Posted by: kevinfortruth | October 11, 2012

Rape is secondary to Republicans – the real issue is Abortion, Abortion, Abortion.

Republicans are trying to take the moral high ground but it doesn’t seem to be working.  They want to be seen as religious while bashing Democrats as being immoral.

All the rhetoric about redefining “Rape” is just so Republicans can push forward their agenda on Abortion and Personhood.

In November 2011, in Mississippi, voters defeated an extreme personhood ballot measure by 16 points.

This measure defined a person at the point of “conception”.  That means that a woman would not even be able to know she was pregnant – even though conception has occurred.

That would also mean that if a woman used a morning after pill, she would be killing an unborn child – an actual human – if the Mississippi bill also was adopted by Congress and passed.

Republicans also want to do with any form of contraception – pills, IUD’s, or any other protection available commercially at pharmacies.

So, why don’t Republicans also propose laws that would outlaw alcohol?  How about outlawing stores like Victoria’s Secret and Frederick’s of Hollywood, and Pampered Passions?

It makes sense to me – if Republicans want to make sure there will be no abortions, why not do everything to minimize sex – take away the allure – pass a bill banning suggestive intimate apparel and also outlaw alcohol and aphrodisiacs and perfumes containing pheromones.

Soft pornography could also be outlawed – take away all temptation.  Women tend not to be turned on by pornography like men are – but ban all kinds of pornography just in case, God forbid, a woman gets turned on enough to seduce a man while getting pregnant in the process.

The part of the issue regarding abortion I take strong exception to is when the life and safety of the mother is an issue.

There have been cases reported where a mother’s life has been in danger and Republicans would rather see a mother die while pregnant – in lieu of terminating the pregnancy so the mother could live and take care of children she might already have.

I would like to pose a question to Mitt Romney.

Mr. Romney, you and your wife, Ann, have 5 children – all boys. Let’s turn back the clock to when you and your wife were expecting your first son.  What would you and your wife have decided if your wife’s doctor said that she had serious complications with her first pregnancy that if her pregnancy was allowed to continue there would be a high degree of likelihood that she would die before the baby going full term?

If Ann died, in let’s say, the 5th month, not only would she have died, but your first son would have died as well.

On a side note, Ann would not have been around to give birth to your other four sons.

How different would your life be now without Ann and your five sons?  Yep, you betcha – it would be different – significantly different.

On the other hand, if you and Ann made the decision to terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, there would have been a high degree of likelihood that Ann would be around and would have had a chance to give birth to four of your sons.

My opinion is this – by choosing to force your wife to continue carrying her first child – ultimately causing the death of both mother and child, you would have also eliminated the possibility of your other sons being born.

I would not be able to live with myself knowing I personally caused the death of my wife and unborn child, as well as eliminating the possibility of more children to come.

Republicans are trying to take the place of God by giving more consideration to a “potential” child before that child is even able to exist on its own.  Late term abortions are discouraged because unborn children at that point in the pregnancy are able to survive if induced.  The same surely is not true at point of conception.

I also believe it is an insult to choose a child, at the point of conception, over the mother.  Whether a woman has voluntary sex or has been raped, that woman has the right to choose to take a morning after pill the next morning to insure an unwanted pregnancy will not occur.

I am not Pro-Life any more than I am Anti-Abortion – I am Pro-Choice because the choice belongs to the woman – and not a group of narrow minded self-serving, egotistical politicians.

Women are more than intellectually capable and morally sound  to make their own decisions and no politician should be able to fill in for God by forcing women to become subservient to politics when determining the fate of their own lives.

One good thing, however, is that by Mitt blowing off the chance of his wife living to conceive again, there will be other women willing to line up to marry Mitt and provide him with children he so richly deserves.

One last thing – maybe instead of requiring that women view an ultrasound prior to being allowed to have an early abortion, the government could pass legislation requiring all men to view ten minutes of previously recorded ultrasounds so they can see what they are about to create – or would that be considered to be a “pre-conception” abortion?


Comments appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: