Sluts Have No Rights
Have you ever noticed when it comes to anti-abortion legislation and activism, it's phrased with lots of heartfelt appeals to "family" and "innocent life" but take a look at the actual *result.* Especially with the two latest go-rounds hitting the news. No matter how much discussion there is of babies and innocence, the actual point of the activism and legislation is "Sluts Have No Rights."
A pregnant woman can only get pregnant one way, after all, and rhetoric about the only choice they should be given was to have or not have sex is a ha'penny a dozen on the Internet and in the news. Once the woman is pregnant, well - she "chose" to have sex (let's all take the side comments about "... not if she was raped" as a given) and thus she has to "live with the consequences" ("... even if she did plan and the birth control failed" is also a given. Not the point of this post.)
Even the faintest whiff of someone potentially having sex is dirty, bad, and slutty - that is, you may have noticed, THE main argument against mandatory vaccination against genital warts, sex education beyond "keep your knees together" and dissemination of birth control. Give girls the idea they can have sex without pregnancy or diseases, and the little tarts might just go out and do it.
A pregnant woman has, very obviously, done it.
Slut.
If you've been watching the news swirling around Lila Rose and her Planned Parenthood "sting" one thing leaps out. She's not jumping up and down screaming because PP offered abortions, even though that's supposed to be what she's most upset about. It's that she's howling that PP did something horribly illegal by offering pregnant girls and women the following services:
- doctor/patient confidentiality
- medically accurate advice
- facilitation with translation for non-English speakers
And oh yeah - in case you hadn't noticed, PP also provided legal protection to the nonexistent girls caught in a nonexistent sex ring, because no matter how much Lila denies it, it's on record that PP staff called the FBI immediately after the suspect visits.
At what point is it not morally and legally IMPERATIVE to provide those things? Oh, yeah: when it's a slutty slut slut who wants an abortion. It's just as illegal for podiatrists to break confidentiality, it's just as wrong for chiropractors to not have someone help translate, it's just as immoral to take a minor out to get a tooth extraction without parental knowledge. But nobody could possibly make sting videos out of any of that.
And now South Dakota's at it again. Leslie Unruh has been trying to outlaw all abortion for ages there, something that the electorate keeps stubbornly voting down. (I've seen someone straight-facedly ask how the women of South Dakota can be "trained to vote correctly" so the damn thing will finally go through.)
Since that keeps failing, it's up to Rep. Jensen to come up with House Bill 1171: "An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children."
Most people are calling it the "open season on abortion doctors bill," which Jensen finds utterly ridiculous. Not at all, he insists! It's for situations like "Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."
What Rep. Jensen slides right over (although the people in the comments to that article pick up pretty fast) is that the pregnancy status of a woman being beaten is pretty damned moot. She is being beaten with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. REGARDLESS OF THE REASON WHY OR WHERE THE BLOWS ARE AIMED, SHE IS BEING BEATEN. The case that prompted this (alas, there was one) involved a baseball bat, which is classified as a deadly weapon.
Which means that in America she has every right to defend herself with deadly force. It's even right there in the original wording of the South Dakota bill: Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person.
Unless, of course, the fucking bitch has been out fucking. Then, well - fuck her. Now only the baby has a right to self defense and she can only act to defend it.
Sluts have no rights.
(And this is before you factor in the "conscience" bill saying that nobody has to do anything that might tangentially be related to abortion if it's against their conscience... even if she might die. Like the woman in that Catholic hospital so in need of an abortion that even the Nun was like "yup, only one way to save that life, and she's too weak to be moved." That's right - it's possible to be *so* pro-life that you can let women die right in front of you! Sluts ain't got no rights, not even the right to their own life.)
A pregnant woman can only get pregnant one way, after all, and rhetoric about the only choice they should be given was to have or not have sex is a ha'penny a dozen on the Internet and in the news. Once the woman is pregnant, well - she "chose" to have sex (let's all take the side comments about "... not if she was raped" as a given) and thus she has to "live with the consequences" ("... even if she did plan and the birth control failed" is also a given. Not the point of this post.)
Even the faintest whiff of someone potentially having sex is dirty, bad, and slutty - that is, you may have noticed, THE main argument against mandatory vaccination against genital warts, sex education beyond "keep your knees together" and dissemination of birth control. Give girls the idea they can have sex without pregnancy or diseases, and the little tarts might just go out and do it.
A pregnant woman has, very obviously, done it.
Slut.
If you've been watching the news swirling around Lila Rose and her Planned Parenthood "sting" one thing leaps out. She's not jumping up and down screaming because PP offered abortions, even though that's supposed to be what she's most upset about. It's that she's howling that PP did something horribly illegal by offering pregnant girls and women the following services:
- doctor/patient confidentiality
- medically accurate advice
- facilitation with translation for non-English speakers
And oh yeah - in case you hadn't noticed, PP also provided legal protection to the nonexistent girls caught in a nonexistent sex ring, because no matter how much Lila denies it, it's on record that PP staff called the FBI immediately after the suspect visits.
At what point is it not morally and legally IMPERATIVE to provide those things? Oh, yeah: when it's a slutty slut slut who wants an abortion. It's just as illegal for podiatrists to break confidentiality, it's just as wrong for chiropractors to not have someone help translate, it's just as immoral to take a minor out to get a tooth extraction without parental knowledge. But nobody could possibly make sting videos out of any of that.
And now South Dakota's at it again. Leslie Unruh has been trying to outlaw all abortion for ages there, something that the electorate keeps stubbornly voting down. (I've seen someone straight-facedly ask how the women of South Dakota can be "trained to vote correctly" so the damn thing will finally go through.)
Since that keeps failing, it's up to Rep. Jensen to come up with House Bill 1171: "An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children."
Most people are calling it the "open season on abortion doctors bill," which Jensen finds utterly ridiculous. Not at all, he insists! It's for situations like "Say an ex-boyfriend who happens to be father of a baby doesn't want to pay child support for the next 18 years, and he beats on his ex-girfriend's abdomen in trying to abort her baby. If she did kill him, it would be justified. She is resisting an effort to murder her unborn child."
What Rep. Jensen slides right over (although the people in the comments to that article pick up pretty fast) is that the pregnancy status of a woman being beaten is pretty damned moot. She is being beaten with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. REGARDLESS OF THE REASON WHY OR WHERE THE BLOWS ARE AIMED, SHE IS BEING BEATEN. The case that prompted this (alas, there was one) involved a baseball bat, which is classified as a deadly weapon.
Which means that in America she has every right to defend herself with deadly force. It's even right there in the original wording of the South Dakota bill: Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person.
Unless, of course, the fucking bitch has been out fucking. Then, well - fuck her. Now only the baby has a right to self defense and she can only act to defend it.
Sluts have no rights.
(And this is before you factor in the "conscience" bill saying that nobody has to do anything that might tangentially be related to abortion if it's against their conscience... even if she might die. Like the woman in that Catholic hospital so in need of an abortion that even the Nun was like "yup, only one way to save that life, and she's too weak to be moved." That's right - it's possible to be *so* pro-life that you can let women die right in front of you! Sluts ain't got no rights, not even the right to their own life.)