Confronting Delusion

There's a brilliant opinion piece in Psychology Today that exposes and guts every single odious anti-Choice, so-called pro-life right-wing rhetoric and sexism perpetrated upon women.

Utilizing a philosophy, or rather a ruse, grounded in a fundamental religiosity and self-declared moral high ground, pro-lifers claim abortion is an affront to the sanctity of life. If one truly asserts for the sanctity of life, though, it needs to be without glaring exceptions, otherwise it smacks of hypocrisy.

Congressman Akin is hardly alone among rank-and-file Republicans. Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate, is a vociferous advocate for subjugating women’s rights. In October, Mr. Ryan cosponsored and voted in favor of the "Protect Life Act" act – an incredibly paradoxical name for a bill that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to deny a woman an emergency abortion, even when one is needed to save her life. Ryan’s extreme views on women’s reproductive health don’t stop there: He is opposed to abortion in all cases, even for victims of rape and incest, and would ban the most common form of birth control.

These are provocative positions for a potential VP and beg a number of questions: Shouldn’t the health and life of a mother be equally cherished? If a mother with children is denied a life-saving abortion, her surviving progeny will be left motherless. What of their potential futures?

Moreover, does the veneration of life terminate once a fetus is born? Given conservative efforts to disband the EPA and their resistance to specific environmental safeguards that protect the life of a child – like limiting extremely harmful mercury emissions, among others[vii] – one must begin to wonder if this debate is even about human life. Do pro-lifers only cherish life prior to birth? Once the baby is born, does it become less precious? And why do conservatives consistently vote to degrade children’s wellbeing for the sake of profit? If it sounds all too bizarre, it is. What’s really going on here?

It's the US christian Sharia right-wing and fundamentalist assault on girls' and women's rights, aka the War on Women, which Con CPC MP Stephen Woodworth brought to Canada when he introduced M312.

Merci to atheist mommy for the link.

Redefinitions

In case you missed it, here's the Tea Party gaffe du jour (video at link).

Senate Candidate and Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) told a local television station on Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin cited conversations with unnamed doctors for the bizarre claim.

Twitter went batzoid. In my opinion, Kaili Joy Gray won the Intertoobz with:

Pregnancy is just a woman's way of consenting retroactively.

(By the way, here's a real sciencey paper on rape related pregnancy, a brief history of politicians' use of this canard, and a history of the BAD (biased, agenda-driven) science behind it.)

While Akin issued a statement later saying he'd 'misspoken', he did not retract the claim.

Why would he? He believes it. He was also co-sponsor -- with VP candidate Paul Ryan -- of the attempt to redefine 'forcible rape'.

Akin belongs to a church called the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) and hold a Masters in Divinity from its college.

A 2001 PCA report on the prospect of women serving in combat positions in the military, titled "Man's Duty to Protect Woman," states, "woman is the weaker sex and part of her weakness is the vulnerability attendant to her greatest privilege-that God has made her the 'Mother of all the living.' Men are to guard and protect her as she carries in her womb, gives birth to, and nurses her children." 

Yes, that was written in 2001, not 1001.

In its lengthy position papers on abortion, the PCA has made clear that what it claims are biblical prohibitions on abortion should take precedence over any other law, because of its views on the separation of church and state.

But there's more. Not only is he a proud Dominionist, he's linked to a batshitcrazier branch of it -- Christian Supremacists.

So what? you're thinking. The US is full of religious nuts.

Thing is, we got 'em here too. Maybe not as many, but in prominent and influential positions.

Look what Dave at the Galloping Beaver wrote in 2008.

And they're still at it. In fact, one of the Astroturf groups backing Woodworth's Wank is a project of one of these gangs.

Here's their avowed mission:

The mission of ARPA Canada is to educate, equip, and encourage Reformed Christians to political action and to shine the light of God’s Word to Canada’s municipal, provincial, and federal governments.

Think Woodworth's Wank is merely a typical mealy-mouthed Canadian effort to have a civilized 'discussion'?

Think again. Not only is Woody's Wank authored by a member of an older theocracy, it is enthusiastically supported by exactly the same kind of nutters as Todd Akin.

In the US, Dominionists want to redefine 'rape'. In Canada, Dominionists just want to redefine 'person'.

BONUS: Amy Davidson at the New Yorker. Excellent deconstruction.