Skip to comments.The Right To Choose... Rape?
Posted on 10/12/2012 3:42:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
I know it sounds outrageous, but the arguments my liberal readers make for abortion have convinced me that they are trying to legalize rape. Aside from the obvious fact that rape is a moral issue (and one cant legislate morality), pro-abortion reasoning provides 10 additional reasons for making rape legal. I have enumerated all of them below. I have even taken the time to expand on some of the more disturbing arguments:
1. It is uncertain where consent ends and force begins. Because that is largely a religious question that cannot be determined by science, it has no place in our criminal statutes. Such determinations are also influenced by culture and no one culture is superior to another.
2. Every year thousands of men commit the crime of rape in back alleys. This is a less-than-ideal situation. In fact, it is a problem that requires a legislative solution. Everyone knows that back alleys are unclean environments. And everyone knows that people have a right to commit crimes in safe and sterile environments - even if this means decriminalizing an act that has been unlawful for time immemorial.
3. Women are smaller than men and therefore cannot be said to possess the same rights as their male counterparts. When people suggest that our rights vary with body size it really makes a mess of human equality. But it has been said that some animals are more equal than others.
4. Every man has a right to choose what to do with his own body. It would therefore be unfair to restrict bodily autonomy by restricting a mans choice of violence. It would be hypocritical to apply force to him simply because he chose to apply force to another living entity.
5. Every man has a right to control his own reproductive choices. Reproductive freedom is a basic human right. This much is self-evident.
6. The circumstances of many men leave them no choice but to commit rape. As a society, we have evolved far beyond the idea that crime is a function of free will. It is not. In fact, crime is caused by society. It is therefore unfair to target specific individuals. This does nothing to get to the root causes of crime.
7. Im personally against rape, but I am pro-choice. Everyone is free to believe what he chooses. We just dont have the right to impose our beliefs on others.
8. Rape is currently illegal, yet it still exists. If banning rape has failed then it is time for us to stop wasting precious resources trying to stop it. We need to think about victims of rape. But we must also consider the over-burdened taxpayer who is asked to fund our failed War on Rape.
9. Anti-rape laws violate Separation of Church and State. Our laws need to have a purely secular, non-religious basis. Any religious support for a given prohibition negates its validity.
10. Anti-rapists dont care about women. Because they seldom do anything to personally stop rape from occurring, they have no legitimate basis for arguing that it should be banned.
After this column makes its rounds on the internet and gets quoted out of context, the university will be flooded with calls for my firing. And that will be sad for three reasons. First, the people calling will have failed to understand that they are reading social satire. Second, they will mistakenly assume that I give a damn what the pro-abortion UNC administration thinks about any given moral issue. Third, they will all be abortion-choice advocates completely out of touch with their own sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Very clever; very well done. Bravo!
Interesting way to show the folly of the pro-abortion argument...and it proves the point
Unfortunately, we will have a few on here that will go Alinksy-like and try to “Todd Akin” Mr. Adams...not getting the meaning or point the author is trying to make
Very good one :-)
As Rush often says, liberals have no sense of humor and they do not understand the art of illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Mike Adams, who lives and teaches (at UNCW) just down highway 17 from me in Wilmington, is a beacon of light in an otherwise largely liberal UNC system.
Excellent! Mike Adams very effectively points out the flawed and hypocritical thinking of liberals.
Indeed, we can point out the folly of fools,
but in so doing, we’re actually giving their foolish arguments more weight than they deserve.
We need to address the real underlying issue and make them argue on the basis of that.
[Leftist] women perceive it as an inequality for men to be able to have sex without the biological and social consequences of pregnancy, and the following responsibility of child-rearing. They seek to “equalize” this with the “final solution” of killing the resulting child before it is born, thereby “equalizing” themselves with the man.
(Gen 3:16 states that her desire will be for the man [his role], but he will rule over her)
Previous cultures had a remedy for this “inequality”, and it didn’t involve the death of the child. It was the requirement of marriage before sex was allowed to happen.
So, the argument should be - is it somehow “better” to the liberal to kill the unborn than it is to discourage pre/extra marital sex?
They don’t want government to legislate morality but they want it to legislate our diet.
Good point, but for many liberals the answer to that question is yes. They believe they are "saving" people from their own ignorance. Look at the efforts put forth by do-gooder Melissa (Mrs. Bill) Gates, for example. Global summit aim to fund population control
World leaders to meet in London in July to pour cash into family planning in the developing world
A major summit is being planned for July that aims to pour money into family planning in the developing world after almost two decades of neglect, particularly during the Bush years.
Parallel to this, millions of dollars are being spent by the Gates Foundation on developing more efficient forms of contraception, particularly injections that might only be required once every six months or annually.
With the easy availability of contraception and abortion rape should, perhaps, be removed from its special place and put into the same category as assault and battery. Feminists and the Left disparage childbearing and morality and religion to the point that they have no basis at all to claim rape is anything different from simple physical assault.
In Kansas, during our six white trash years, the prevailing lib apology for Tiller was that ‘most of his patients are 13-year-olds who have been raped by their uncles.’
Our new Atty Gen said ‘That’s statutory rape. Surely we can do better than take their money, kill the babies, and send the girls back to their uncles.’
The libs went [absolutely, bats*^t] berserk. Sibeleus announced that it wasn’t rape at all, it was “Romeo and Juliet”.
And she’ll be running the death panels if we don’t win this election.
Dr. Adams hits the nail on the head once again. But it’s difficult to satire leftist thought since they’re always following the next absurd conclusion.