Kirsten Powers
Bio
Blog Index RSS
03.08.2006
South Dakota Republican Sicko on What Constitutes Rape (13 comments )
READ MORE: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006, New York Times
As Huffington Post readers know, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. So what does "almost all abortions" mean? The ban allows an exception for the life of the mother (how generous!) and Sen. Bill Napoli (R-Rapid City) has explained that rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause.
Prepare to be disgusted by what follows. Napoli explained what kind of rape would justify an abortion. From the transcript of an interview on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
So, what about a non-religious woman who was raped? Or a non-virgin? And more importantly, who is this sicko?
And really, what does it matter if you believe that abortion is murder â as anti-choice people do -- whether the woman was raped or molested? Is Napoli saying that it's ok to "murder" a "baby" if the father is a rapist? What did that "baby" do to deserve to be "murdered"?
Democrats and the media too often accept Republicans who try to seem reasonable (I'm not including Napoli here) by saying that they don't like abortion but would make an exception in the case of rape or incest. By saying that, they are de facto admitting that abortion is not murder OR they are saying that they condone murder in certain cases where women become pregnant. There is no other way to interpret it.
The only consistent position is the one that most Democrats hold: abortion is not murder; a cluster of cells is not a baby. From there you can set limits that are consistent as the embryo develops into a fetus and then a baby. So, abortion may be palatable to you in the first two months, but not the third or later. You may oppose abortion all together, but support the morning after pill that merely prevents the egg from implanting. Or you may think that until the fetus is viable it is not a life and therefore any abortion is not murder.
But to say as conservatives do that abortion is indisputably murder from the moment of conception, and then make an exception for certain cases is blatant hypocrisy and we should call them on it every time. They should not be allowed to take this "nuanced" position to attempt to seem reasonable to voters. They either believe its murder or they don't. I'd like to know where each of them stands.
www.kpblog.com
Bio
Blog Index RSS
03.08.2006
South Dakota Republican Sicko on What Constitutes Rape (13 comments )
READ MORE: Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 2006, New York Times
As Huffington Post readers know, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed legislation banning almost all abortions in South Dakota. So what does "almost all abortions" mean? The ban allows an exception for the life of the mother (how generous!) and Sen. Bill Napoli (R-Rapid City) has explained that rape and incest could be exceptions under the "life" clause.
Prepare to be disgusted by what follows. Napoli explained what kind of rape would justify an abortion. From the transcript of an interview on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer:
"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."
So, what about a non-religious woman who was raped? Or a non-virgin? And more importantly, who is this sicko?
And really, what does it matter if you believe that abortion is murder â as anti-choice people do -- whether the woman was raped or molested? Is Napoli saying that it's ok to "murder" a "baby" if the father is a rapist? What did that "baby" do to deserve to be "murdered"?
Democrats and the media too often accept Republicans who try to seem reasonable (I'm not including Napoli here) by saying that they don't like abortion but would make an exception in the case of rape or incest. By saying that, they are de facto admitting that abortion is not murder OR they are saying that they condone murder in certain cases where women become pregnant. There is no other way to interpret it.
The only consistent position is the one that most Democrats hold: abortion is not murder; a cluster of cells is not a baby. From there you can set limits that are consistent as the embryo develops into a fetus and then a baby. So, abortion may be palatable to you in the first two months, but not the third or later. You may oppose abortion all together, but support the morning after pill that merely prevents the egg from implanting. Or you may think that until the fetus is viable it is not a life and therefore any abortion is not murder.
But to say as conservatives do that abortion is indisputably murder from the moment of conception, and then make an exception for certain cases is blatant hypocrisy and we should call them on it every time. They should not be allowed to take this "nuanced" position to attempt to seem reasonable to voters. They either believe its murder or they don't. I'd like to know where each of them stands.
www.kpblog.com