The Conservative War On Women

SixteenBlue wrote:

Are you reading what I'm saying? I said they're NOT pushing back. Because you don't push back against your own party.

But if you want evidence of reasonable conservatives, look at GWJ.

I doubt most of the reasonable conservatives on this forum would self-identify as Republicans any longer and that's kinda the point. The party has left them behind as it lurched right.

The party has left them behind as it lurched right.

Lurched into schizophrenic fantasy, more like.

Conservatism is one thing, but denying that facts are facts.... believing that there can be a 'liberal reality' and a 'conservative reality', is not sane behavior.

Romney's policy flow chart for women!

I actually put this in the election thread, but now think it might deserve a place here instead. Funny though, for sure.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

You can parse this until the end of time and there are only three options here: God intended for a woman to get raped, God intended for a woman to get raped and impregnated by her attacker, or God intended for a woman to get impregnated from a rape.

Well, those who think that everything is a part of God's plan are going to believe that God allows bad things to happen for a good reason. That has to include rape, I suppose.

And given that, I think his statement is the only logical outcome for a person who honestly believes that life begins at conception. I read it not as 'God was in favor of the rape', but as 'even in something as horrible as a rape, something good can result'.

Obviously, most people (including myself) would not see this as a good result, but for those who say they treasure life, the pregnancy is a positive (at least potentially), not a negative. I've been seeing this philosophy from some of my Facebook friends recently, where they've posted pictures of people who were born from rape pregnancies, with testimony of how happy those people were that they were conceived and not aborted. So, while I don't agree with his statement, I can sort of understand where he's coming from.

SixteenBlue wrote:

But if you want evidence of reasonable conservatives, look at GWJ.

I think he was looking for reasonable conservative Christians, not conservatives in general. Not sure there are many conservative Christians on GWJ, at least not in this particular subforum. And given that most conservative Christians are Biblical literalists (or close to it), I suspect most here would say it's not possible to be a reasonable conservative Christian without severe compartmentalism

Saw this on another forum, and I thought it was relevant to the discussion.
IMAGE(http://i48.tinypic.com/i4pbmo.jpg)

There's a difference between fundamentalist Christians and conservative Christians. The former are the people who are Bibilical literalists. The latter are conservatives who are also Christians, and they may be quite moderate Christians. I'm pretty sure we have some of the latter.

Crispus wrote:

I think he was looking for reasonable conservative Christians, not conservatives in general. Not sure there are many conservative Christians on GWJ, at least not in this particular subforum. And given that most conservative Christians are Biblical literalists (or close to it), I suspect most here would say it's not possible to be a reasonable conservative Christian without severe compartmentalism

We've got conservative Christians here too. In this thread even.

Demyx wrote:

There's a difference between fundamentalist Christians and conservative Christians. The former are the people who are Bibilical literalists. The latter are conservatives who are also Christians, and they may be quite moderate Christians. I'm pretty sure we have some of the latter.

Yeah, we do. I guess when I've historically seen the phrase "conservative Christian", the word 'conservative' was always used to describe the religious beliefs, not that the person was a conservative who was a Christian (with whatever beliefs). So, maybe a misreading on my part.

It can be confusing. That's why I usually don't identify that way. I use terms like "Roosevelt Republican" instead. And I'm not even getting into the myriad flavors of Christian there are. I have no doubt I'm a heathen according to some, and a bun-wearing Bible-thumper to others. We're not all of a piece.

Crispus wrote:

Well, those who think that everything is a part of God's plan are going to believe that God allows bad things to happen for a good reason. That has to include rape, I suppose.

And given that, I think his statement is the only logical outcome for a person who honestly believes that life begins at conception. I read it not as 'God was in favor of the rape', but as 'even in something as horrible as a rape, something good can result'.

How can you not read it as "god was in favor of the rape"?

If god "intended" for the women to get pregnant from rape, then god "intended" that she get raped and, it follows logically, that he "intended" that some man rape her. Ergo, god was totes OK with the woman getting raped. In fact, he was more than OK with it. It was his will.

Once people claim everything is part of god's plan then they also have to admit that horrible things happen because god explicitly wants horrible things to happen (i.e., he's a dick). And they also have to admit that we have no free will and we're just along for the ride.

Crispus wrote:

I think he was looking for reasonable conservative Christians, not conservatives in general. Not sure there are many conservative Christians on GWJ, at least not in this particular subforum. And given that most conservative Christians are Biblical literalists (or close to it), I suspect most here would say it's not possible to be a reasonable conservative Christian without severe compartmentalism.

No, I was just looking for reasonable conservatives. The Christian part is assumed considering evangelicals only make up about a quarter of the US population and yet fully half of Republican voters in 2008 said they were evangelicals. It only gets worse when you look at the demographics of the GOP's new center of power, the Tea Partiers. 75% of them identify as "conservative Christians."

A former highschool classmate of mine who is now a pastor of a charismatic evangelical church posts political stuff on Facebook constantly. From those postings I've interpreted his position on the whole rape/pregnancy position to be this. Everything happens for a reason, yes the rape is horrible and the person who did it should be punished. Ending a pregnancy that may result from said rape is an even greater tragedy than the rape itself. Often times good things can result from horrible situations and we simply can't see it at the time. Maybe the child that was conceived from rape grows up to be the next Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr, maybe the woman comes through the trauma with a greater internal strength and appreciation for life, maybe she goes on to help other women who have suffered from rape or abuse, etc. Recently he posted a cartoon of someone raving at the sky asking how God could let his people suffer, why there was war, crime, drugs, murder, disease, etc. The God in the cloud says "Well, I sent you leaders who could have prevented war and scientists who could have cured the diseases but you aborted them all."

It just seems like all he can see is the great shining possibilities that an abortion, no matter the circumstances, might be denying. He even used to argue similiar things to this 20 years ago when we were in higschool. In his mind if 1 out of every 1,000,000 children who would have otherwise been aborted turns out to do amazing things in this world then it's worth it. He just doesn't seem to consider the possibility that tons of other kids may have horrible lives filled with suffering and abuse because they weren't wanted, their mothers died in birth, they were never adopted or who were born with debilitating medical conditions. In his view the "gift of life" trumps all. As long as they're alive they have the possibility of finding God or doing good and that's all that matters.

And how many women might have changed the world if it weren't for the intense commitment of raising a child they didn't want?

How many mass murderers, entitled and greedy aristocrats, and psychopaths has abortion saved us from?

The God in the cloud says "Well, I sent you leaders who could have prevented war and scientists who could have cured the diseases but you aborted them all."

I like it how God loves to take credit for all the good things.

fangblackbone wrote:

How many mass murderers, entitled and greedy aristocrats, and psychopaths has abortion saved us from?

Bingo, motherf***er. Turnabout is fair play, right?

Kehama wrote:

He just doesn't seem to consider the possibility that tons of other kids may have horrible lives filled with suffering and abuse because they weren't wanted, their mothers died in birth, they were never adopted or who were born with debilitating medical conditions. In his view the "gift of life" trumps all. As long as they're alive they have the possibility of finding God or doing good and that's all that matters.

Yeah, but his God wanted them to suffer. It's His plan. Ergo, his God is big fan of abusive childhoods. Yay.

Kehama wrote:

Recently he posted a cartoon of someone raving at the sky asking how God could let his people suffer, why there was war, crime, drugs, murder, disease, etc. The God in the cloud says "Well, I sent you leaders who could have prevented war and scientists who could have cured the diseases but you aborted them all."

For a supposedly omniscient overbeing, his God sucks balls at picking which wombs to seed with leaders and scientists.

Demyx wrote:

And how many women might have changed the world if it weren't for the intense commitment of raising a child they didn't want?

But women are only for birthin' babies, not changing the world. Their male babies will change the world.

Whoa. Scalzi just pulled out the big guns.

WARNING: this post is going to be oh-so-very-triggery for victims of rape and sexual assault. I am not kidding.

A Fan Letter to Certain Conservative Politicians

That was horrifying.

Worth using for my semi-annual Facebook status post? Worth using for my semi-annual Facebook status post.

Seth wrote:

That was horrifying.

Which is the point.

While I'm not a huge fan of Scalzi, he's really hitting it out of the park here. It should be horrific.

Yeah, sorry, I had to walk away for a bit. I realize what he's doing and I even realize the importance of the tone, but. Holy sh*t.

Seth wrote:

That was horrifying.

And true.

Really, shouldn't they just change their name to the Rapeublican party already?

While he makes an amazing point and writes it well, I have a hard time reading when the author is so condescending. I know that works for many people, but no matter what the subject I find myself wanting to roll my eyes.

The Conformist wrote:

While he makes an amazing point and writes it well, I have a hard time reading when the author is so condescending. I know that works for many people, but no matter what the subject I find myself wanting to roll my eyes.

At what point was he being condescending? Is it in the comments? Because at no point in the article is the author's voice being condescending. He's being alarmist and disgusting and graphic and brutal, but condescending is the *last* thing he's being.

Seth wrote:
The Conformist wrote:

While he makes an amazing point and writes it well, I have a hard time reading when the author is so condescending. I know that works for many people, but no matter what the subject I find myself wanting to roll my eyes.

At what point was he being condescending? Is it in the comments? Because at no point in the article is the author's voice being condescending. He's being alarmist and disgusting and graphic and brutal, but condescending is the *last* thing he's being.

By having a sarcastic theme while portraying a thankful rapist just seems over the top, I took it as him being condescending to those who simply do not agree with his (and many others) views. While I completely agree with his message, I just don't like how it was presented.

IMAGE(http://techredible.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/You-keep-using-that-word1-300x252.jpg)

SpacePPoliceman's picture is spot on. Scalzi is using satire, meaning he's being sarcastic and mocking. This would be my best example of condescension:

Condescending Seth wrote:

Dear Mr Akin:

Obviously your time in office as a big science man has caused you to miss some things about the real world, so let me break it down into small, easy to digest chunks for you. Lady parts are not magical! They cannot ward off bad semen! When a man puts his thingy wingy inside a woman's coochie woochie, she does not have a No Baby Button.

So when you said "legitimate rape," did you mean "where's my binky?"

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

IMAGE(http://techredible.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/You-keep-using-that-word1-300x252.jpg)

Hah, I'm very aware of my choice of words. Perhaps patronizing would work for you?

The Conformist wrote:

Hah, I'm very aware of my choice of words. Perhaps patronizing would work for you?

No, because it's not patronizing either. You want "shocking and insulting," which is the point, of course.