Friday, October 26, 2012

I'm not politically naive. Well, maybe a little.   As a kid, I observed some nasty local politics through the eyes of my dad, including racism.  I always assumed that crap went all the way to the top in both parties. The proportion of alcoholics & womanizers among politicians appeared larger  than in the general population. I've met politicians who were barely above moronic, because one can rise through the ranks, to a certain extent, by licking stamps & tushes.  Why am I surprised at the ugly parade of sexist, racist white males either running for office as Repugs or serving as spokesmen & apologists for Mitt?  John Sununu?  Former Governor of one of the whitest states in America, New Hampshire (1.1% Black or African American), then Chief-of-Staff to President George H,W,   Bush. While in that job, more moderate New Hampshire Senator Warren Rudman bamboozled Sununu into offering David Souter as a confirmable Supreme Court nominee, the "stealth liberal." Although he was in fact a sensible centrist.

Now Sununu is suggesting Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama because he is a black man. That certainly has  something to do with it. But I don't see him endorsing Allen West. Powell has been trying for years, without covering himself in sackcloth & ashes, to somehow make up for the action that ruined his reputation: His Iraq weapons of mass destruction speech at the United Nations. He was also bamboozled, & he should have known better, but he sees some of the same "foreign policy" ideologues advising Romney that were around George W, Bush leading up to the Iraq invasion. None of them had any idea how the hell we would get out of Iraq once we shocked & awed Saddam Hussein out of power. The "game" as it turned out was to stay there as long as could, borrowing  trillions of dollars  that we transferred directly into the bank accounts of the corporate war profiteers.

John McCain was a true believer in  Iraqi WMD, & now he has the brass to criticize Powell,

Then to hear other male Repug candidates speak of women's rights as if the views of women are utterly irrelevant. Ugh.

Then to hear other male Repug candidates speak of women's rights as if the views of women are utterly irrelevant. Ugh.

As a woman who has used birth control and had an abortion, I find the current trending among Republicans on babies conceived by rape, to be vile and reprehensible. It makes my blood boil to even read and/or listen to the tirade against aborting such pregnancies, and the mockery of women when defining what constitutes a rape. Leave it to old, white men who cannot get enough of the blue pills and who want to stick their dicks into anything with a round hole, to elevate an act of violence into something akin to God-like impregnation. You'd think that Republicans are agog over rape to the extent that all women who become impregnated by said act are instead Virgin Mary's whose baby should be welcomed into this world as the next coming of Jesus himself.

The asinine commentary of these old men aside, what gets lost in the elevation of rape to genuine options for conception, is the fact that after the baby is born, legal issues become extremely problematic. Joint custody? Visitation? Co-parenting? Just uttering these words can cause a woman to self-abort a fetus rather than be forced into a non-consensual relationship for life with the rapist.

Once again, according to Republicans, men can do no harm sexually to a woman, and a woman will always be a tool for pleasure, and not a separate but equal soul, despite such origins attributed to Adam, espoused by the very same men who postulate a woman must submit to her rapist.
It's come down to this: is abortion (or a day after pill) alright only in rape, or to protect the life of the woman, or in no instances? The argument never goes to the Constitutional Right you hypothetically have, but wouldn't have in Oklahoma, Giving pharmacists the right not to sell condoms. Refusing health insurance coverage for birth control. It's appalling. Savage, misogynistic religious fanatics.
For the record, the "day after" pill is not an abortion. There is no conception, no fertilization of the egg, hence no embryo. All it does is make sure the egg and the sperm do not connect.
Post a Comment

<< Home
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?