Oh, Kleinheider, how I’d love to get you drunk and tattoo the following on your arm so that you can refer to it whenever you doubt my brilliance:
When two people’s rights come into conflict and you are working to pass laws that would require one person’s rights to always be abridged in order to protect the rights of the other, you are creating a situation in which the person whose rights can never be abridged, even if it infringes on the rights on another person, has special rights, because, as you are well aware, everyone else in this nation has rights only as far as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
Using the law to grant special rights to fetal people at the expense of the rights of women does indeed constitute using the law as a “tool designed control the lives of women.”
Quoting Shaun Groves as you do is also slightly disingenuous because Shaun Groves is a minister. Damn straight it’s his job to search his heart and consult with his god and then minister to his flock as to what the right course of action for them to take is. That’s his job. He’s in a position of authority over the pregnant women who come to him because he’s their fucking pastor. He’s supposed to guide them to do what he believes his god is calling them to do–to make sacrifices to preserve the life of the fetus.
So what? All this proves is that Shaun Groves doesn’t believe his god when his god says that killing a woman is murder and killing a fetus is a property matter (Exodus 21:22-23).
What Shaun Groves thinks his god wants has nothing to do with what the actual law of the land should be. The law of the land should be that a woman has control over her own body at all times and can do with it what she sees fit. The Church is more than welcome to argue that abortion is wrong and that women should, if they get pregnant, carry their babies to term. In fact, that seems like the exact right position for the Church to take.
But, we are not a theocracy and it is not the job of our laws or legislatures to enforce the will of the Church on people who don’t necessarily go to church.
And also, until you’re willing to tell me to my face that you believe that women who have abortions should go to jail for life, if not face the death penalty, don’t even bullshit me about how you believe abortion is murder.
Tiny Cat Pants 
It is posts like this which serve as valuable reminders as to why I generally avoid dipping my lame-ass blogging toe into political waters. It’s best left to the experts.Beautifully said. Thank you.
Pro lifer’s are F’d up. While we are all entitled to our own opinions, based on religious convictions or otherwise. . . abortion is not something that should be regulated by the courts. Nor should it be regulated or dictated by the church. All these bible thumpers need to stop focusing on abortion & start asking questions & demanding accountability for all the child sex abuse that is going on (both within the Catholic church & other denominations). Now, folks – this is where the real crime is – NOT in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her OWN body! Seriously. If all these zealots focused their energy on more serious issues, then maybe they would cease to be serious issues. . . . Funny – I consider my self a moderate, with strong ties to the right – but as the days pass – I find myself wondering WTF am I thinking supporting all the freak shows who have nothing better to do than to thump their bibles & try to impose thier morality on others. . . what happened to politics? Ok, I am a little tipsy tonight – best I be off. . . . .
B, I generally agree with your position on abortion, but let’s extend your argument a little. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this….You can’t run over me with your rental car. Ever. So does that mean I have special rights over you? I can’t run over you with my car either, so maybe I don’t have special rights since we both have to live by the same condition. Looking at it this way, it sounds like your special rights statement applies only if no-abortion is a blanket statement without exceptions for the mother’s health.So based on that, isn’t a fetus just getting exactly the same rights as me. You can’t kill me unless it’s in self-defense. And if there’s a health exception, you can’t kill a fetus unless it’s in defense of your own health.
Do you mind if we come at it from another angle? Because I think there’s an underlying assumption that, if we mandate that every woman carry every pregnancy to term, all we’re asking her to do is to be a little inconvenienced for nine months.It’d be like, if we made a law that said, if you are at a bowling alley at 11:43 p.m. on June 30th, you are then required to carry around a bowling ball for the next nine months. Most folks would avoid being at the bowling alley late on June 30th, but if they haven’t taken reasonable steps to avoid being there, we kind of don’t have much sympathy. Well, yes, it’s inconvenient to carry around a bowling ball for 9 months, but at the end of the 9 months, you can just put it down or give it to someone else or go back to bowling or whatever.But again, doesn’t this go back to our discussion of "natural"? Just because something is "natural" doesn’t make it safe. Women in this country still die in childbirth. They still die from pregnancy-related complications.Then there’s the fact that childbirth, even when it goes well, is not without a great deal of pain and suffering and profound physiological consequences for the woman. Even women who want very much to have children can find childbirth itself to be terrifying and painful.I would say that it’s more like this, if we say that a fetus is a person: say we are all standing at the top of a high cliff and the popular thing to do is for the blue eyed people to climb up on the backs of the brown eyed people and the brown eyed people leap a thousand feet into the water below.Some are maimed, some die. But most everyone makes it out of the water okay. Still, it’s a thousand feet into water. If the fall doesn’t kill you, you might drown. And you’ve got another person with you, who also might die in the process.Is it okay for me, a blue eyed person, to climb up on your back against your will? Is it not okay for you to get up to the edge of the cliff with me on your back and decide, "you know what? Fuck no."? And, if, on the way down, you decided, "Oh my god, I just cannot do this. I just can’t. I can’t get us both through this okay." and someone could come along and take me off your back, would you be wrong for taking them up on it?
Well I do mind a little bit if you come at it from another angle. I wanted to explore that angle a little more. But I get your point. Me wanting to kill my neighbor for blocking my driveway is a little different from the inherent risks and responsibilities of child birth.With regards to my eye color, if I didn’t want you on my back I shouldn’t have been standing in front of that stepladder. Or maybe I was befuddled by the beer smelling hair.
No, no, the fault is also mine. I’ve heard all these wild tales about how hot the sex is when the women climb on top of the men, hence the step ladder. Really, I probably should read less erotica and watch more porn. It would clear up the misconceptions.Ha, misconception.That’s an unintentional, but funny, pun.
I just got a step ladder to install the blinds on my new house. I’ve never tried step ladder lovin’. I’m definitely looking into this.
Don’t be suing me when the Lady Friend hurts herself or you. That’s all I’m saying. I would not recommend step ladder lovin’ unless you have a very sturdy ladder.