Tuesday, August 21, 2012

You can't have it both ways

Romney's position that abortion is only OK in instances of rape doesn't stand up philosophically with "Abortion is murder". Anyone who says it's murder and should therefore be illegal, cannot make the claim that is OK in rape or incest. It is either, philosophically always OK or never OK. The physiology of the fetus does not change from human to non-human depending upon the morality of the woman, whether or not she was "asking for it." If it is a question of when life begins, if it is ever OK (the fetus is not human yet) then it is always OK, if it is ever *not* OK, (the fetus *is* human) it is never OK. How the woman became pregnant should HAVE NO BEARING on whether or not she should be allowed to have an abortion, if you have rendered abortion illegal because your concern is preventing murder.

Also: How do you enforce a law that allows exceptions for rape? Can she have an abortion AS SOON AS she says she was raped? Does she have to have a hearing first to determine the likely hood she was raped? Does she have to wait until there is a CONVICTION? With how long the courts take to determine guilt or innocence, there could be a 2 to 3 year old child before the case has concluded. What if abortions are allowed as soon as a woman says she was raped, no investigation necessary? What if after the abortion, the suspect is acquitted? Will she then be able to be prosecuted for illegal abortion?

Because of these logistical problems, abortion only in the case of rape is an unenforceable law under the current legal system. Not that it matters. Because anyone who feels abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape, is a sexist interested in oppressing women, not an advocate for preventing murder. Because the fetus inside a rape victim is the same, scientifically speaking as the fetus inside any other woman, and if life has begun for one, it has begun for the other.

Monday, August 20, 2012

They *all* want him dead.

The Akin story? Too convenient. My theory: They crunched the numbers saw that Akin couldn't win, then told him how he could serve the interests of the party. Make sloppy remarks about "legitimate" rape, so that Obama can smack him down, so even Republicans can shake their heads, so it can lead the news tonight, and the idea that "rape is rape" (-Obama) can be rattling around in all y'alls heads the next time you hear about the Julian Assange situation. Not because he raped anyone. But because they need progressives to BELIEVE he did, or even just doubt him enough, in order that we will silently consent to him being dragged to his death for daring to practice ACTUAL JOURNALISM. Republicrats ALL WANT HIS HEAD ON A PLATTER. Do not doubt this kind of collusion.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

BBC hacks cry at night with jealousy over WikiLeaks actual journalism

BBC you, vile imperialist Establishment lap dog you can kiss my ass. I tuned in at the top of the hour "news" broadcast last hour. They played less than 5 seconds of what Julian Assange actually said, then had the anchor speak for *10 minutes* to some smug hack "expert" who doubtless never put himself in any real danger for a story in his LIFE. "I don't know what he is doing talking to Obama, the President he would *never* do the the things the is alleging." And "I wasn't there, bust I *wonder* if all the police he mentioned, were there because of the protesters" (HA! I saw the livestream, LIVE. The army of police arrived at midnight local time. THERE WERE NO PROTESTERS YET. Dissembling HACK! Either you are completely ignorant of the subject you have been hired to discuss as an "expert", or you are utterly deceitful, and shame on BBC for employing EITHER.) Then the anchor asks, (incredulously!), "Why would he associate himself with *Pussy Riot*?" HACK: "I suppose he considers himself to be of the same caliber as Pussy Riot" WTF? He exposed actual evidence of actual crimes of the elite at great personal peril. They performed ONE SONG. Brave, yes, but hardly required the kind of coordination and forethought and understanding of the laws that Wikileaks and Julian Assange's work does. BBC long ago whored itself out to the will of the ruling class. And this is where you all are getting your reports about Syria. Think about that. They are so biased, they twist every fact they can to serve the interests of the western elite. They are not to be trusted to serve the public interest. (TURN OFF BBC. They are lying to you, daily.)