and there is at least a 50% chance that the fetus will also be male. The victim is just a girl.

Not even a real human.

Do you think that last statement is harsh? Do you think I’m ascribing beliefs to which the Congressman that he doesn’t hold? Maybe, but let’s consider this: “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

He talks about a woman’s body as if it is something strange, something that is not, well, human. Something that can tell a friendly sperm from a hostile sperm. A cervix with a velvet rope, letting in only those who are on the list.

The human body is capable of all kinds of involuntary defensive responses. When one is really frightened, one’s bowels can empty, so one can run faster. One will vomit when one has eaten bad food, to get the badness out. Cold makes nipples more perky. These are things that both men and women do.

Men have reflexes that women don’t. As we learned on Seinfeld, cold water can cause shrinkage.

Does Akin know any actual women? Does he know any actual doctors?

Maybe he does. As this article observes, the modern Republican party has very little use for science. They seem to see provable facts (climate change, evolution) as opinions, something that one can accept or not. And, on a personal level, they can believe whatever they want. However, one can’t legislate science. Something is true or it isn’t. And there are plenty of so-called scientists or doctors who will say what the GOP wants to hear, as long as there is a good paycheck in it.

Of course, the phrase that’s received the most outrage is “legitimate rape.” It is the phrase that even Paul Ryan (who co-sponsored several anti-abortion bills with Akin that use similar language) denounced. It plays to men’s fears that women will cry “Rape” when the sex was consensual. I’m know that there are occasions when this happens.

You know what else happens? People claim that they were robbed when they spent their money on hookers, or gambling. And yet, we don’t talk about “legitimate robbery.” We don’t accuse men in expensive shoes of “asking for it”.

If rape is only something that happens when at gunpoint or knifepoint, a lot of men can get away with it. And a lot of women will suffer for it. The woman menaced by a much stronger man in a bar, or pressured by her boss, or the girl molested by a neighbor, an uncle, a step-father. These women must not only survive the rape itself, but the pregnancy.

(And I don’t want to hear how the fetus is a person because it contains cells that can develop into a human. So can my toe-nail. If you want an analogy, imagine a group of cells replicating in your body against your will, forming a mass that parasitically attacks your blood supply, your muscles and your nervous system. Yeah, a forced pregnancy is a lot like cancer.)

Why does the GOP want to distinguish between “legitimate” (or, sometimes they use the word “forcible”) rape and other kinds? Who are they protecting?

I know that conservatives often claim they represent so-called “Judeo-Christian” values (and you know they just put in the “Judeo” part to keep that Adelson money flowing), but their attitudes toward women are much closer to their fellow fundamentalists in Iran. As you can see here, there are those in Iran who want to preserve Biblical marriage at all costs.

Keep you Bible. I prefer humans.


Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, actually likes some parts of the Bible. And the Talmud. And The Great Gatsby.  A good read is a good read.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. R. Maheras
    August 29, 2012 - 4:47 pm

    Martha — You apparently can’t see the forest for the trees. My point is that the ONLY reason that .17 number seems to be “exceedingly rare” to abortion activists is because the overall number of abortions that year was so enormous — more than one million.

    Yet would you call hate crime deaths “exceedingly rare” and not a significant issue simply because, according to FBI hate crime statistics for 2010, there were “only” nine — that’s right, NINE — incidences of hate-crime deaths that year? Even if you tack on the seven incidences of hate-crime rapes, and 1144 incidences of aggravated assault, the numbers are STILL more than a thousand less than the “exceedingly rare” number you cite regarding partial-birth abortions.

    From my viewpoint, however, the only explanation for the wildly skewed weight placed on loss of life for both issues by liberals is political doctrine. It has nothing to do with science, common sense, or anything else.

    It’s voodoo logic no different than that of Akin, or Santorum, or any other conservative boob du jour.

  2. George Haberberger
    August 29, 2012 - 7:21 pm

    “You don’t agree so it must be fake? Or she must be mentally disturbed? That makes it kind of difficult to cite other sources.”

    Feel free to cite other sources. Maybe one of those won’t be so wildly illogical. It isn’t because I disagree with her that makes me doubt its legitimacy. It is her attempts to claim that, hot is cold, light is dark and life is death. For one thing she expects her readers to believe that wishing her mother had aborted her is not the same as wishing she was never born. This is a distinction without a difference. She is happy but “Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people.” There simply must be someone else you can use to make your case more credible

    “I continue to maintain that so-called “partial birth” abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, and none of your (or my) business. If that makes me anti-science, well, I question your definition of science,

    Just as I question your definition of “life.”?

    My post concerned the infants who survive abortion yet medical personnel have been encouraged by Democrats, for strictly political motives, to let them die. Can’t do anything that appears to weaken Roe v Wade. Do you believe a newborn is also not a human life? Maybe you agree with bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva who wrote in a London Journal of Medical Ethics that killing a newborn is morally equivalent to abortion.

    “Because newborns are no more capable of valuing their own existence than fetuses, they argued, newborns qualify only as “potential persons” whose interests are “always trump[ed]” by those of the “actual persons” such as “parents, siblings, society.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

    Needless to say the Pro-Choice movement reacted quickly to disassociate themselves from Giubilini and Minerva because they did not want that opinion to be perceived as an extrapolation of the Pro-Choice position. Yes, it is morally equivalent to abortion just not the way Giubilini and Minerva intended.

  3. Martha Thomases
    August 29, 2012 - 7:51 pm

    George, you aren’t replying to my older responses here, which makes me feel the need to repeat myself. Unwanted (and even, sometimes, wanted) newborns die every day because insurance companies refuse to pay for their care. I’ve seen it, not only when my son was born prematurely but also as I volunteer every week with pediatric cancer patients.. Also, children and adults die because they don’t have insurance. Lots more die, or suffer needlessly, because they have insurance, and the insurers refuse to pay for treatments prescribed by doctors.

    Again, I’ll cite what I witnessed with my own eyes while my husband was being treated for lung cancer. We had okay insurance, but still had to fight tooth and nail. As did this young woman: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/09/life-interrupted-medical-bills-insurance-and-uncertainty/.

    Democrats are the only ones proposing plans that would have the slightest chance in hell of achieving universal health insurance. I don’t like the plan, particularly (since I like single-payer), but it’s much more than the GOP has proposed.

    While we disagree about when life begins, I bet we can agree that those who have been born shouldn’t be treated so cheaply.

  4. George Haberberger
    August 30, 2012 - 5:41 am

    Martha, yes absolutely we agree that those who have been born shouldn’t be treated so cheaply.

    The thread veered of from the original subject, (which I presumed had kind of played out on Monday), with Russ’ post about Democrats who vote against science solely for political motives.

    And yes the single-payer option sounds simpler and more equitable that the Affordable Care Act. I would like to think that it would work better, but since the government is in charge, the potential for corruption and unwieldy bureaucracy seems unavoidable. You and I are close in age and I remember when Medicare was established in 1965, I was 14. There was a lot of debate I didn’t care much about but now it seems to work.

    I know that the potential for corruption and unwieldy bureaucracy already exists with insurance companies. They are profit-based institutions so maybe they should be cut out of the process. But then the family doctor is also profit-based. He needs to be paid for his talent and ability.

    People like to say that health-care is a right. But unlike other rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, (those rights do not require someone else to provide them, they just exist), health care is provided by third parties and that makes it a commodity. If other commodities were given “right status” then everyone should be guaranteed houses, cars, flat-screen TVs, boats, vacation homes etc. Yes I know this is also far a field from the original thread and no, I don’t think there is a danger of single-payer leading to a collapse of our capitalist system.

  5. mike weber
    September 2, 2012 - 6:13 pm

    George: “Well, that has to be one of the most inconsistent, sad and illogical pieces of propaganda I’ve ever read.”

    Yep, it is.

    But what do all the quotes you give from the article Martha linked to have to do with that?
    Russ (and George, actually): If it wouldn’t survive if it got “born” … it ain’t a baby.

    It ain’t “alive”.

    Period.

    Full stop.

    End of argument.

    That is science.

    Any objection to it is theology or politics.

  6. Mike Gold
    September 2, 2012 - 6:47 pm

    Born means the beachball goes through the underlips and into the waiting rubber-gloved hands of a green-suited hairnetted person wearing Dr. Horrible goggles and brandishing emergency tongs, into an environment of no food, bright lights, some woman screaming incessantly close by and a scared, nauseous dude with cigars on the other side of the room, only to await the severing of the bungie cord and the slap on the ass.

    Ah, the sweet mystery of childbearing…

  7. George Haberberger
    September 2, 2012 - 7:09 pm

    “Russ (and George, actually): If it wouldn’t survive if it got “born” … it ain’t a baby.”

    Really? Don’t tell that to my daughter who was expecting twins 7 years ago last week but Jackson didn’t make it and Carter was 6 weeks premature.

    She has a picture on her dresser of Jackson. It is an image of a small discolored baby that that is not charming or cute. But Carter had a brother who survived long enough in utero to allow him to be viable.

    It was not theology and it was not politics. But there was plenty of science involved that got Jackson as far as he got and so saved Carter.

  8. Martha Thomses
    September 3, 2012 - 5:04 am

    The difference, George, is that your daughter wanted those babies and CHOSE to carry them.

    My son was six weeks premature. I know what that looks like, and what the struggle is. And he is here today because my husband and I chose to have him and had the financial resources to carry on that fight. The law had nothing to do with it, nor should it force anyone else to make the choices we made.

  9. R. Maheras
    September 3, 2012 - 4:30 pm

    Mike — The “A fetus is not a human being until it is born” argument is a political one, not a scientific one.

  10. George Haberberger
    September 3, 2012 - 7:40 pm

    Yes, you and my daughter chose to have those babies and so Arthur and Carter exist today. But had that choice not been made, Arthur and Carter would have still existed, albeit as aborted babies. The value of a human life is not incumbent on a third party, even when that third party is the mother.

    You believe that the woman’s decision to abort a baby should not be infringed upon by the government. Yet the government should be able to tell religious institutions that they have to provide abortifacients and contraception.

    And I believe that the government should not be able to tell religious institutions that they have to violate the precepts of their faith. But I also maintain that the government can tell a woman she cannot indiscriminately and casually abort a baby.

    We both appear to want things both ways. But in which scenario does someone have to die?

    And finally, Mike Weber said that Jackson was not baby because he was not born alive. And of course he said that in short declarative sentences that imply there can be no possible alternative other than what he believes.

    Period.

    Full stop.

    End of argument.

    Does that ever convince anyone of anything?

  11. Mike Gold
    September 3, 2012 - 10:01 pm

    Russ — no, it’s a linguistic argument. I’m an editor by training and profession; I think that way.

    George — As much as I hate to say it, it is clear that the two positions on abortion are totally exclusive. There is only belief and, as I mentioned above, linguistics. “Choice” is like “global warming.” The word has taken on a political meaning. The fact is, the issue is not about choice as much as it is about legalities: abortion being legal or illegal. Even if it becomes illegal once again, women will still have that choice: like previous generations, millions of fetuses will continue to be aborted, but illegally. This adds a significant degree of preventable risk to women. I realize that some who are anti-abortion feel that taking on such a risk is the dues they must pay for getting pregnant and breaking the law. I have a rather low opinion of people who cloud that violently anti-woman view with the phrase “pro-life.”

    Linguistics.

    I am glad that your daughter chose to have your grandchildren. Truly so; grandchildren are wonderful. And that was her choice.

    However, I do wish Mrs. Hitler and Mrs. Stalin gave their choices a little more thought.

  12. Ellen Tebbel
    November 3, 2012 - 12:44 am

    To many men, not all, when they unzip their pants, their brains fall out.

Comments are closed.