Blogs
Oct 31, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
For Fuck Sake. You realize you guys are throwing every phrase uttered by these guys under the microscope and then screaming Red Alert on any particle of phrase that even MIGHT spark partisan outrage. Isn't that what we complain Fox news does?
Isn't it enough he's wrong about abortion rights?
Jesus Christ. It's like an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in here where the peanut gallery instantly goes nuts on Larry David's every curmudgeonly bumble.
How does forcing a woman to live with the consequence of a crime make anything better?
Getting raped and having to deliver a baby is not the same as getting mugged and icing a black eye.
If a girl in college gets raped and is forced to carry the rapist’s baby to term, how likely is the chance she’ll finish school and be able to resume dating and living a normal life? And what compensation is a fuckwad like Koster going to give her other than a guilt trip and bestowing the consequence of a crime on her for nine months?
You hear that ladies, “crime has consequences” you rapist tempting sluts!
If the Republican female candidates make comments they aren't reported so much here or nationally, and it may be that the GOP women are even too smart to open up on that subject, regardless of what their positions are.
Did Koster think that only Romney's remarks would be secretly taped and made viral? Did he think that what happened to Akin in red-except-for-three-urban-legistlative-districts Missouri would not happen in his recently redrawn legislative district in a decidedly bluer state?
Given the opportunity, they would make abortions illegal in all cases (except for, maybe, the life of the mother). But let's face it, people will still have abortions. And what are you going to do with those women? Put them in jail?
And @sall's point is right on, too.
Reporters continue to poke Republicans on this topic because they love controversy, and showing where those lines are drawn.
Only a very twisted and out of touch individual would be content to tell a rape victim, “You’re a mother now!”
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=e54e…
BTW, Koster's former consultant is working for Todd Akin. The same consultant worked for Rob McKenna.
1. Children born to unwed mothers are more likely to become criminals.
2. Prisoners are counted in the Census, BUT
3. Prisoners cannot vote.
4. More people in prison = more non-voters in a district = more republican districts.
Yeah, it sounds conspiracy-theory-ish. Look up where most prisons are and if those places are more republican or democrat. Look up the states that have the most restrictive prisoner/ex-prisoner voting rights and if those places are more republican or democrat.
Yeah.
Republicans want women to have babies so that more people will be in prison so that republicans will have more power and control.
Rape and incest are horrible things and crimes against women.
The victim should always have the right to decide her future and also to punish the criminal who attacked her.
However, what bothers me is that in the myriad of discussions of abortion, no one is willing to come head to head with the reason for the majority of them -- which is that we men don't want to be held responsible for a lifetime of economic slavery for trying to satisfy a biological need (without rape, consensually) one or more desperate nights.
So, in the same way that men cannot enslave women through rape, should women, who after conception hold 100% of the say so for abort/no abort be allowed to enslave a man the rest of his nature days?
Why is this issue never, ever discussed??
You guys should form a company, What & What?
I just hope that people haven't filled out that part of the ballet yet in that new district. Though I'm sure that people who were going to vote koster will still no matter what.
I may have already mentioned this on Slog, but it bears repeating.
There already is a rape exception to get abortions covered under Medicaid. It's a fairly wide exception, at least too wide for the likes of Todd Akin and Paul Ryan who tried to change it from "rape" to "forcible rape".
Nevertheless, Medicaid recipients who qualify for the exception (because their pregnancies were the result of rape) almost never take advantage of it. They would rather scrounge up the money than get some government bureaucrat to rubberstamp their abortions.
That is what Romney et al. are counting on with their rape "exception" for abortion.
You were born several decades too late. Throughout history, up through the 60's, men who impregnated women they weren't married to more or less got to decide for themselves whether or not to contribute to the child's support. After that, those darn feminazis and pinko liberals spoiler everything.
http://www.delbeneforcongress.com/index.…
There, saved you from a lifetime of economic slavery.
I'm a Re-pub-li-can,
Na na na na
I'm a re-pub-li-can,
Na na
Rape thing,
Rape thing, again.
The fact is that Koster expressed a widely held opinion that is perfectly consistent and reasonable: if you believe the living human child in the womb has rights, such that abortion on demand should not be legal, then it is perfectly reasonable -- perhaps even obligatory -- to believe that it should not be allowed to be killed unless another life is in danger, not even in the case of rape.
Feel free to disagree with him, but it's perfectly reasonable. That's literally all this audio shows, that Koster is consistent and reasonable.
Whether the folks who believe that want the death penalty (or just life w/o parole) for doctors who provide abortions, or the women who obtain them, is an open question.
But fathers/uncles abusing their daughters/nieces is a bit more common, and that's decidedly rape--the fact that it's incest is merely another sad addition to the picture.
Obviously, no one ever explained to this man where babies come from. Because anyone who has even passing familiarity with the concept of birth understands the violence inherent in pushing an 8 lb baby out of a vagina--especially when it is against the will of the mother. This is the essence of violence: forcefully causing physical damage and interfering with personal freedom (source, OED).
Clearly, John Koster is confused and he needs our help. Let's help him understand what it means to give birth by sending him real, unedited pictures and descriptions (or whatever else you think helps get the point across) of the experience of birth and it's aftermath. Don't forget to include c-sections, because nothing says non-violence quite like a bloody scalpel!
Here is his campaign site: http://www.kosterforcongress.com/.
Also, how dare this fucking jackass talk about how "incredibly rare" incest is. Directly from Shakesville: "Incest is not rare. One in 6 women and one in 33 men will be victimized by sexual violence: 44% of those survivors will be younger than 18, and 34.2% of attackers of juvenile victims are family members. Those are facts. This isn't a difference of opinion. It is not imagined victimhood. These are not cooked numbers in service to an agenda. This is reality, in all its ugliness. Incest is not rare."
Koster also noted during this little off-the-cuff musing about how rape victims shouldn't have access to abortion that "Crime has consequences." RE-HE-HEALLY? The implication that a rape victim who is impregnated by an assault and chooses to terminate a pregnancy is not recognizing or dealing with the consequences of rape is so abhorrent I can barely even wrap my head around the fact it came out of his mouth. Rape victims deal with the consequences of their assaults for the rest of their lives- pregnancies or not, abortions or not. I will never understand how so-called "pro-life" activists and politicians can say, straight-facedly, that a man who ignores our right to control our own bodies and make our own choices about what happens to and with our sexual organs is a criminal, and then turn around and say that *they* are moral leaders because of their endless quest to control our bodies and keep us from choosing what happens to and with our sexual organs.