Saturday, August 25, 2012

Germany: Abortion debate reveals intolerant GOP

PJ:  Conservatives love to point at the Chinese government and cry that they are violating freedoms, especially when families are limited to having only one child.  I have to agree with them.  The fear of citizens in that country is well documented especially when an unexpected pregnancy comes along and an innocent child suffers. 

But republicans have no problem with the government of the US denying freedom to women by forcing them to carry children even if that pregnancy was the result of a rape. Just like some of these modern day republicans,  in medival times men believed that women could not become pregnant as a result of rape.  Therefore if a rape victim was unfortunate enough to have been ovulating during the attack and had become pregnant she was deemed not raped.  Women, especially married women who had  suffered such fate would often seek out abortions since they would likely be tortured or executed for adultery if they could not pretend that their pregnancy was by their husband.  Heaven help them if at the time of their rape their husband was off raping and pilaging others at the time.  

Der Spiegel

Chaperones, Judges and Moralizers Abortion Debate Reveals Republicans' True Colors

A Commentary by Marc Pitzke
The Republican Party has come down hard on Representative Todd Akin for his incendiary comments on rape. But as the party's new platform reveals, Akin is par for the course in a GOP which has veered hard to the intolerant right.

Tough luck if you're gay, poor, an immigrant, a minority or an independently-minded woman: These retro-Republicans don't like you, don't trust you and don't want you making your own decisions. They resent government meddling in their own lives but love meddling in yours, as chaperones, judges and moralizers.

According to CNN and the New York Times, which obtained excerpts of the platform, they would outlaw abortion without exceptions for cases of incest or rape, or when the mother's life is at risk. A "Human Life Amendment" to the constitution would make sure that the states don't create loopholes.

They would also make sure that same-sex marriage never becomes reality, calling it an "assault on the foundations of our society." Again, a constitutional amendment would annul all contrary state laws and court rulings.

Read it at Der Spiegel:

No comments:

Post a Comment