SD is proof that the Republicans are the pro rape party.

Think about it the Republicans want to force rape victims to carry thier attackers seed to term.
How can any sane person justify this? What the hell is happening to our country?

wives and daughters -- why else live in a gated community?

The Republican world view is that "it will never happen to me/us, because we will take care." This has always seemed pretty ridiculous to me. If something really bad, like a replay of the Los Angeles riots, breaks out -- because the little people have been pushed too hard for too long, and can no longer feed their children and pay for food -- does anybody really think Palos Verdes hill will be safe? Or that a few wrought iron gates will stop the mob?

This is Republican arrogance. Use the power of the state to keep the women, the poor, the workers down. When those groups are no longer useful to capital, there are the orphanages and breeding farms.

I for one would relish it if the repigs had to live off minimum wage, and or disabilty pay for a change.

Gates and walls are a tactical advantage in a shootout. That can be overcome but, gangs don't tend to own Mexican artillery so I don't expect Alamo type situations.

Note that hills are also a tactical advantage. Where do you think they learned how to do this? Places like Haiti. They are the result of real-life experience. Arrogant, perhaps. Stupid, not really.

Women are crap in their world.

How very sick.

and put themselves into dangerous situations, they deserve to be raped.

:eyes:

This is a very poor, uneducated state, and now their kids are leaving in droves. When Senator Dashal was their it was much better.

at www.state.sd.us

Idaho government tried taking away women's rights to their own body in the 90's but our democratic governor vetoed it. A national threat of boycotting Idaho potatoes was a factor.

South Dakota is heavily dependent on tourists dollars. Let them know how inclined you are to visit there.

I have gone, on record, as stating I will not pay one cent in taxes, if they wish to treat women as second class citizens and as only incubators and receptacles.

The Rapists' Reproductive Rights Act of 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=3294&mesg_id=3357

And this can be the result:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=217&topic_id=3294&mesg_id=3359

Tell it like it is. Thanks for the links.

I've often said that, myself - or at least, a version of it. The republi-CONS are the body-snatcher party (women's bodies in particular). They want to insert themselves and the power and weight and ferocity of the federal government into women's wombs. Where I come from, forcible entry into a woman's womb is rape. VERY SIMPLE. And that's what this is. That's what they are. No doubt about it. And I'm not afraid to say so, either.

Taxation without representation. This bill could have come directly out of the Taliban.

way they can with the abortion issue and in many other ways.

If the state is going to force women to bear a rapist's child, then the rapist, rather than having parental rights (!) should also suffer mental and physical abuse, just as the woman will surely suffer....his penis should be cut off.

Why the hell not??

Bottom line is we have to REFIGHT this fight, just the way we fought it to gain our rights. We have to re-RADICALIZE. Enough polite, legal crap. The other side is CRUEL and Radical.
We have to ratchet up the rhetoric and speak in terms that will get people stirred up....ABUSE, RAPE...face it, it's true and it should be spoken in those terms.

Because if it goes back to states, when the jackasses start running on taxes, security, or where to put the new high school, people won't care about abortion. It's like the environment...important, but not a determining factor in elections. So, we have to raise hell and make a very big stink!!!! We have to make it real, in terms of the little girls being raised today....their safety, etc.

I have only flown over Mt.Rushmore. I won't visit as long as their anti woman agenda exists and I expressed that.

position.

I am pro-choice, because I think a woman should have a much control as is at all possible over what happens to and inside her body.

But I understand why people who honestly believe that a fetus should have human rights oppose abortion. I don't agree with it, but I understand it.

But anyone who thinks that abortion should be outlawed except in cases of rape or incest is, in my opinion, an asshole.

If you believe a fetus should have human rights, those rights can't be abrogated depending on how the fetus came to be.* Rights exist or they don't. The position that it has rights unless it was the woman's own "fault" that it exists is completely, morally bankrupt. Once the way the fetus was conceived comes into the equation, it's just punishing people for having sex and nothing more.

*potentially, they could if the woman was in danger, because then there is a self defense thing. Like I said, I think a woman should control her own body. The position that abortion should be illegal, or illegal after "viability," unless the woman's health is threatened is, in my opinion, wrong. But it is not the assholic position that illegal except for rape or incest is.

--for interjecting some much-needed common sense--and *moral* common sense, at that--into an arena that badly, badly needs it. You are right--that "except for rape and incest" position is indeed another way of saying that women who have sex voluntarily "deserve" to be punished. But what does it say about our country--that something so basic generally goes entirely unnoticed and unexamined by most people? Maybe we shouldn't answer that question...

The only exception is if the woman's LIFE is in danger... Yep, not even an exception for her health being at risk.

I wonder if the life exception would apply if the rape victim repeatedly threw herself from the stairwell in an attempt to self abort the fetus?

murder.

These people are really weird.

Bad joke - just trying to lighten things up abit :D

and they vote and pay taxes.

I can't wrap my mind around that one. How can they lie and say that there pro life when once you are born you are own. They are pro embryo and nothing else.

Then they throw them out with the bath water.

would it be a less horrible bill if it allowed for abortion only in cases of rape or incest?

Kinda, because it would be very cruel to force a woman to carry and give birth to the child of someone who raped her.

But, kinda not, because 1) it's cruel to force any woman to go through with any pregnancy that she doesn't want to go through with and 2) it is cruel to make a woman go through with an unwanted pregnancy as punishment for having sex

Some people seem to view the rape and incest exception as some sort of compromise, and I understand that appealing to the fact that the bill doesn't allow that may be an effective way to get people against it.

But, the bill really wouldn't be any less horrible if it did allow for the exception. It would just be horrible, judgmental and hypocritical.

only so long as it's not the woman whose body it is making the choice.

The antis froth at the mouth if you cast them as pro-choice. They're only pro-choice if they get to choose for people they have no interaction with on a personal level. Complete strangers have the right to waltz into your life long enough to order you to do something other than what you intend because THEY DON'T LIKE YOUR REASON. Never mind that you never shared your reason and you are not under a burden of proof to complete strangers to prove that your reason is acceptable to them.

If any reason at all is acceptable, than assume it applies in every case and move on.

but how else can Republicans expect to reproduce? It's not like their blue-tinted haired ladies intend to ruin their trophy-wife figures by birthin' too many babies. And the Party has to regenerate membership somehow before the Dems get power again and slap high import taxes on blue-tinted-hair-color-for-big-hair.

According to them, women are incapable of making their own medical decisions and so the man must "control" her. SICK.

You are 100 percent correct my friend. I wonder if we can sue the SD legislature for practicing medicine without a license.

mentioned to me before.

I think it is the best description so far!

He said that a) child birth from rape doesn't happen that often, and B) if a man wants a kid that badly that it can't be wrong. Needless to say that I changed my telephone number put locks on my doors and got a 173 lb mastiff. The guys a stero typical lifer freak. Haven't talked to him since 2004.

Enabled by far right wing groups as some kind of morality issue. What twisted thinking.

He said it would be great if everyone practiced the same religion and if you disagreed with it you'd be in jail. Needless to say I wont have anything more to do with him. I am creeped out just by having someone like that in my sub divison.

thinks when enacting legislation that affects a majority of the population? They can't think in terms that great. They have demonstrated that they aren't capable of thinking out side of the box. It's all black and white for them. No grey areas, including rape and incest and they think their own won't be victims of those crimes. How naive or delusional or out and out liars, they are!

why the SC is so damn important...

I'm sure it will be challenged soon...and that may very well be THE case that either overturns or upholds Roe v Wade...

Senator's Kerry's judges choices woulda been a hell of a lot better than the chimps. Dose anyone still really think that the Democratic party is still the lesser of two evils now?

Why doesn't SD just ban women from the state so the men can be left to glory in their own greatness, free from women tempting them?

medalists in winter and champion sprinters in the summer! Can't be all bad. :sarcasm:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I was wondering if before Roe v Wade that in the case of rape that abortion was allowed?
I never hear people mention that in the old days they HAD to keep the pregnancy, i think even back then, in the case of rape abortion was allowed.

pill, but there was a procedure called a D&C, I think. Memory hazy on this one. Anyone else remember?

They are sick, and I really wonder where this will go...

My husband just said the same thing to me. He is pro-choice, but not usually so outspoken.

I told him that there are a lot of men who don't realize how hard they are going to be hit in the pocket book. We can better identify paternity than we could before Roe v. Wade. Lots of men will be paying child support without birth control and abortion. They don't understand that this will affect them, too.

That's when he said what you said. Uncanny.

For a Republican the finest meal possible is a freshly roasted baby. They want to ensure a bigger supply.

Which is the basic tenet of "pro-life" beliefs. Hell, they'd stone them if given the chance - after forcing them to give birth.

The only reason they oppose abortion is because they want to control women

... where some rapists might intentionally target Republican "anti-choice" women to be raped which would really politicize this issue of whether an exception is made for rape or not?

Don't misunderstand me. Rape in ANY instance is a horrible crime, and isn't justified by any sense of political viewpoint, no matter how justified we feel that political viewpoint might be. I certainly wouldn't want to endorse this sort of thing. But one has to wonder if someone or some group of warped individuals might get it in their mind to do this, and if that might have a side effect of having some Republican families think twice about their stance on "no exceptions" for abortion.

Just like many of us don't want to endorse racism as a reason for rejecting this U.A.E. ports deal, even though we have many other reasons for wanting that deal to fail, and do like that it is being so universally rejected as it is now (even if for some it is for the wrong reasons), we may face the same sort of feelings about such individuals that might engage in this sort of behavior, that might have the side effect of reducing Republican enthusiasm for a "no exception" rule against abortion in South Dakota.

I kind of doubt rapists are the types to get organized and 'rape for justice' or whatever. That's just messed up. And if they did, I don't think I'd have any ambivalent feelings about it.

I mean, hell, someone could just start butchering republicans, and there'd be less of them to vote--would you have conflicted feelings about that plan?

... It would be pretty twisted. But think of the opposite personality that Ann Coulter verbally puts out (though I think a lot of her bluster is just for show...)

I could see one wacko doing this though.

The difference between someone just "butdchering" Republicans, and someone raping them would be that I don't think that anyone (Republican, Democrat, or other party) would advocate as a group not treating those victims of someone trying to "butcher" them. However, in the case of Republicans, at least those in power in South Dakota now, they aren't advocating treating those that get raped properly and have abortion as an option for the victim if needed. That is the difference. That is why that sort of twisted logic might happen in some folks minds out there, as some may do these sort of things just for this very reason.

I really wouldn't like to see this happening, but given all of the other crazy things that have been happening lately, it wouldn't surprise me if it did. On the other side you have the abortion clinic bombers too, who are just as twisted.