The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

oppression / discrimination > Meet the Unconstitutional Abortion Bill That's Advancing Through the House

Comments Showing 1-4 of 4 (4 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Robert (last edited Jun 04, 2013 09:17PM) (new)

message 2: by Mark (last edited Jun 04, 2013 11:12PM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments There is NOTHING (spectacularly evil) that would NOT "advance through the House" (of Usher).

Eliminate women's suffrage? Sure, absolutely!
Reinstitute slavery? In a nanosecond!
Build concentration camps for liberals? Immediately!
Institute genocide for (non-rich) old people? (Well, we've already done that, so sure!)
Convert poor children into soylent green? Great idea!

The Republican House is an institution dominated by unspeakably, fathomlessly, viciously evil monsters of Nazi-vintage depravity. And redistricting and voter suppression will keep it that way forever. Monde sans fin.

Honestly, I don't know why we even bother to remark upon the abominations anymore.

message 3: by Victoria (new)

Victoria Stoklasa (victoriastoklasa) | 8 comments Admittedly, I don't know enough about biology to understand the dangers, if any, that would occur during an abortion after 20 weeks. On top of that, I would never have an abortion, and I would try to educate others on options besides abortion. (These are just my personal choices; what the rest of you do is up to you.) However, the argument that Franks made, saying "we don't offer unborn children even the most basic protections," seems like a double standard. Yes, let's protect them in the womb...and then once their out of the womb, the government stops caring. If they want to protect unborn babies, why won't they invest their time and money in protecting babies after they are born, with welfare programs and such as that?

Mark, I love the Poe reference! It sometimes seems like the Republican party is becoming as feeble and unhealthy as the Usher family (although I'm not to the point of accusing them of buring their siblings alive).

message 4: by Mark (last edited Jun 05, 2013 12:11AM) (new)

Mark | 785 comments You nailed it, Victoria. The ludicrous pretext that Republicans invoke to justify their relentless attempts to hijack women's reproductive systems (and reacquaint them with coat hangers) just disintegrates in the face of their overwhelming, blatant opposition to post-natal life and health (for all but their plutocratically-bloated brethren, of course). They seek with practically orgiastic fervor to create a Randian, Social Darwinistic world in which all but the wealthy and connected ought suffer and perish -- apparently, not just because they need to suck the last remaining drop of economic blood out of the rest of the populace, but because they enjoy inflicting sufferering and death. They oppose every form of educational and medical assistance for (ex utero) children, for the poor, for the elderly -- for anyone but the recipients of corporate welfare that goes to their Cayman Island bank accounts. Republicans do not care about life. They care about destroying life, and they're motivated even more by pathological Schadenfreude than they are by sickening avarice. Their absurd, pious pronouncements about respect for embryos are (and have always been) an outrageous smokescreen for their desire to return women to their proper role as chattel, and to engender massive suffering. (An incidental advantage is that this hypocritical pretense is absolute red meat for their ultra-fundamentalist, misogynistic constituents.) (I'm referring, of course, to the current generation of Tea Party-dominated Republicans. There *used* to be a few "moderate" and sane ones. I objected to their policies, but they weren't actually personally rabid. Those, however, have been systematically purged.)

back to top