I hear ya, but factually lacking policies are only plausible on a factually flawed basis. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 28/10/2012 02:18:39 PM
It is plain old rationalization, classic affirmation of the consequent. Which, of course, is not plausible at all; here we are. 
Yeah, not really. Taken as a whole, it DOES imply, as Monty Python put it, "every sperm is sacred," providing a good basis for prohibiting contraception and MALE homosexuality (and masturbation.) The closest it comes to abortion is setting an "eye for an eye" penalty if fighting men strike a pregnant woman (but that is assaulting her as much as the fetus) and condemning invaders genocidally ripping open the bellies of pregnant women (but that murders women whether or not it murders a child.)
Yes, but the naïve parochial notion kids will not have sex as long as no one tells them about it is common. Even though the most plausible reading of Genesis is that the very first two humans found out on their own.
That said, I dispute that we live in a "rape culture." We live in a SEX culture that convinces some people they are entitled to sex whether or not consensual, and encourages manipulating consent whether or not someone is competent to give it. To a great extent sex ed opposition is a reaction AGAINST that, not in support of it.
So was a Midwestern Republican congressmans reminiscence that his father warned, "some girls rape easy:" That neither glorified nor condoned rape, but cautioned against casual CONSENSUAL sex, because false rape accusations are all too real. Sometimes it is a Catch 22; young girls whose parents constantly condemn pre-marital sex are predisposed to call consensual sex rape if it is revealed (e.g. by their pregnancy.) Noting that neither condones rape nor dismisses any rape accusations: It implicitly acknowledges all rape accusations should and will be taken seriously, so the best defense against false ones is restricting sex to committed long term relationships, not shouting, "LIAR!" at a woman whose name the accused does not even know. Telling people not avoid sex is not encouraging rape.
Technically, most Republicans nominally (just not actually) support abortion to save a womans life. That is why Walshs comment is so exceptional, but even he did not TECHNICALLY say he opposes abortion to save a womans life: He said there is no such thing, so federal law should ban all abortions (EFFECTIVELY forbidding abortions to save a womans life, the factual existence of which Walsh denies.)
I agree that ignores mothers and wives "traditional" families need, but too many extreme pro-lifers are convinced no one but unwed whores want an abortion. They just, y'know, try hard not to publicly say so—until this year.
I recall no case of the bible advocating abortion to save a mothers life, so please do share. Strictly within the biblical context, marriage almost invariably had a strong (but not solely) religious element. It also frequently had a polygamous (or at least polygynous) element, but there is no legal OR religious basis for banning that. Polygamy is prohibited because of an "ick" factor evidently no longer as strong for homosexuals, which I suppose is a kind of victory for the latter.
You make a good point about the procreation motive behind bans on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. I agree that was the crux of them, but it may not be as obsolete as most suspect. In most of the West birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels, but they remain well above that level in countries that make Pat Robertson seem positively enlightened by comparison. That sets the stage for a global "culture war" dwarfing anything in US politics, one that has already begun.
I am the last person to deny anyone a good (or bad) rant.
Let me get this straight: no contraceptives (and general lack of sex education), no abortion, no same-gender marriage, a general rape-apologist attitude, and the Bible backs it all up?
Yeah, not really. Taken as a whole, it DOES imply, as Monty Python put it, "every sperm is sacred," providing a good basis for prohibiting contraception and MALE homosexuality (and masturbation.) The closest it comes to abortion is setting an "eye for an eye" penalty if fighting men strike a pregnant woman (but that is assaulting her as much as the fetus) and condemning invaders genocidally ripping open the bellies of pregnant women (but that murders women whether or not it murders a child.)
Wouldn't it seem logical that maybe teaching people about safe sex ALONG with abstinence would prevent some of these abortions you hate so much? Not just in the "unwanted" pregnancy situations, but in the rape situations as well. Taking the time to bring awareness about the rape culture we live in (and not staying silent on the issue or even ENCOURAGING it, thereby making more and more rapists think it's okay!) may just have the same effect on the number of abortions in this country.
And contraceptives? Surprise! Contraceptives tend to stop unwanted pregnancies! Imagine that!
And contraceptives? Surprise! Contraceptives tend to stop unwanted pregnancies! Imagine that!
Yes, but the naïve parochial notion kids will not have sex as long as no one tells them about it is common. Even though the most plausible reading of Genesis is that the very first two humans found out on their own.
That said, I dispute that we live in a "rape culture." We live in a SEX culture that convinces some people they are entitled to sex whether or not consensual, and encourages manipulating consent whether or not someone is competent to give it. To a great extent sex ed opposition is a reaction AGAINST that, not in support of it.
So was a Midwestern Republican congressmans reminiscence that his father warned, "some girls rape easy:" That neither glorified nor condoned rape, but cautioned against casual CONSENSUAL sex, because false rape accusations are all too real. Sometimes it is a Catch 22; young girls whose parents constantly condemn pre-marital sex are predisposed to call consensual sex rape if it is revealed (e.g. by their pregnancy.) Noting that neither condones rape nor dismisses any rape accusations: It implicitly acknowledges all rape accusations should and will be taken seriously, so the best defense against false ones is restricting sex to committed long term relationships, not shouting, "LIAR!" at a woman whose name the accused does not even know. Telling people not avoid sex is not encouraging rape.
And then, when a woman in a life-threatening situation does need an abortion, you deny her one. Even though "traditional" marriage of one man and one woman is *SO* important, and clearly every child that didn't grow up with both is doomed? You're willing to kill off the woman who may already be a mother and destroy that family (and possibly any potential life that may come from that family later)? REALLY?
Technically, most Republicans nominally (just not actually) support abortion to save a womans life. That is why Walshs comment is so exceptional, but even he did not TECHNICALLY say he opposes abortion to save a womans life: He said there is no such thing, so federal law should ban all abortions (EFFECTIVELY forbidding abortions to save a womans life, the factual existence of which Walsh denies.)
I agree that ignores mothers and wives "traditional" families need, but too many extreme pro-lifers are convinced no one but unwed whores want an abortion. They just, y'know, try hard not to publicly say so—until this year.
And, in case you haven't noticed, unlike those ancient people you look to in the Bible for how to live your life, preservation of your race is not in danger. Not only that, but you should be aware that the people the Bible is speaking about required abortions in certain circumstances and valued the mother's life over the fetus' (even in their hard-core patriarchal society where woman were essentially baby-makers). So if you're looking for your justification there in specifics, you're going to be hard pressed to truly find it. As well as your views on "traditional" marriage and its "values." The Bible is filled with first wives, second wives, concubines, slave wives and hardly any nuclear families. We have so many people, so many KIDS that need homes right now... and you won't let LGBTQ people marry because of some taken-out-of-context, often mistranslated verses of the Bible? And even though marriage (to most Biblical peoples) was strictly economic and "secular" and really had nothing to do with religion at all? Many of those LGBTQ couples would be happy to take on your "unwanted" children, and some may have their own too! And on top of that, gays and lesbians have proven to be excellent parents! But no. Wouldn't want them to one-up us in the ability to raise rape-apologist, discriminatory, close-minded children.
I recall no case of the bible advocating abortion to save a mothers life, so please do share. Strictly within the biblical context, marriage almost invariably had a strong (but not solely) religious element. It also frequently had a polygamous (or at least polygynous) element, but there is no legal OR religious basis for banning that. Polygamy is prohibited because of an "ick" factor evidently no longer as strong for homosexuals, which I suppose is a kind of victory for the latter.
You make a good point about the procreation motive behind bans on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. I agree that was the crux of them, but it may not be as obsolete as most suspect. In most of the West birth rates have fallen well below replacement levels, but they remain well above that level in countries that make Pat Robertson seem positively enlightened by comparison. That sets the stage for a global "culture war" dwarfing anything in US politics, one that has already begun.
Okay, that was a bit of a rant, but it all connects to me and just becomes one giant clusterfuck of an opinion on social issues.
I am the last person to deny anyone a good (or bad) rant.