veronica_rich: (Default)
I don't know if someone's already posted this, but screw it. It's important enough that it ought to be up at least twice:

If you don't like links )

I really hate to make this a boy-vs.-girl issue, but honestly, if males could get pregnant, this wouldn't even come up; there'd simply be medical guidelines for safe abortion procedures. I said some time ago that the Republicans are desperate enough that when gay marriage banning and flag burning banning didn't work, they'd go to abortion. Next up will be limits/bans on birth control access, you wait and see ...
veronica_rich: (Default);_ylt=AnCQ1HNb9EyhC2NCGaQhLB1Aw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

For those who don't like links )

I know I've said it before, but it bears repeating: You mean to tell me there's nothing more pressing for our federal government to debate and wrangle RIGHT NOW than protecting a piece of cloth? Suppressing the rights of a person who is already here and has a soul and rights (girls and women) in favor of blobs of cells that aren't even formed into biological humans until about the sixth month (fetuses)? Forcing people to recognize another group's ghost (excuse me, Ghost) in the clouds - or else?

I'm a hard worker. I should be rolling in dough if things are THAT good for the country right now. We all should, shouldn't we? Are YOU?
veronica_rich: (Default)
From my fabulous younger sister, who sent me the CNN news alert this morning along with a personal message ("Well, I wonder how Bush is going to try to screw us now ..."), we have an update on the proposed gay marriage amendment. Why does this matter particularly to the childfree? Think about it (the bolded parts, aside from the headline, are my emphasis):

Direct Link:

For the link-impaired: Senate Blocks Same-Sex Marriage Ban )

Do Americans really care who has sex with what for recreation, or how? Porn is still one of the most bottom-line profitable industries in this country. We have a state that has kept hookers legal. Bestiality is a much joked-about (though perhaps not practiced - I really don't know) pastime among college males. The "GGW" acronym continues to get plenty of husbands in trouble when the credit card statement comes in at the end of the month.

Ah, but a friend points out that tolerating sexual preferences does not extend to sanctification of it in society. No society, she tells me, has ever tolerated or recognized marriage between two people of the same sex (though I have to wonder, do the poly male Mormons who force their wives to all live together consider their wives married to one another as well as to them? At least for orthodox Muslims, Mohammed dictated a man should not take more than one wife unless he could afford an equal number of households). Canada now has a conservative PM partly because its citizens are disgusted with that recent legalization, she tells me.

Look at what I've bolded in the article above. I, at least, get the distinct impression that what is actually being hammered on isn't so much sexual preference as preservation of the nuclear family - that is, mother, father, AND CHILDREN. Is it a matter of time before these witch hunters come after those who've actively chosen not to have children, as being "unnatural" too? Yeah, it sounds like a silly persecution complex. I really do wonder, though, if it's simply a coincidence that the two big issues conservatives use to bring out the "emotional vote" at election time are the two geared toward pushing BABIES, BABIES, OMG ABOVE ALL ELSE BABIES: anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (and, lately, anti-BC). And let's not forget, most conservatives who are anti-abortion are also anti-gay adoption of unwanted children. Because, you know, gays are all pedophiles who want to use all available young meat for fucktoys.

Maybe I'm the last person to figure out this angle on the gay marriage thing. It's simply an epiphany I had. I have no problem with children; shit, I grew up helping take care of my sister and cousins. I don't even have much of a problem with people who try to bingo me with "oh, you'll change your mind, you'll want them" even when I know at almost 34 that I never do. I do have a problem, however, with this "YOU MUST REPRODUCE OR FOREVER KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER" being forced on women through the hammer of the law - social pressure to do something isn't the same as being mandated by law into doing it.

I believe we need limits on marriage to protect social structures like land ownership and inheritance. But I'm thinking of poly marriage, which has a proven tendency in many cases to reduce some of the partners to breeding chattel (let's face it, can you really have more than one favorite?). I do not think the human reproductive drive is going to slow to a grinding halt simply because Susie wants to marry Fern instead of Johnny. There's nothing that says Susie won't still want to pop out six kids. Our society hasn't outlawed single mothers or fathers; why is it worse for a child to have two female or two male caretakers, than simply one?
veronica_rich: (Default)

It's not the only article to address the failure of the Bush presidency thus far, but it is one of the better ones insofar as it's comprehensive and sweeping without being confusing or too academic for the average reader to understand.
veronica_rich: (Default)
Here we have ourselves yet another example of hypocrisy at its finest in our federal administration:

The USDA budget is divided into two sections - mandatory programs and discretionary programs. About 77 percent, or $71.3 billion, of the USDA’s proposed 2007 budget will go to fund programs that are required by law, such as nutrition assistance services, commodity and export promotions, and conservation programs. The remaining 23 percent of the agency’s spending plan goes to discretionary programs, such as the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program; rural development loans and grants; research and education; soil and water conservation technical assistance; management of National Forests and domestic marketing assistance. Discretionary spending is estimated at $21.5 billion for 2007, or $1.2 billion less than this year.

Now, consider this administration's stance on the whole abortion issue. It's wrong and immoral to kill (abort) babies (fetuses) for any reason (except rape or incest, because you know, those souls are tainted anyway) once they are conceived ... yet it's okay to cut the WIC program at the same time.

I submit to you that while this isn't always the case, a woman who has enough income that she wouldn't need to take advantage of WIC is also probably educated enough and can afford birth control to keep from getting pregnant, in most cases.

NOTE: I always wait for some Bush apologist or supporter to come along on my own LJ entries (non-crossposted) and tell me how wrong and misguided I am, but it doesn't happen. What, is every American on my f-list a Democrat or Independent? I find that difficult to believe; it's a decent-sized list, and Bush supposedly DID get into office on a majority vote (Diebold's favor), did he not? This is one I'd LOVE to see justified, just as an example of the special brand of logic involved with a Bush thinker (blind follower).


veronica_rich: (Default)

August 2017



RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 05:06 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios