Some poorly thought out dreck from Feministing(By-the-by, doesn't that blog-name not sound like some sort of new, bizzare lesbian sexual practice? I swear, do they come up with names like this just so we can make dirty jokes about them? You know, so then they'll have an excuse to act offended?) :Amnesty International recently decided to extend its mandate to support abortion access in cases of sexual violence. Of course, the freepers are unhappy about this. Because *god forbid* if something should happen to you, against your will, you should be allowed to control the consequences.
It continues:The religious folks believe that supporting abortion (in the case of SEXUAL VIOLENCE) is out of sync with Amnesty's mission of supporting human rights. Uh, I am not getting that one.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, let me see if I can come up with an analogy to explain the logic of this position to you:
Say you're standing around on the street minding your own business, maybe giving men dirty looks as they walk by, passing out NOW literature, whatever it is you do with your free time.
Okay, you're minding your own business, and suddenly some crazy person pops out of the crowd, handcuffs you to another stranger (god-forbid it's a member of the "patriarchy"...Dunt-Dunt Duhnhhh!), and runs off in a fit of mad laughter. So now you're stuck here with this unwanted guy attached to your body.
You didn't ask for this. So, by your logic, clearly you should be allowed to kill this guy that's attached to you. Or at least cut off his hand. I mean, he is inconviencing you, right?
Let me point out two important points in this situation:
A) The stranger did not ask to be attached to you either. They're as much a victim of the mad handcuff caperer as you are.
B) You do not have the right to saw off the stranger's hand simply because you don't want to be attached to him. Clearly any logical person would frown on this line of reasoning. And think: That wouldn't even kill the guy! Might make him a little angry with you, though.
It's kind of like that movie "Fled" (although I'm not sure who's playing the mother and who's the unborn baby in this crack-headed extrapolation of my anaolgy, Stephen Baldwin or Laurence Fishburn. I guess it's easier to imagine Fishburn plunging a pair of forceps into Stephen Baldwin's head than the other way around. Especially seeing as Stevie's a christian now.)
Any reasonable person would be expected to find some way of seperating themselves from their new cuff-mate that didn't invlove ireperable bodily harm and/or death.
Just because you had some sort of tramatic experience happen to you does not suddenly give you license to start killing strangers because they are causing you an inconvenience through no fault of their own. Even if being raped is
more traumatic than being the victim of some piss-poor practical joke.
Like the stranger in our analogy, the baby didn't ask to be attached to you, either. (And really, given the choice, what baby would?)
Sigh. If only this fabled "evolution" thing had provided innocent babies some means to fight back against the crazy bitches that want to kill them simply for existing. You know, like little miniature, baby-sized shoulder-fired rockets or something like that.
I find it odd that if evolution is all about self-preservation, it hasn't provided baby's with any such defense mechanism.