Don’t Get Raped in South Dakota
Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota signed a bill today that would make it illegal for doctors in the state to perform abortions unless the mother’s life were in danger. Rape and incest are no exception.
Read that last sentence again.
One more time.
I’m practically speechless.
Now, I’m hardly a pro-choice activist. Don’t get me wrong. I am pro-choice, but with pro-life sympathies. I’m with Bill Clinton on this one. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Even outside of a religious context, I can understand why some people are so vehemently opposed to the idea of abortion, though I don’t understand why anyone feels they have the right to make this decision for someone else. My moderate position on this topic is why I never write about it.
However, no one can possibly have a moderate position on this law in South Dakota. Even an evangelical Christian should be able to see that this legislation is absolutely horrifying. Any person who could sit face-to-face with a woman carrying a child fathered by a rapist or family member and tell her that she has to give birth to that child is a monster, and anyone who couldn’t do that, and still supports this law, is a first-class hypocrite. Monster or hypocrite. Those are the choices. I wonder which one Mike Rounds is.
When a news story like this one surfaces, I have to reorient myself. I forget momentarily which country I’m in. This is a headline you expect in Iran or Somalia, not a western nation. If this law is upheld (and it might be given recent changes in the Supreme Court), it’s time for the United States of America to shut the hell up on human rights issues. Exactly what soap box can we stand on while preaching to China if an American state is allowed to keep a brutal law like this one? I am generally proud to be an American, but I’ve noticed that almost every time I have reason to be ashamed of it, it’s because the billowing flag of freedom has become snagged on the sharp corners of a cross.
~I AM~
March 6th, 2006 at at 3:26 pm
*Sigh*, I wrote about this a few days ago and one person commented that allowing that exemption would increase the amount of women who claim rape/incest.
It’s the slippery slope argument, and it’s a dumb one.
March 6th, 2006 at at 3:49 pm
I could not of put it better than Ol’ Bill, safe, legal and RARE. It’s an old saying, prevention is the best form of “cure”. Better sex education and contraseptive availability, will help decrease the level of abortions. If a woman is considering abortion, she sould have reliable information (including other options such as adoption etc) to hand, so she can make an informed desition. But if it comes down to abortion being the most favorable option, she sould have every right to terminate the pregnancy. It’s not a light harted decision. If she is denied this for whatever reason, what other option has she got? Get someone to hit her in the stomach? Jump down the stairs? Have the child in secret, and leave it to starve to death? Don’t think that these (or worse) things didn’t happen before the modern, relatively safe abortion.
March 6th, 2006 at at 4:47 pm
I think I’d rather put it this way: unwanted/unintended pregnancies should be rare. Abortion should be safe and legal, period.
March 6th, 2006 at at 5:09 pm
I have no idea how any woman could support this. If this Taliban wannabe who signed off on it is married why is his wife not suing for divorce as we speak? But then I never understood how women happily don that Burka bag crap on their heads either and yet there are millions of them that do. Religion sure screws with folks brains. I just hope the victims of this law (every woman in that state of South Dakistan) remember this next election!
March 6th, 2006 at at 5:20 pm
I am pro-choice (except when the mothers health is seriously in danger) but I never really understood people who are normally pro-life, but think abortion is ok in the case of rape or incest.
If you really are against abortion for the sake of the fetus, then the manner in which the fetus was concieved should make no difference at all. Saying “It’s ok to terminate fetus A, but not fetus B” when the only difference between the two is the method of conception, I think that’s ridiculous. It’s not like the fetus had a choice in the matter. I think if you’re pro-life, you have to be pro-life all the way.
March 6th, 2006 at at 5:21 pm
This might be a fair law, If convicted rapists were required to have their penises amputated - with a dirty fork in their own bathrooms by their best friend. (or pay some stranger in another town fifty buck to smash his nuts.)
It would also help achieve the goal of making abortions more rare, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, because there would likely be far fewer rapes!(Rape is a life-altering event, that usually only the woman suffers. Make it fair, make it even.)
The law should be simply ‘Safe and Legal.’ Rare should a social ideal, like good driving, no obesity, no bankrupcy, no drugs, no murders. Keep working on it, accept but that it’ll never happen.
-A reader from UTAH! Yes, the land where 64% may have voted for GWB (highest anywhere), but managed to strike down limits on teaching evolution, again.
March 6th, 2006 at at 6:15 pm
I am pro-choice (except when the mothers health is seriously in danger)
So abortion is usually OK, but when the mother’s life is in danger, she should have to have the baby and die?
I’m hoping that was a typo.
March 6th, 2006 at at 7:03 pm
Sam,
That’s the slippery slope argument, and it’s a poor one at that.
Even you concede that there are times when a mother should have an abortion i.e. the mother’s life in danger.
So then what if I tell you her life is in danger because she can’t afford the child and will have to live in poverty and become homeless as a result. Is her life in danger? Is it in serious danger? Not serious enough?
As you can see, there is that slipper slope and you can follow it either which way.
March 6th, 2006 at at 8:04 pm
I am pro-choice (except when the mothers health is seriously in danger)
Oops, yeah I realize how stupid that sounds. I cut and pasted a little bit trying to clean the post up and put that in the wrong place, doh! Please scratch that part. Perhaps I should learn to read what I type before I push the Post button
Here’s how its supposed to read:
I am pro-choice, but I never really understood people who are normally pro-life, but think abortion is ok in the case of rape or incest.
If you really are against abortion for the sake of the fetus, then the manner in which the fetus was concieved should make no difference at all. Saying “It’s ok to terminate fetus A, but not fetus B” when the only difference between the two is the method of conception, I think that’s ridiculous. It’s not like the fetus had a choice in the matter. I think if you’re pro-life, you have to be pro-life all the way.
March 6th, 2006 at at 8:30 pm
This is just an attempt to have Roe v Wade reheard. Think of this as a fast track to the supreme court now that the stage has been set.
March 6th, 2006 at at 10:39 pm
Well, if we take the anti-abortion argument that from the moment of conception, the product of the union has rights, then shouldn’t fetuses be supplied with social security numbers before they are born? Shouldn’t I be able to claim my unborn child as a dependent on my taxes?
March 6th, 2006 at at 11:07 pm
Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan wrote an article about abortion for Parade magazine. I wish it was available online, I have it in one of his books. This part was interesting:
“Two of the most energetic pro-lifers of all time were Hitler and Stalin, who immediately upon taking power criminalized previously legal abortions. Mussolini, Ceausescu, and countless other nationalist dictators and tyrants have done likewise. Of course, this is not by itself a pro-choice argument, but it does alert us to the possibility that being against abortion may not always be part of a deep commitment to human life.”
March 7th, 2006 at at 1:23 am
Call me an extremist, but I would say that a “pro-life” stance has absolutely nothing to do with a “commitment to human life”. It’s all about control. This law is as clear an indication of that as any. If it were about a “commitment to human life” then it would include provisions to consider the “quality” of life, as well as the quantity. Despite rare exceptions like the Raving Atheist, the vast majority of people who adopt a “pro-life” position are doing it for religious reasons. (For that matter, I see RA’s reasoning as borderline religious anyway.) Just like the Falwells and Robertsons of the world, they often see an unwanted pregnancy as a punishment by God for the sinful actions of the mother. “If she had just kept her legs together she wouldn’t be in this position!” or “If she had worn more conservative clothes she might not have tempted those boys!”
I agree with ~I Am~, anyone that thinks it’s OK to force a mother to carry a child conceived of rape or incest to term, is a monster.
March 7th, 2006 at at 2:45 am
As to possible false claims of rape/incest, would not DNA testing resolve any doubt?
March 7th, 2006 at at 10:08 am
I saw this one a couple weeks and and too wrote about it. Of course not as calmly as I AM. Isn’t it time for a violent revolution yet? Ya gotta wonder if some hidden agenda doesn’t exist here. Maybe they’re (religious fuckos and power fuckos) are trying to get the people of reason pissed off enough to really start some shit. Maybe they want another American civil war.
Ok, yeah, that would giving them too much intelligence credit. Nevermind.
March 7th, 2006 at at 10:17 am
Not that I necessarily agree with the position, but if you believe that a fetus is a innocent life that needs to be protected, this law is entirely consisitent with that position. The goal is to protect the innocent life not withstanding the circumstance of its conception, over which it had no control. To include a exeption for rape or incest would then be saying that in those instances the life is not worthy of protection - this would be inconsistent with the premise. Only when the mother’s life is in danger does the adult (developed) life take precedence over the developing life.
Understanding this reasoning is important if you wish to counter it. You can disagree with the premise, but it is certainly not something you should be shocked by.
March 7th, 2006 at at 10:29 am
I agree with LBBP on this. If people were actually committed to human life, then they would care a damn about the poor and suffering people around the world who die from starvation and easily curable diseases. Now if they want to rephrase their statement as a “commitment to white life”, then perhaps then they are being sincere. And like LBBP noted, it’s the quality of life which is important, not the quantity. Forced childbirth often brings a child into a situation growing up where they are not properly taken care of, resulting in their own unhappiness. If the child later resorts to murder and violence, then he/she infringes on the quality of life of others as well.
And yeah, RA’s commitment to forced childbirth makes it difficult for me to read his blog even occasionally.
March 7th, 2006 at at 11:00 am
If the child later resorts to murder and violence, then he/she infringes on the quality of life of others as well.
This could imply that you support the premptive killing of the fetus for the good of society.
Now that’s what I call a “Slippery Slope”.
March 7th, 2006 at at 1:22 pm
Okay, I feel compelled to add a different viewpoint on this one. I would argue that you can be both pro-life and pro-exception for cases of rape and incest while remaining consistent with your logic.
The advocate for this rationale would be making the case for individual responsibility. You can claim that the reason the pro-choice position is wrong and the mother does not have the right to expel the fetus from her body is that by engaging in consensual sex she accepted the possibility of the fetus’s presence in her womb, and thereby took on moral responsibility for its well-being. However, in the rape case, the mother does not voluntarily undertake the risk of becoming pregnant, and so may not be morally obligated to allow the fetus the use of her body.
March 7th, 2006 at at 2:52 pm
I would call him a monstrous hypocrite.
March 7th, 2006 at at 2:53 pm
Sorry, was trying to quote from your post, I AM. My post was in response to:
“…Monster or hypocrite. Those are the choices. I wonder which one Mike Rounds is…”
March 7th, 2006 at at 3:00 pm
how about “enormous flaming turd of a man”? Is that an option too?
March 7th, 2006 at at 3:22 pm
Mississippi and Utah are apparently considering similiar laws. This is disgusting beyond words.
And I second what Delta says about RA. I haven’t read his blog in ages.
March 7th, 2006 at at 4:03 pm
I am so glad I don’t live in the US, though I watch what is happening there with growing concern and fear.
It takes TWO people to produce a foetus and yet it is only the woman who seems to be considered in these laws. If abortion is made illegal, where is the laws saying that the father MUST provide financial and emotional support to the child? Where are his obligations? Why must the mother be told what she must do and not the father? The focus on the mother and the blatant disregard for the father’s contribution to the situation makes it clear that these laws are not about valuing life but about controlling women.
The argument that ‘you can give birth to the baby and then have it adopted’ is not valid for some women. Personally, the idea of having a parasite (which is all a foetus is - it takes nutrients from, and has detrimental effects on the host) inside me for 9 whole months is too much to bear. I have no maternal feelings. Seeing babies does not make me coo: it makes me run in the opposite direction! I could not bring a baby to term, and if going to an back-street clinic or using a coathanger is what it takes to get rid of that parasite then that is what I will do. I realise my views are extreme, but I have found that I am not alone with them. Because I am so fearful of getting pregnant I take every precaution I can, but it only takes one mistake. But it is not a mistake I should spend the rest of my life regretting.
Men have drunken one-night stands and walk away without repercussions other than a hangover and maybe their mates laughing at their bad choice the previous night. Women are now left with the possibility of that night changing their life. I’m against abortion laws for the reason above, but the main reason I’m against them is because of this dichotomy. Until men are made as responsible for their actions as women are then I will continue to see these laws as nothing other than an attempt to control women.
(My Britishness is trying to force me to apologise for the length of my post and the rabid feminism apparent in it, but i wont, I WON’T I TELL YOU!!)
March 7th, 2006 at at 4:19 pm
Sarah
You sound like fun. Have your tubes tied and live the life you want without fear of pregnancy
March 7th, 2006 at at 4:23 pm
The Gov of SD knows full well this will be challenged in court, and that is his plan. He (and SD legislators) wants it to go all the way up to the SUPREME COURT because they think that with the new judges, Roe v. Wade may get overturned.
This is a deliberate political ploy to remove the rights of women to control their reproduction. And its fucking sickening. I hate these religious-statist assholes. They are the epitomy of evil and coercive control.
I wonder how the governor of SD would feel if his wife were raped and impregnated by a black man? Would he tell his wife to keep the baby?
March 7th, 2006 at at 4:24 pm
…if you believe that a fetus is a innocent life that needs to be protected, this law is entirely consisitent with that position. The goal is to protect the innocent life not withstanding the circumstance of its conception, …
Twice in the comments here I’ve heard this argument made. That the position of the law is consistent with the fetus being an innocent life. The problem I have with that position is that it ignores something FUNDAMENTAL. You’re not dealing with one life, you’re dealing with two. The mother is a life. And her life will be damaged in the case of carrying a rape baby to term.
Think of it this way, and yes, my analogy has flaws. Imagine that you were held down and tatooed “I hate niggers” on your forehead. And for one reason or another you weren’t going to be able to remove it for 9 months. How would that impact your life? People will make assumptions about you. Do you really want to explain that for months. Should you have to. Would you consider carving it off your own forehead instead of waiting?
That fetus is part of the woman. It’s a constant reminder of being violated. It’s constant psychological torture as people come up and ask when she’s due. Is it a boy or a girl? Have you picked a name? Each of these well meaning questions is another dagger in her heart, as they assume there is happiness not pain. This law says that psychological pain is valueless.
To finish it off. Will a woman that tortured really let the baby come to term. A woman can make herself miscarry. It might kill her, but she can do it.
Bastards.
March 7th, 2006 at at 4:59 pm
Okay, I feel compelled to add a different viewpoint on this one. I would argue that you can be both pro-life and pro-exception for cases of rape and incest while remaining consistent with your logic.
The advocate for this rationale would be making the case for individual responsibility.
Well said. However, your argument only deals with rape. What about consensual incest?
March 7th, 2006 at at 6:15 pm
I agree that this law is monstrous, but can’t someone just drive to the next state and get one?
March 7th, 2006 at at 7:45 pm
That’s a beautiful metaphor (about an ugly topic). Well said, I AM; that’s a wording that bears repeating.
It’s astonishing how brazen these religious right fanatics have become. They don’t even try to hide the fact that this is all about controlling women’s lives - women are disposable as far as they’re concerned. All we can hope at this point is that they’ve overreached and don’t yet have the votes on the Supreme Court to uphold this horrible law. But even if they do, it’s possible that it will trigger a much bigger backlash than they’ve anticipated.
March 7th, 2006 at at 9:49 pm
I agree that this law is monstrous, but can’t someone just drive to the next state and get one?
Sure, a rich woman, with easy access to a car, money and time off could just drive to the next state. How about a poor (as in no discretionary funds left over after paying for basic accomodation and food) woman who lives far away from a clinic, doesn’t have a car AND needs to find somebody to care for existing children while she goes to a clinic - for AT LEAST TWO DAYS (one day to have law-required “counseling”, the second day to actually have the procedure)? Who pays her expenses for those two days she has to find somewhere to stay? How long do you think it would take such a woman to scrape together the funds for just the abortion, much less all the rest? If she’s the main breadwinner, which is a fairly safe bet, who’s going to compensate for her two days off work? What I’ve listed above is barely the tip of the iceberg.
Please learn to think JUST a bit before you shoot off your mouth!
March 7th, 2006 at at 11:30 pm
Furthermore, what does she do after all the surrounding states pass the same law? Then what does she do when ALL the states pass the same law?
March 8th, 2006 at at 1:23 am
Furthermore, what does she do after all the surrounding states pass the same law? Then what does she do when ALL the states pass the same law?
If ALL 50 states pass a similar law, it’s time to move to Canada or somewhere else in Europe. For that matter if even half of the states pass something like this, it’s time to move.
March 8th, 2006 at at 3:15 am
If the child later resorts to murder and violence, then he/she infringes on the quality of life of others as well.
This could imply that you support the premptive killing of the fetus for the good of society.
Now that’s what I call a “Slippery Slope”.
I’m just saying that children who are born to parents who either don’t want them or can’t provide for them are more likely to cause suffering to others than those who do. I say this as part of the statement that being “pro-life” isn’t actually being “for” life. The decision to give birth to a baby or not should rest in the woman who owns the body. Your suggestion that I might approve of some sort of government decision that would kill the baby regardless of the mother’s wishes is very much misplaced. It’s her decision in the first place, and I wouldn’t put any trust in government to make decisions that are in everyone’s best interests anyhow.
March 8th, 2006 at at 7:12 am
I just dont understand how these people got elected? I mean it needed at least some women to vote for them. if they didnt know the candidates point of view, would that mean that now that they know, they would no longer vote for them???
I dont think there could have been laws violating black’s rights if they were more then fifty percent of the population.
I Am:
What does she do after all the surrounding states pass the same law? Then what does she do when ALL the states pass the same law?
If that happens, it would only show how stupid women are to ignore the issues surrounding their right when they go to vote. looking at the last election, I couldnt understand how a woman could have voted for the republicans. It seems that, something becomes an issue to women only if its an important issue to men. Like terrorism attacks. Which one affects women the most, abortion or terrorism?
They wont get my sympathy.
March 8th, 2006 at at 9:18 am
The statement - and the law - does not ignore the life of the mother. Instead it assumes that the damage done to the fetus would be more egregious that the damage done to the woman.
The analogy only works if you do not believe that the fetus is a life, and therefore can be eliminated (”carved off”) to benefit the woman. You are implicitly ignoring any rights of the fetus.
To finish it off. Will a woman that tortured really let the baby come to term. A woman can make herself miscarry. It might kill her, but she can do it. Bastards.
Your argument is that the developed life - that of the woman - always takes precendence over the developing life. That the pain inflicted on the woman supercedes any rights of the developing fetus. That is a very reasonable argument.
But, you missed the point of my post completely — and thereby failed address the issue of the value of the life of the fetus. All of your arguements and analogies hold ONLY if you believe that the innocent life of fetus the does not have any rights - only the woman does.
In order to understand the agruments of those supporting this law, you need to replace the word fetus with “child” in your discussions and implicitly assume that the fetus has all of the same rights to be protected as any other “child”.
Assume, for example, that the woman courageously carried the child until it was born. But then, after it was born, the woman saw the face of her attacker in the child. Would you then permit her to kill that child because of the pain it inflicted on her? The real issue is: at what point in the development of the fetus does it become a “child” worthy of protection under the law? This law take the position that it is at the point of conception.
Only by dispassionately addressing this view can you possibly counter the position. The decent into ad hominem attacks and hyperbole will only inflame your opponents.
March 8th, 2006 at at 9:29 am
I certainly agree with that position (that’s the NoGov part), but unfortunately, they are doing it constantly. Every law is ostensibly put in place for that purpose.
March 8th, 2006 at at 10:09 am
Understood. My point was to argue that the damange to the woman was not necessarily less egregious. Just less physical.
Not really, no. The argument in favor of the fetus as a child was well established in the posts already up. So I was taking the point of view of the woman. My argument, well made or not, wasn’t against the value of the fetus, but for the value of the mother. If you look again, I don’t talk at all about the relative value of either. Simply what damage is done to the mother by being forced into the situation.
Almost, but not quite. My position isn’t that the woman always supersedes the fetus. I would say that with the fetus it’s a sliding scale, with the value of the developing life increasing as you close in on the due date. Another flawed analogy to the baby’s value. Imagine a new relationship. On the first date, the person you’re with has minimal value to you. One snort in place laugh and they’re gone. At the one year mark of dating, you need to think long and hard before bailing. At Ten years of marraige, you’ll tend to stay in relationships that are damaging to yourself. The value appreciates over time.
Your point that the woman couldn’t kill the baby after birth is very correct. But, I would argue that once the baby is viable outside the womb, she no longer has the right to terminate. That point is determined by medical science. I believe right now it’s about the 6-7 month mark, but don’t quote me. However, how often will a rape victim wait that long? Given a choice, the rape victim will terminate immediately, not think about for a few months.
I’d have to look it up, but ad hominem attacks are essentially name calling. I didn’t attack anyone specifically. Simply made a comparison.
March 8th, 2006 at at 12:38 pm
To comment the person up there who asked “why don’t they just drive to the next state”:
Someone already mentioned that costs time, money, and requires a form of transportation. But more than that, if you are underage, SD was a parental CONSENT state before this ban, and it’s illegal according to state law to take an underage girl across the border for the purpose of an abortion.
They are forced birth, not pro-life.
March 9th, 2006 at at 12:22 am
Jean Meslier was a 17th century French priest who was also an atheist — indeed, his whose monumental diatribe against theism and superstition, “Mon Testament,” was the first coherent and unmbiguous atheist philosophical system. Much admired by
19th century American intellectuals — his work went through several editions back then — Meslier is virtually forgotten here today.
The brilliant youg French philosopher and prolific author Michel Onfray has written a must-read essay on Meslier in the current issue of the excellent quarterly review New Politics (Number 40). Onfray on Meslier is the first synthesis of
Meslier’s work by a world-class intellectual to appear since Voltaire’s. I
have written for New Politics an introduction to both Onfray’s important
essay and to Meslier. You can read my introduction — and find the link to
Onfray’s essay on Meslier in English — by clicking on:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/michel_onfray_o.html
I do hope you will help publicize Onfray’s important essay on Meslier.
Yours,
Doug Ireland
March 10th, 2006 at at 10:17 pm
Please learn to think JUST a bit before you shoot off your mouth!
I was asking out of curiousity, not proclaiming it the answer to this problem.
March 18th, 2006 at at 8:17 am
I am,
I actually have a friend who is a product of rape, her biological mother didn’t keep her of course, she adopted her out as soon as she was born, but there is not a day goes by when my friend thanks an unknown biological mother for not aborting her and making her pay with her life for what some brutal rapist did to her mother.
Everyone talks about choice and rights when it comes to a woman getting an abortion, but it would appear only adults have rights, only adult voices are heard so that they can decide to murder another defenseless human being (a baby) and not be prosecuted for it or even have to feel bad about it. Who speaks for a feotus that is incapable of either defending his or herself verbally or physically against advocates for abortion that would sanction taking their life or doctors murdering them by a medical procedure? A mentally retarded person be appointed an advocate in court in light of their diminished ability to defend themselves in a court of law, yet an unborn feotus that is equally as defenseless and vulnerable is open game when abortion is legalised where is there advocate? Where is there voice? Where is there defense against brutal murder without a cause? It is a cowardly act to rip a defenseless feotal baby apart by abortion techniques or poison them with abortion pills when they can’t defend themselves, someone has to speak for the defenseless baby and uphold their human rights to grow for nine months in a womb and be adopted out to a loving family who will care for them and love them, it should be their undisputed right as growing human beings. Whatever the reason that a woman wants to abort (rape, unwanted pregnancy, too stupid to use contraceptives to avoid unwanted pregnancies etc.) it is not the baby’s fault and the baby should not have to pay for it with their life.
The only legitimate reason I can see for abortion is if the mother and child will die if the pregnancy continues (like those pregnancies that form in the filopian tubes or when the woman needs therapy for cancer that would kill the baby, to save her life etc.) in those kinds of cases it is right to preserve the life of the mother especially if the pregnancy will not result in a live baby anyway and the mother will die if the pregnancy continues.
March 19th, 2006 at at 1:56 pm
To sound cold and heartless for a second:
You cannot regret NONEXSISTANCE. If your product-of-a-rape friend had been aborted, s/he would not be here to be grateful, now would s/he?
If my parents wouldn’t have had sex, I wouldn’t have exsisted either. If my mom’s doctor would have been less stupid, they might have used birth control I wouldn’t have exsisted. If she would have been in a state that allowed abortion, she might have not been able to not endanger her health.
I’m okay with the fact that my exsistence is the result of a lot of random chance. I’m here, feeling life, because of choices that were NOT in my control.
Oh, and by the way, a “fetus baby” is a contridiction, by definition. A “Baby” is born. A “fetus” is gestating.
Pregnancy should not be a punishment. Inflicting it on an unwilling woman is cruel and sadistic.
March 20th, 2006 at at 7:38 am
All these eggs that i lose one per cycle, should I give birth to all of them, SS? They would be grateful I guess, when they become adult humans. I guess man are even more cruel. They KILL millions of potential babies, every day.
March 20th, 2006 at at 9:04 am
All these eggs that i lose one per cycle, should I give birth to all of them, SS?
You’re not making a monthly donation at the egg bank?
You’re gonna burn, sister.
March 25th, 2006 at at 10:26 am
Jean Meslier was a 17th century French priest who was also an atheist — indeed, his whose monumental diatribe against theism and superstition, “Mon Testament,” was the first coherent and unmbiguous atheist philosophical system. Much admired by
19th century American intellectuals — his work went through several editions back then — Meslier is virtually forgotten here today.
The brilliant youg French philosopher and prolific author Michel Onfray has written a must-read essay on Meslier in the current issue of the excellent quarterly review New Politics (Number 40). Onfray on Meslier is the first synthesis of
Meslier’s work by a world-class intellectual to appear since Voltaire’s. I
have written for New Politics an introduction to both Onfray’s important
essay and to Meslier. You can read my introduction — and find the link to
Onfray’s essay on Meslier in English — by clicking on:
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/michel_onfray_o.html
I do hope you will help publicize Onfray’s important essay on Meslier.
Yours,
Doug Ireland
That translation of Onfray’s essay into English is brutal! It looks like it was done by a machine and is really hard to get through.
March 26th, 2006 at at 1:41 pm
I’ve heard, on Air America radio, that there might possibly be an exception to the law: if a virginal xtian gets pregnant - because she would be “really” harmed. AAARRRGGG!!!
On the positive side: the president (a woman, and, I believe, a nurse) of the local “Indian” tribe has threatened to open a clinic on their land. What a woman! If my computer wasn’t so screwed up, I’d be able to provide a link, but I can’t find it. I miss Excel!!!
March 27th, 2006 at at 5:48 am
All these eggs that i lose one per cycle, should I give birth to all of them, SS?
You’re not making a monthly donation at the egg bank?
You’re gonna burn, sister.
Is it killing a life not to fertilise an egg? If you think so then I am clearly in disagreement with you. But if you are irresponsible to take contraceptives and make a baby and then expect the baby to die for your lazyness then shame on you! If you are raped or going to die because of the pregnancy, ok I can accept you may not be able to go through with a pregnancy (though my friends mother who was raped did go through with the pregnancy and adoption for which my friend is grateful to be alive because of that decision).
March 27th, 2006 at at 6:01 am
Antigone says:
“Oh, and by the way, a “fetus baby” is a contridiction, by definition. A “Baby” is born. A “fetus” is gestation”
Apparently, a fetus is so formed at 4 months of pregnancy they can actually save a premature baby at 4 months with help. Do you know what this means? It means “late term” abortions which many American abortion clinics do up to three month are actually ripping apart legs and arms and heads and organs of a real baby person (they find the bits) the fetal baby obviously feels the pain and fear of this destructive ripping apart but can’t say anything because they have no voice, no understanding of language, and cannot defend themselves from this horrible, brutal death sentence. Sorry I don’t agree with you, to me this can’t get any wrong, it is hurting and killing the most vulnerable and defenseless human being on this earth (a fetal baby) Yes A BABY AT 4 MONTHS FULLY FORMED ENOUGH FOR A HOSPITAL TO SAVED (HALF FORMED, FULLY FORMED WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? THE BABY SUFFER AND ITS RIGHTS ARE DENIED!)