Misogyny rules ok
All this kind of thing is useful in a way. A way one wishes we didn’t need things to be useful, but useful all the same. Useful in the sense of being an extreme and conspicuous form of a pervasive bad thing that one wishes were not there at all, so not useful in any ultimate sense, not inherently desirable; quite the contrary; but useful in educational terms; useful in making clear what we’re up against. Useful, to spell it out, in making it clear how deep misogyny really does go. It goes so deep that a lot of people think women have exactly two choices: lifelong confinement to a room, or deserved rape followed by stoning to death. It goes so deep that a lot of people think that when it comes to a choice between women’s lives and the lives of their fetuses, their lives are worth precisely nothing. (Which is odd in the case of female fetuses. Highly valuable in utero, and worthless once pregnant. But then misogyny is odd.)
Under the new law, abortions will no longer be permitted for rape victims or women who risk death during childbirth. Doctors and women who try to abort for any reason will face four to eight years in jail.
But that’s not as bad as it sounds, because women who risk (or face certain) death during childbirth who try to abort and fail will often not face four to eight years in jail, because they’ll be dead. Convenient. Saves expenses.
Members of the Left-wing Sandinista party which, in the past, has campaigned to legalise abortion, joined conservatives to approve a tightening of the abortion laws to prevent rape victims and women who risk dying in childbirth from terminating pregnancies. Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, was thought to have fallen into line to avoid alienating church leaders ahead of the election.
Dear church. Dear kind compassionate loving church.
Rights groups say the new law would be a death sentence for women who suffer ectopic pregnancies. In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilised egg develops outside the uterus. “They are forcing women to die. They are not pro-life, they are pro-death,” said Xiomara Luna, a protester.
Yeah, but only pro-death for women, so that’s okay.
All religions KILL.
And here is the prrof (as if you needed it – again )
“And here is the proof”
Black swans everywhere are mourning this evening…
Ooh, I found one that isn’t.
Kill it.
“All religions KILL.”
No they don’t. None of them do. How could they? They don’t ice skate, basket weave, or morris dance either. But perhaps you mean that all religious people kill? Do you mean that?
Ul al-allah ahkbar
Deus vult
etc.
That’s what I meant.
All religions get their followers to kill in the name of their own “holy truth”.
See history and the present for plenty of illustrative examples.
Just for the record: Islam is by and large somewhat less restrictive on therapeutic abortion than the Roman Harlot.
“Islamic law (the Shari’a) … fundamentally ordains that the “lesser evil is to be perpetrated”. If to preserve the life of the fetus would mean the death of the mother and there is no other way to save her life than by aborting the fetus then abortion in this case is authorised. The mother is not to be sacrificed to save the fetus for she is its originator. (Shaltut, Al Fatawa).”
http://www.islamset.com/ethics/topics/abort.html
“All religions get their followers to kill in the name of their own “holy truth”.”
What about Jainism? Is this the case?
Guess what Jerry S is writing a book about at the moment.
Dispatches on UK C4 last night very interesting, on muslem women campaigning to get entry into mosques. They reminded me of the Greenham women a bit.