(no subject)

[quidditchgrrl]

Those lovely douchebags in North Dakota. Here's what state senator Bill Napoli says about possible rape exceptions for the abortion ban:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

(Meaning: unless you're a born-again virgin, you deserve to be raped, for once you've surrendered your maidenhead, it's a free-for-all)

Ah, but we do have a means of exacting a little revenge on Mr. Napoli (legally, I mean. I would really like to shoot this guy's...well, I'm sure you already have your plans a-brewin')

A suggestion from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books:

I’m thinking we should do to Napoli what Dan Savage did to Rick Santorum. The nifty thing is, Napoli himself has provided an excellent definition. I propose the following entry be entered into the lexicon:

napoli (not to be confused with the proper noun, which indicates the Italian city)
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): napolied
Pronunciation: nA’poli

1. To brutalize and rape, sodomize as bad as you can possibly make it, a young, religious virgin woman who was saving herself for marriage. 2. To hella rape somebody.

Etymology: From State Senator Bill Napoli’s (R-SD) words on an acceptable description of rape that would merit an exemption from South Dakota’s abortion ban.

Time for google-bombing: Bill Napoli

Comments

[bana05.livejournal.com]

Politically, I'm pro-Choice. I'm all for a woman to choose. Personally, I'm pro-Life. I don't think I could ever go through an abortion, but that doesn't mean I think the option shouldn't be avialable. Abortion happens all the time--whether intentional or not--I'm just saying if you're going to be pro-Life, really be pro-Life, or else your position is weak to me.

And it's not even for pre-marital sex. What about the married women who don't want kids or who can't afford them? Same thing.

[tik2roo.livejournal.com]

*heddesk* I shoulda known. Then you are just a reasonable, thoughtful person who can see both sides.

You are absolutely correct in everything you say. :)

I also admire the Pope for his pro-life stance. He is also against the Death Penalty, which truly makes him Pro-Life.

You don't hear the religious anti-abortionists talking much about married women who don't want kids. Even if they do, married women are supposed to hear the same message. The answer to the question within the issue goes right back to the same thing: Accept what god gives you or keep your legs shut.

In the case of rape and incest, a woman doesn't have a choice in the matter. That's why the religionists can allow the exceptions there.

[bana05.livejournal.com]

I'm not always correct, lol, though I do try to be fair.

Rape, there's definitely no choice--that's the very definition of the word. Incest . . . that's a bit trickier. There is such a thing as consensual incest, but we're not supposed to admit/talk about that. But either way, there's still a life involved. I know there are exception to murder such as self-defense, but that's usually against the perpetrator. This baby is anything but.

If the belief is birth begins at conception, the circumstances of said conception then become irrelevant to the allowance of an abortion, right?

I'm not saying, thus, it should be Pro-Choice, I'm just saying if you're going to be pro-Life, you have to be aware that you poke holes in the argument by making such allowances. If the pro-Life's main concern is the baby, then make it about the baby, not a moral statement about the mother, which that's what it seems like to me to be.