kimkali: (I am...)
[personal profile] kimkali
So

The Right and Conservative Christians, and their fans and promoters, are utterly appauled by the the idea that expectant mothers will be asked at their first meeting with a doctor if they are experiencing domestic abuse.

The same people who are utterly appauled by abortion, and are unswervingly ProLife.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 09:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sea-cucumber.livejournal.com
?!
That confuses me... I don't think it makes sense!

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 09:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sea-cucumber.livejournal.com
I guess some people do not think sometimes!?
It would be logical to support that, I would have thought... oh well...

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 11:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] blue-cat.livejournal.com
It makes perfect sense, for a given value of sense.

that value being: The Family is a god given entity - Mommy + Daddy + kiddies. Nothing is better for the soul.

To interfere with the proper formation and maintenance and support of the Family is the devils work.

To talk abortion is anti soul, anti-Family so they are Pro-life.

To discuss domestic abuse is to risk affecting the Family in a negative way, afterall what would happen if Preggie-Mom is beaten? the big baddies will try convince here to leave Daddy and split the Godly Family. So it is bad, presuming that women get beaten.

Huff. As I said, for a given value of sense.

I had a similar discussion with someone yesterday about Jehova's witness & blood - how can they condone the death of a child for want of a pint of blood?

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 12:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mejoff.livejournal.com
the illogic comes in when you consider how likely a beating is to terminate the pregnancy, abortion without the woman making the choice, effectively.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 03:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimkali.livejournal.com
My first thought.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 10:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mejoff.livejournal.com
Obviously, preventing women from choosing what happens to their bodies is social responsibility, preventing men from beating women, pregnant or not, is the nanny state gone mad, makes perfect sense when you think about it

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 11:02 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anonymous-james.livejournal.com
Its just more (unnecessary) proof that organised religion is a bad idea and that its influence in politics should be ended as soon as possible.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 11:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] laumiere.livejournal.com
I'm composing a letter in my head already...

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 12:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mejoff.livejournal.com
Sorry, i just saw the fucking daily mail in the shop, the headline compalins that this is 'from the party that does nothing to protect families from gambling'
i'm sorry, did i get really really pretentious last night and disappear up my own arsehole into some sort of fucked up fantasy world where the one has some sort of bearing on the other?

what's really sad there of course is that this probably won't even lose the paper any of its female readership.

(no subject)

Date: 2004-10-21 12:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kimkali.livejournal.com
BossLady saw that this morning too.

Party-political broadcasts spring to mind:
*Neo-Right is Safe Bet for Families*

Profile

kimkali: (Default)
kimkali

July 2010

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
1112 1314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags