Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Brownback supports rapists' rights to be fathers
Now, Brownback is the very same guy who ridiculously claimed last year that embryonic stem cells CAUSED tumors, so truthfully, whad'ya expect? But oh yeah... the theocratic douchewit actually went here with the anti-choice argument: According to Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential hopeful from Kansas: "Rape is terrible. Rape is awful," (aaaw... do ya think?) but rape victims' rights come secondary to those of an unborn child." Secondary to the unborn child? So I guess if Brownback were in the middle of a fertility clinic-- which was on fire-- and he had the choice of saving a kid like my 4 yr old daughter/ 12 wk old son or petri dishes full of cells, he'd happily let my kiddos sizzle like a piece of chicken and save those blastocytes because a living, breathing, cared for and loved human being is merely secondary to the unborn. And get this bloodchilling fact: When Brownback spewed this shyte in front of a crowd of 500 people... they stood up and cheered. I know. I threw up a bit in my mouth, too. He went on: "Is rape made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?" Uh, well it will never take away the horrific rape (or the horrible diseases and possible HIV infection that could have resulted from the rape) but it certainly could help ease the burden on the woman because why should she (and perhaps her husband/partner and children) be forced to endure a forced pregnancy, labor, birth, and ultimately, a child-- that was never EVER wanted-- and only came about due to brutal violence? Especially when you consider how many women die in pregnancy and/or childbirth worldwide. What if the woman has to go on bedrest due to this pregnancy? Will there be a Republican fund set up to assist this woman and her family that may depend on her working? What if she dies due to this pregnancy? Will there be a Republican fund set up to care for her remaining spouse, and/or kids? And call me crazy, but isn't it awfully anti-family to expect every woman who is raped to make her rapist a daddy? What if her spouse/ partner wants to be the ONLY daddy? How many men who are the partners and perhaps husbands of these raped women will accept and/ or raise a child of a rapist? How many of these men will sit back and watch their loved one be forced to carry a rapist's child to term? Will these men be expected to pay for the rapist's child? Give the rapist's child insurance benefits? Give the rapist's child his surname? And what about the rapist? Does he pay child support? Get visitation rights? And think about this: With visitation rights, it just might be the rapist's lucky day because then he can perhaps rape his own children and continue the "beautiful tradition", huh? No thanks Sen. Rapeback. My husband and I would like to keep my uterus exclusively as the home of ONLY wanted babies, thankyouverymuch. Because whether you know it or not, the 14th century has ended, and if you're so keen on letting rapists become daddies, why don't you run for office in Darfur? I hear the Sudanese govt and the Janjaweed are right in line with your thinking.