The Conservative War On Women

Mystic Violet wrote:

So, uh, this just hit my Twitter feed:

Justice delays health law's birth control mandate.

Oh hell. Why can't people accept that these are large employers with no right to force their religion on their employees.

I'm really surprised that it was Sotomayor that put the breaks on this. She had, up till now at least, struck me as one of the more "mainstream" "middle of the road" justices.

Well, from a link in the gay rights thread, if Sotomayor said 'no', then apparently they'd be able to approach any other justice they wanted. Scalia would have granted it for sure, so she's probably just making things more efficient for everyone.

Malor: I think you may have me confused for this person:

No, actually, I didn't.

Now, I may be confusing you for a person who believes this: it is okay to force a woman to have a child, but not to give blood to save that child's life after it's born, because she did something wrong, and she's responsible for that new life. She is ethically required to bring it into existence. She had her fun, and now she has to pay the price.

If I'm not correct about this, then a nice clear answer about exactly why it's okay to force a woman to have a child, but not to donate blood to save its life five minutes after it's born, would be appreciated.

Otherwise, I'm going to lump you into 'she sinned' camp.

Malor wrote:
Malor: I think you may have me confused for this person:

No, actually, I didn't.

Now, I may be confusing you for a person who believes this: it is okay to force a woman to have a child, but not to give blood to save that child's life after it's born, because she did something wrong, and she's responsible for that new life. She is ethically required to bring it into existence. She had her fun, and now she has to pay the price.

If I'm not correct about this, then a nice clear answer about exactly why it's okay to force a woman to have a child, but not to donate blood to save its life five minutes after it's born, would be appreciated.

Otherwise, I'm going to lump you into 'she sinned' camp.

You can lump all you like sir, on the outside chance I'm not lumped already. Not much I can do to stop you, and a Malor lumpification doesn't carry many consequences in the real world.

I'm not in favor of forcing women to get pregnant. I am also not in favor of her killing the baby that is alive inside of her. The "wrongness" of killing a living tiny human has nothing to do with the way it was conceived. If that were the case then any abortion performed within the confines of a marriage should be A-OK with all these so called "slut shamers" you speak of, right? No "sin" was committed in the creation of that baby so aborting it should be no problem. Obviously that is not the case. This seems to totally shred the argument that the main concern for pro-life groups is punishment. There are other sources for blood. Arguing with hypothetical situations is not a strong position. Even so I know this is going to lead to more hypotheticals so here are the next 2 I have a feeling you mind ask about.

The issue of rape. A baby conceived in a rape did not choose his/her parents, but can go on to live a great life with a loving family. How is it fair that a child is killed for the crime of one of its parents? The woman did nothing wrong, but she is not being punished by keeping her from killing the baby. She obviously needs a huge amount of help and support emotionally, physically, financially, and in other ways. I'm sure most of you will disagree, but I am most definitely not talking about forcing her to carry a baby and leaving her out in the cold.

Incest is another matter. Keep in mind, both of these things are horrible crimes, perpetrated by scumbags, that leave lasting scars that are not just physical. I would hope the first step would have already been the rescue of the girl from the pedophile. This type of situation would be handled on a case by case basis. Factors would include things like danger to the girl's life due to age and size. Killing a young girl is no better than killing an unborn baby.

Important note: Aborting a baby that is already dead (died naturally) is not something that I have a problem with. I have seen this come up recently on some of the more sketchy abortion controversy websites I've had to peruse while gathering data for my harsh taskmasters some of you guys.

Incest is another matter. Keep in mind, both of these things are horrible crimes, perpetrated by scumbags, that leave lasting scars that are not just physical. I would hope the first step would have already been the rescue of the girl from the pedophile. This type of situation would be handled on a case by case basis. Factors would include things like danger to the girl's life due to age and size. Killing a young girl is no better than killing an unborn baby.

So Norman. You're saying that a healthy woman that is physically capable of having a child should be forced to have a child from incest?

This thread isn't stabilizing and moving on from the abortion thing. It's pretty long and meandering at this point too. I'm going to lock it up, start new threads on specific things as you like.