If Only We Had an Official National Language…

South Dakota blogger Clean Cut Kid quotes from a local paper covering the state's abortion ban:

"I think 'rape and incest' is a buzzword," said [State] Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. "It's a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?"

Via Atrios.

Comments

[Malcolm J.]

I will not be attending any of his family gatherings.

[Jersey McJones]

I'd like to see that kid spend a few days in jail with Big Bubba and see if he can figiure out what "rape" means then.

JMJ

[Another Lurker]

"I'd like to see that kid spend a few days in jail with Big Bubba and see if he can figiure out what "rape" means then."

Kid seems so stupid he would probably STILL be unclear. Sources say Big Bubba is willing to reteach leasons at no extra charge.

[To JMJ]

I'd like to see that kid spend a few days in jail

The kid is just quoting the politician. The Clean Cut Kid follows up this quote by saying:

"If you want to do anything to get rid of these wackos [like the guy who said the buzzword thing], a good first step would be to contribute to the Common Sense South Dakota PAC, which is supporting pro-choice Democratic candidates for the legislature."

[Another Lurker]

Thanks I retract my above comment. Slinking away now.

[Jersey McJones]

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. More frightening thouggh - when you think about it...

JMJ

[scape]

Bush has fuzzy math, Dykstra has fuzzy rape.

"If we open the door to a fuzzy line called health, I would argue that the purpose of the bill would be compromised," Dykstra argued. The bill would outlaw all abortions with the exception of if a woman's life were in danger.

A related measure attempting to allow an exception for rape or incest was voted down 46-24. Republican Rep. Elizabeth Kraus likened aborting the child conceived through rape with raping the woman again.

"The welfare of the mother and the child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases," Kraus said. "In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity," she added. "In this medical rape, she is robbed of her maternity."

From a 2005 article here.

[TomHynes]

Slightly off topic, but why refer to "rape and incest" instead of just "rape"?

Why allow abortions for incest that is not rape? If an adult women has consensual sex with a relative, why should she be allowed an abortion but not other adult women who become pregnant from consensual sex?

Does "rape" in this context exclude statutory rape? If we allow abortions for statutory rape, then all minors are allowed abortions, but not adult women.

[Evan]

TomHynes:

Good point---though, I suppose, it has something to do with the fact that incest is not legal (I presume). It also probably has to do with the higher risk of birth defects.

Though, by that standard, folks should be able to abort any unborn child that they know will be born with defects...including fetal alcohol syndrome.

Slipp'ry slope, here we comes!

[Evan]

"In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity," she added. "In this medical rape, she is robbed of her maternity."

Well, sure, if she's forced against her will to have an abortion. If she chooses to have an abortion, then nobody is robbing her of anything; she is voluntarily forfeiting maternity. Or, on the other side of the coin, if voluntary abortion is robbery, then so is voluntary (consensual) sex...which is a notion only supported by the most radical of crazy radical feminazis. Somehow, I doubt that's what the good Representative Kraus wants to be associated with.

Alas, one could be forgiven for wondering: how do people like Rep. Kraus function in the real world? Their unwillingness to even give a fleeting thought to the importance of logic or common sense, well, it boggles thy mind!

[Akira MacKenzie]

Yikes! That's cold! I'm pretty sure this dolt knows what "rape" and "incest" actually mean. (Duh!) He's just pandering to the fetus fetishists. Compare this to SD State Senator Bill Napoli quoted here on NewsHour

"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 would very well threaten her life."

Of course, when you think about it, Napoli isn't much more compassionate than Dykstra. Would a non-religious woman who was "raped" and "saving her virginity until marriage" be allowed an emergency abortion? What about one who was just raped?

I think these two are giving us an unprecedented look into the minds of social conservatives, and it's a fucking ugly place.

[Sam McManus]

The whole rape and incest caveat makes no sense to me. If a fetus is considered the same as a person as far as the morality of killing it goes, why would that change with the circumstances surrounding its conception? I get having an exception in place for the mother's health, because that's one human life versus another human life, but protecting someone's psychological well-being by sacrificing a life (as the good people in SD see it) seems messed up.

[Herrick and His Balls]

The rape exception makes complete sense. That fetus has no business being in there if the mother didn't consent to the act that put it in there, even if the fetus itself had no say in this. If a metally disabled man breaks into your house, you have every right to remove him from there even though he wasn't mentally in control of his actions because you did not give him permission to enter the house. The same goes true with a fetus that is put into a woman's uterus without her consenting to the act of conception.

I also have found the incest exception to be weird. When you think about it, if incest is the only non-rape or non-health risk reason that you can get an abortion, doesn't that give a perverse incentive to incest, since it's the only unprotected sex you could have and be able to abort the result?

[Herrick and His Balls]

The rape exception makes complete sense. That fetus has no business being in there if the mother didn't consent to the act that put it in there, even if the fetus itself had no say in this. If a metally disabled man breaks into your house, you have every right to remove him from there even though he wasn't mentally in control of his actions because you did not give him permission to enter the house. The same goes true with a fetus that is put into a woman's uterus without her consenting to the act of conception.

I also have found the incest exception to be weird. When you think about it, if incest is the only non-rape or non-health risk reason that you can get an abortion, doesn't that give a perverse incentive to incest, since it's the only unprotected sex you could have and be able to abort the result?

[Akira MacKenzie]

Back when I was Catholic and anti-abortion, I too wrestled with the rape & incest issue. At that time, my moral conundrum was solved by an anti-abortion pamphlets a bunch of fellow parishioners handed out after Mass. It dealt with the issue head on by claiming flat out that instances of rape, incest, birth defect, and even endangerment of the mother's life were never an excuse to abort... ever.

Hey Jennifer? Smacky? Isn't it nice to know that the Church of Rome is thinking of you? (Or, rather, thinking FOR you?)

[Jersey McJones]

Is a seed a tree? No.

A presentient fetus is not yet a person.

JMJ

[Jennifer]

"In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity," she added. "In this medical rape, she is robbed of her maternity."

I can't figure out which of these two clauses is the stupidest--insisting that a voluntary abortion is a rape which robs a woman of something she clearly doesn't want, or the one equating a woman's "purity" with not having sex.

I think the "medical rape robbing maternity" comment is probably the dumbest. Guess what, guys?Last night I chose to throw away an empty frozen-food container. Or, as Elizabeth Kraus might say, I was subjected to a garbage-can rape that robbed me of my flimsy cardboard box.

[smacky]

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 would very well threaten her life."

Of course, when you think about it, Napoli isn't much more compassionate than Dykstra. Would a non-religious woman who was "raped" and "saving her virginity until marriage" be allowed an emergency abortion? What about one who was just raped?

No, dem non-religious womenfolk are unrighteous sluts, dey are. So's all dem gals doin' the deed 'fore da sacred inst'tution of mayraige.

I think these two are giving us an unprecedented look into the minds of social conservatives, and it's a fucking ugly place.

Akira, your post was so right on it's not funny. Basically, by their logic, only women who are "saving themselves for marriage" or are "virginal" can be raped...sorry, fuckers, but it doesn't really matter if a woman fucks for a profession ten times a day...when she says "no" and her wishes are ignored, it's rape.

Please, somebody come to defend Christianity now! I'd love to hear defense of these sick motherfuckers, much in the same way horror movies thrill me.

I would've posted this reply much, much earlier, but it took me, like 40 tries to get this to go through. Your server is really a strong argument to not bother posting here anymore, and I'm not kidding. There are other, more insightful and generally more likeable posters here who feel the same way about the server, FYI.

[smacky]

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 would very well threaten her life."

Of course, when you think about it, Napoli isn't much more compassionate than Dykstra. Would a non-religious woman who was "raped" and "saving her virginity until marriage" be allowed an emergency abortion? What about one who was just raped?

No, dem non-religious womenfolk are unrighteous sluts, dey are. So's all dem gals doin' the deed 'fore da sacred inst'tution of mayraige.

I think these two are giving us an unprecedented look into the minds of social conservatives, and it's a fucking ugly place.

Akira, your post was so right on it's not funny. Basically, by their logic, only women who are "saving themselves for marriage" or are "virginal" can be raped...sorry, fuckers, but it doesn't really matter if a woman fucks for a profession ten times a day...when she says "no" and her wishes are ignored, it's rape.

Please, somebody come to defend Christianity now! I'd love to hear defense of these sick motherfuckers, much in the same way horror movies thrill me.

I would've posted this reply much, much earlier, but it took me, like 40 tries to get this to go through. Your server is really a strong argument to not bother posting here anymore, and I'm not kidding. There are other, more insightful and generally more likeable posters here who feel the same way about the server, FYI.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Herrick:

The rape exception makes complete sense. That fetus has no business being in there if the mother didn't consent to the act that put it in there, even if the fetus itself had no say in this.

Allow me to play Fundie's Advocate for a moment:

"While rape is a horrific crime, why should an innocent baby be forced to pay for their father's crime? Why is the child of rape less human than a child conceived consensually? Some of mankind's greatest people were conceived after rape. There was... that guy, and then there was... errr... that one Christian country-western singer."

"Besides, the little tramp was dressed like an immodest slut and had it coming! No Christian woman would dress in a way that would tempt men to rape! That, and we all know that those feminist Jezebels love to cry 'rape' wehn they sober up the day after their druken, sex-filled, orgies!"

[Ken Shultz]

Why allow abortions for incest that is not rape? If an adult women has consensual sex with a relative, why should she be allowed an abortion but not other adult women who become pregnant from consensual sex?

My understanding is that this exception is called for in cases in which a minor becomes pregnant by her father, for instance. ...The idea being that a minor, in that case, cannot consent. ...and, hence, although the fetus in question wasn't the product of rape, per se, it wasn't consensual either.

In other words, this makes it possible to be against abortion but not neccessaily in favor of forcing molestation victims to carry the product of incest to term.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised this requires explanation.

[poco]

Well, sure, Akira. Whatever horrible fate befalls you, God and the church will provide adequate spiritual comfort; sometimes a little material help too. If you could avoid lifelong miseries like having unwanted or severely handicapped children, you wouldn't need the church anymore, and we couldn't have that.

PS. Fire the squirrels.

[Karen]

I really like the thing about religious virgins. By that logic, I, as a married woman, can't be raped, since I'm not 'saving myself' anymore. I can just imagine some poor woman in SD introducing her children to their new half-sibling, whose father cornered Mom at knife-point in back of the doughnut shop where she worked. That's going to make for a nice family life, with one kid a daily reminder to everyone else of an event which traumatized Mom. And for what it's worth, it's still rape if Mom worked in a topless bar, a garage, her kitchen, or was the local mayor. In the absence of consent, it's rape.

On the incest thing, I think this dates back to a common exception to abortion bans in the pre-Roe world. Most states in those days required evidence that the rape victim had been overcome despite "earnest resistance," meaning she had to have been beaten or threatened with a weapon. Incest was a separate crime that did not require proof of force. Thus, Creepy Uncle seducing Barely Legal Niece was guilty of incest but not rape. Doctors could provide abortions to rape and incest victims even when the procedure was banned in all other circumstances.

[Ken Shultz]

Seriously guys, the argument that babies are so precious that we can't let 'em get all chopped up gets a lot of media attention, and there's no question that the sign waving wackos are big on it... ...but I don't remember hearing any serious pro-life people use those arguments. ...Neither have I heard any serious pro-choice advocates argue that aborting a fetus the moment before a mother's water breaks should be just as legal as wearing a condom.

[Ian]

Please, somebody come to defend Christianity now! I'd love to hear defense of these sick motherfuckers, much in the same way horror movies thrill me.

Composition Fallacy, smacky. Just because these guys and their constituents may or may not be sick fucks, that doesn't stand as a valid indictment of Christianity as a whole.

[joe]

Herrick

I'm pro-choice, but this argument is problematic:

"If a metally disabled man breaks into your house, you have every right to remove him from there even though he wasn't mentally in control of his actions because you did not give him permission to enter the house."

A ship's captain who threw a stowaway off his property in the middle of the Atlantic would be charged with murder.

[sulla]

Akira, smacky,

Enjoying your comic book portrayal of Christian attitudes? I hardly think that narrow definition of rape that you're ascribing is widely held by actual real-life Christians. Just saying.

[smacky]

Composition Fallacy, smacky. Just because these guys and their constituents may or may not be sick fucks, that doesn't stand as a valid indictment of Christianity as a whole.

Ian,

Conceded. However, the Bible condemns non-virginal unmarried women, so I wouldn't say that these particular sick fucks are getting their ideas from nowhere. Someone may try to argue that just because sexually active unmarried women are frowned upon doesn't mean that they can't be forgiven, but that implies that sex outside of marraige is something to be contrite about.

[rhywun]

Your server is really a strong argument to not bother posting here anymore, and I'm not kidding.

I agree. The squirrels are more sluggish than usual today.

[wellfellow]

"Enjoying your comic book portrayal of Christian attitudes?"

Thank you, Sulla. This is so tiresome.

"Please, somebody come to defend Christianity now!"

Oh, stop. Are all Muslims terrorists, too?

[Ken Shultz]

If a metally disabled man breaks into your house, you have every right to remove him from there even though he wasn't mentally in control of his actions because you did not give him permission to enter the house.

That's one of the few places where the old analogy makes any sense--I'd argue that the special responsibility (which may not be so unique as to be special) is only taken on willingly. ...and the act of being molested may not involve the kind of force we normally associate with rape, but it sure as hell isn't willingly taking on any kind of responsibility either.

One again, to a whole hell of a lot of pro-life people, the problem with abortion isn't the preciousness of life per se, it's that the mother (and the father) accepted responsibility for the results of their actions when they undertook them.

...much like when you start up a car and drive it down the street. You don't intend to harm anyone, but you're responsible if you do. You don't get to dodge responsibility just because you didn't intend to hurt anyone. I suppose, if the person you ran over had signed a waiver beforehand, that might mitigate your responsibility. ...but how do you get a fetus to sign a waiver prior to conception?

If you follow my drift, you might see how someone could come to the conclusion that abortions should only be available to people who, for whatever reason, either couldn't give consent or people who, for whatever reason, didn't give consent. ...consent being the important distinction.

[smacky]

wellfellow,

The majority of people in America upholding one of the most contradiction-riddled and politically-influential institutions is tiresome.

[Amy Phillips]

Ken Schultz,
A father having sex with his underaged daughter is rape--statutory rape--and therefore does not require a special exception for incest. As far as I know, the abortion laws that contain an incest exception do not require that the pregnant woman/girl be underaged. South Dakota law specifically defines incest as two blood-related partners, at least one of whom is under the age of 21. So if a 20 year old girl has consensual sex with her 19 year old brother, she would be eligible for an abortion if the incest exception were in place.

I think it's interesting that people equate the incest exception with statutory rape. It seems to me that if a girl is legally too young to consent to sex (I'm assuming for argument's sake that the age of consent is a reasonable law; no need to rehash the argument of a few days ago), she's certainly too young to fully understand and weigh the consequences of sex, including pregnancy, and therefore didn't "consent" to become pregnant. By that logic, shouldn't there be a "pregnant child" exception to all abortion laws that would allow any girl under the age of consent to abort (with her parents' permission of course, since she'd presumably also be too young and immature to consent to a medical procedure)?

[Ken Shultz]

By that logic, shouldn't there be a "pregnant child" exception to all abortion laws that would allow any girl under the age of consent to abort (with her parents' permission of course, since she'd presumably also be too young and immature to consent to a medical procedure)?

If you look at the last paragraph in my last comment, that's sort of what I'm suggesting.

[stubby]

but that implies that sex outside of marraige is something to be contrite about.

To people of certain belief systems, and not just Christians, sex outside of marriage is something to be contrite about; it's not allowed by their religion. I think this is pretty subjective, no? If you're not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a religious Jew, then no, premarital sex is nothing to be contrite about; but if you are, it is. It's one thing to condemn fundies (of any religion - or belief system) when they express opinions as sick as the "it's only rape if the victim is a good girl adhering to my particular creed" and other swill like that. But morals - whether their basis be religious or no - are not facts, and are not objective. Some people think driving an SUV is something to be contrite about. Does't mean that all environmentalists are car lot-torching psychos.

And if I climbed on a Reason thread and started emoting over the horrorible sick fucks who adhere to Islam, and the awful book that tells them to do all those horrible sick fucky things, then I'd be a bigot, right?

How come we never hear rants like that from apostate Muslims who blame every practicing Muslim, and Islam in general, for all the psychological scabs they can't seem to stop picking?

[Cartoon Pirate]

A ship's captain who threw a stowaway off his property in the middle of the Atlantic would be charged with murder.

For liability purposes it is the sea that will kill them.

[smacky]

How come we never hear rants like that from apostate Muslims who blame every practicing Muslim, and Islam in general, for all the psychological scabs they can't seem to stop picking?

Probably because apostate Muslims living in Muslim countries die. They don't escape those countries to tell their side of the story.

By the way, stubby, if this thread were about Muslims I'd probably be criticizing Muslims. I don't really care what people decide to believe, but that's not going to stop me from criticizing them. That doesn't make me a bigot. I'll criticize Christianity if I damn well please. As far as I'm concerned, personal religion is as attackable as personal politics -- neither should be sacred. And neither should be brought up during a dinner party in mixed company.

[Ken Shultz]

As far as I'm concerned, personal religion is as attackable as personal politics -- neither should be sacred.

So when you wrote:

The majority of people in America upholding one of the most contradiction-riddled and politically-influential institutions is tiresome.

...which institution were you talking about?

[smacky]

Ken,

I was talking about Christianity, because Christianity is the topic we were discussing in this instance. And, frankly, I criticize it more often than Islam because Islam isn't directly affecting non-internationally-related domestic policy in the United States nearly as much as Christianity is. I live in this country, and I don't really want to abide by a bunch of Christards wacko definitions of the way society should be run. When the majority of our leaders make laws requiring women to wear burkas and gather on the steps of the Senate to kneel towards Mecca, then I'll rip into Muslims more often. How does that sound? Sounds pretty fair to me.

[Ken Shultz]

So when you look at my arguments above, do you see anything self-contradictory? ...do you see anything that has to do with Christianity? Do you see any pro-life arguments in this thread predicated on Christianity?

...and yet, out of the box, I see pro-choice people attacking Christianity. ...indeed, I see someone suggest that Christianity itself is somehow indefensible because of...what, I don't know?

[smacky]

So when you look at my arguments above, do you see anything self-contradictory? ...do you see anything that has to do with Christianity?

Ken,

I haven't read all of your arguments carefully, but I think there's more than one discussion going on in this thread at one time. I don't think you and I were even referencing the same comments.

Do you see any pro-life arguments in this thread predicated on Christianity?

Yes. When a Senator defines someone who is raped as someone who is religious (regardless of which religion they are), that is a signal for me to attack closed-minded organized religioners. It is not a requirement for someone to be a part of an organized religion to be a good person deserving of basic human dignity. That's fucking sick and only a stupid fundie would say something like that. The fact that only non-Christians or non-religious people seem to protest this line of thinking is pretty repellant to me. As if it's ok to stay silent as long as you're not the one being dehumanized. I am not a bigot because I am not dehumanizing religious people -- I am rightfully mocking them for their ridiculous belief that they are somehow better or more deserving than non-religious people.

[Jim Walsh]

Welcome to South Dakota. Please remember to set back your watches one hundred years...

[Ken Shultz]

The fact that only non-Christians or non-religious people seem to protest this line of thinking is pretty repellant to me.

Of all the pro-choice people out there, smacky, how many of them do you suppose are Christians?

I am not a bigot because I am not dehumanizing religious people -- I am rightfully mocking them for their ridiculous belief that they are somehow better or more deserving than non-religious people.

I don't think you're a bigot, smacky. ...but I'm not sure there's anything we can learn from this about Christianity in general.

[jimbo]

If they made an exception for incest, how would they expect to raise any more fine state legislators like those quoted?

[Akira MacKenzie]

sulla:

Don't presume to lecture me about "Christian attitudes" and whether or not they cover all believers. I was a Christian, once upon a time, and know full well what they say and think. I once spouted bullshit like the drivel that came out of the mouths of South Dakotan slimeballs like Dykstra and Napoli. The fact that I was ever a Catholic (or religious at all) is something I'm deeply ashamed of. Anyone who calls them self a "Christian" and thinks like that should be ashamed.

Granted, it might not be the attitude of "all" Christians, but it is the attitude of a sizable, politically motivated and well-connected group of Christians who have a very scary agenda. While not every believer might not be card-carrying members of the Religious Right, I don't hear very many of them standing up to oppose them.

When I start hearing the majority of Christians stand up for things like abortion rights, gay rights, free speech, etc., then I'll feel more comfortable.

[Akira MacKenzie]

Edit: While every believer might not...

[Akira MacKenzie]

When a Senator defines someone who is raped as someone who is religious (regardless of which religion they are)...

Besides, when Napoli uses the term "religious" I don't think he's talking about Judaism or Buddhism.

[grylliade]

When I start hearing the majority of Christians stand up for things like abortion rights, gay rights, free speech, etc., then I'll feel more comfortable.

Amazingly enough, there are quite a large number of Christians who stand for exactly that. Are they the majority? It's hard to say, but it's probably 40 % of the total number of Christians in the U.S. They're not as noticeable, because they don't usually stand up and say that they're pro-choice because of religion, or for gay rights because of religion, or what have you. They think that Christianity either has nothing to say about it or is for it, but either way they don't need to be vocal about it. They just go and pray on Sunday, and try to be good people the rest of the week, and don't proselytize because that's not the way liberal Christianity works.

Believe me, people at my church (and many of them on the Episcopal livejournal community) get just as worked up about this shit as you do, and there they don't feel reticent about bringing religion into it. It's just that in public many of them think that religion, as a private matter, isn't something that needs to be brought up. Public morals have little or nothing to do with Christianity; it's what God demands of you, not what God demands of the community.

So you're not going to hear the majority of Christians stand up for those things, because they're not going to stand up for them as Christians a good bit of the time. They're going to stand up for them because that (to them) is what decent people do, and they're decent people. And isn't that the way it should be?

[Chad]

Rape exceptions to abortion are political, not ideological. Frankly, if a fetus has rights, the crimes of the father have no bearing on the matter. Therefore, if you are opposed to abortion, making an exception for rape makes no sense in principle. As a practical matter, however, there is no way a law is going to be passed without such an exception, so if you are opposed to abortion, banning 99% of abortions is better than banning none.

That being said, a rape exception creates a hideous problem - how do you decide rape in a timely manner? Do we have to wait for a conviction? That won't work, as the trial will probably take longer than the pregancy. Just a mere accusation? Well, that can obviously be abused. It is not an easy problem to solve without letting the exception swallow the rule (as is true of "health of the mother" exceptions).

[Ken Shultz]

Frankly, if a fetus has rights, the crimes of the father have no bearing on the matter. Therefore, if you are opposed to abortion, making an exception for rape makes no sense in principle.

You appear to dismiss the principle that people should only have to take on obligations willingly, and from where I'm standing, that's absurd.

[Ken Shultz]

"Granted, it might not be the attitude of "all" Christians, but it is the attitude of a sizable, politically motivated and well-connected group of Christians who have a very scary agenda."

----Akira MacKenzie

"Amazingly enough, there are quite a large number of Christians who stand for exactly that. Are they the majority? It's hard to say, but it's probably 40 % of the total number of Christians in the U.S."

----grylliade

I'd like to seem appealing to another 11% or so of that total too...at least.

I had a similar discussion once with openly gay people I used to work with--how does ridiculing religious people at gay pride parades help the cause of gay rights? I remember having a similar discussion with Latinos who were against Prop 187--how does marching exclusively under Mexican flags help you persuade American voters? ...like the Beatles sang, "'cause if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"

We should all ridicule stupidity wherever and whenever we see it. ...that never hurts. ...and this goober sounds about as dumb as they come. ...but we should keep our eyes on the battle. ...and it's hard, sometimes, to remember the difference between the battlefield and the enemy. The enemy is the idiots in power, not Christianity, and the battlefield is the voters, many of which are Christians.

I suspect that the lion's share of the people who lean pro-choice in this country self-identify as Christian. ...Yes, the more fundamentalist you are, the more likely you are to lean pro-life, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any pro-choice fundamentalists--there are probably millions. While some fundamentalist churches, as an organization, seem to lean pro-choice, that's the exception rather than the rule. ...Still, there are pro-choice (and pro-gay marriage) factions in most every denomination. ...perhaps more importantly, there's the undecided.

I suspect the swing vote is similar, demographically speaking, to the nation as a whole--predominantly, they self-identify as Christian that is. ...and needlessly alienating the swing vote seems undesirable from a strategy standpoint. ...and from a logical standpoint, once again, I don't think there's anything anyone can say that is true of all Christians.

...and, I would add, there are pro-life arguments that aren't completely divorced from logic. As Amy Phillips mentioned--and boy I hope she comes around more often--I seem to be a pro-life guy that thinks abortion should be, more or less, okay for minors. It's not as if being Christian--whatever that means--or being pro-Life renders a person incapable of rational discourse.