Saturday, April 28, 2007

In Contempt of Women

note: Ii realize that I have already written once on this Supreme Court decision, but its implications are outrageous if you consider women as rational citizens (which this decision does not do).

The unborn fetus, not yet a citizen, has the right to life according to the five males who voted in the majority on the Supreme Court in Gonzales v Carhart [].
I hold them in contempt of women. These five men justify their position because some women might become, though they find "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon...that women may regret their choice to abort...[and thus suffer] Severe depression and loss of self esteem." (p.29) There may be a reason why there is no reliable data--granted some women will be saddened by making this decision, they will be able to in the future have children should they wish.
Justice Kennedy writing for the majority states that performing the intact Dilation and Extraction, a " procedure which is laden with the power to devalue human life" (p.28 of the brief), in fact devalues the woman's life in favor of the fetus. The law that prohibits (a type of ) abortion that has no exceptions to protect the woman's health or life. Their reasoning: the "intact D & E" aborted fetus looks like a baby. . .

IF lawmakers and others truly valued human life, they would make sure that there was adequate health care, a livable working wage, an education system that would not leave the unlucky to learn by memorization (teaching to the test) and not real critical thinking skills, that there would be affordable housing and adequate housing, that no one would be going to bed hungry, that our soldiers would have adequate pay and armament. . . in short that citizens' lives would be valued.

What is next--protecting the pre-pregnant from any action that might harm a future fetus?

Thank goodness that I am in a surgically induced menopause. I wonder if that procedure, which saved me from bleeding to death, might be outlawed since it made it impossible for me to be a vessel for a fetus.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Lies of Distraction

With lies of distraction this administration has taken leave of The Constitution and our Democracy. The administration has lied to the American people and representatives, and continues to do so. Unlike the lies of presidents in the past about a break-in and a blow job, these lies have real consequences: REAL lives, money, values, and the demise of our very Republic democracy.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Hostility towards Women

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision has upheld the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" even though it totally disregards the health of the woman (Gonzales v Carhart 550 US ____ 2007, According to Justice Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion): " The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its respect for the life within the woman." Unfortunately, this life withing the woman seems to trump the woman herself--the actual citizen.
Justice Ginsburg in her minority opinion states that this decision shows "hostility" towards the right of abortion, I would go further and say that this decision shows the majority's hostility towards women as full citizens.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

oh my !

Just a assing thought about the shooter at VA Tech
How "Korean" is someone who has lived in the US for 13 years--since he was 10?

Friday, April 13, 2007

Freedom of Speech

Don Imus got cancelled because ofcapitalism--the money people withdrew their suport and his show was cancelled. That they withdrew their support because of his racist and sexist talk, in my honest opinion, this was a long time coming. But we should look at all speech that is commercial--and racist and/or sexist.
What is the effect when public figures use language or make statements that are derogatory to a group of people, and are getting big bucks to do so? What message does that send?
For instance, if one hears women referred to as "hos" or "feminazis" what message does that send to males and to females about how women ought to be treated?
What is the affect when a general in uniform says that he thinks homosexuals are immoral--what does that say for the current "don't ask, don't tell policy" or any future possibility of inclusion? How can we even think of moving his opinion--persuasion is the vehicle of change, after all--when he is not called on his actions as against current policy by his superiors?
Language is very powerful.
Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights, but it is freedom of speech to hear ideas, to debate them--not to dismiss and disrespect people.
It is a right that needs to be protected (and notice, please, that it was NOT the government which called Imus on his language, but the free marketplace).
It is a right that needs to be used knowingly.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Holy War?

In Sunday's (4/8/07) NYTimes Magazine section the Pope is calling for the re-christenization of Europe. In his Easter sermon Pope Benedict XVI decried the "continual slaughter" in Iraq and unrest in Afghanistan, denouncing violence in the name of religion. He almost, but not quite, called the war in Iraq an unjust war.
Meanwhile, back in the US of A, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who has said that God was pro-war (!) (1.31.2004) on shown on CNN overnight saying that the war in Iraq was just.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?