Rape = Lemons

Sharron Angle is back in the news. The only good thing about her continuing to let people know where she stands on the issues is that it will help solidify her getting soundly beaten when the election rolls around in November. She is the Republican candidate trying to wrestle the Senate seat away from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Soon, she'll just be another nutjob that I (hopefully) never have to hear from again. What a maroon.

Here's her deal: She doesn't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and/or incest. Nope. Doesn't believe in it. She does, apparently, believe in using flowery metaphors to explain how she thinks that things should be. You know, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Only in this case, the lemons are being raped and getting pregnant, and the lemonade is carrying that child to term and having it. Of course. That seems perfectly reasonable. If you live on another planet.

It seems that Ms. Angle appeared on the Alan Stock Show, which is apparently a conservative radio program. It was during that show that Mr. Stock asked her "Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?" That seems like a fairly straight forward question. Let's see if she can give a fairly straight forward answer, shall we?

She responded, "My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability." Hmm. That's not as straight forward as I would have liked. And I'm wondering why that "plan" can't include having an abortion if you're raped.

And apparently Mr. Stock wondered the same thing. That's why he followed up his question with, basically, the same question, when he asked, "What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?" Ugh.

First of all, how could anyone WANT a young girl, who has been raped by her father, to HAVE that baby? HOW? I do not understand that AT ALL. And it fascinates me in a way that I cannot explain that this viewpoint is being expressed by a woman. I am completely at a loss as to what to say other than, "You're a moron."

So, how does she explain it? Well, like this: "I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life." Good Lord. What is wrong with you?

Might I just point out how she answered the question by giving an example that had nothing to do with the question. She claims that she has been in a position where she had to counsel young girls who had "at risk" pregnancies. OK, if you're asking me, anyone having a kid when they're 13 or 15 if "at risk". But that doesn't address a rape or an incest situation! No, that just addresses a high risk pregnancy situation.

And I have to tell you, I'm not really buying her example that she gave. That sounds like too much of a perfectly flowery ending if you're asking me. But even if it were true, are we supposed to assume that ALL situations would turn out equally as well? Anyone who thinks that, as Ms. Angle appears to, would be a moron. And since she's so fond of metaphors, here's one for her: Nice tale, but it's apples and oranges that you're comparing. Your little example there has nothing to do with a girl who has been raped or is a victim of incest. None. And there isn't a drop of lemonade to be found in those situations. On top of that, being raped isn't life handing you "a lemon", you twit. It's a horrible thing to happen to any woman and the fact that you clearly minimize the affect that being raped can have on a woman is reprehensible.

Please, Ms. Angle, do everyone a favor and go back to your little fantasy land that you seemed to have came from and stay there. Stay there and make your lemonade. Whatever you do, don't ever run for the Senate again. Remember, you said it yourself, two wrongs don't make a right. You're incredibly wrong. And you're not going to make it right. Now, shoo!

NO Right To Choose...Ever

I've done a few posts about the seemingly borderline retarded Alvin Greene winning the Democratic nomination to run for the Senate seat in South Carolina. He won the primary almost three weeks ago and still no one can figure out why anyone voted for him. Over in Nevada, there's a Republican candidate running for that Senate seat and I can't figure out why in the world anyone, especially any woman, would have ever voted for her either.

From the Nevada State Democratic Party website we learn of an interview that a one Sharron Angle did with a one Bill Manders back in January of 2010. Why this interview is coming out now is not quite clear to me. What is clear to me is that Ms. Angle should not be elected to anything. It's questionable if she should be allowed to roam about freely as she wishes. Medication might need to be involved. If no such medication is available, I'm all for a good malleting over the noggin.

Now, Manders brought up the topic of abortion. Abortion, if you're asking me, is a silly thing for people to state an opinion on. You know why? Because one side is never going to convince the other side to change their mind. They're just not. People might change their mind on their own over time, but they're not going to be simply convinced because someone presents them with a "reasonable" argument. It's a pointless discussion to have. But it sure does get some people riled up, that's for sure. And it's also a good way to identify some of the morons by listening to people's opinions.

Here's the way the exchange between Manders and Angle went. See if you have a problem with her logic/reasoning/rationale.

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

You have got to be effing kidding me.

Where to begin? Hard to say, really. I guess I can start with her being "pro responsible choice". I didn't know that we were differentiating between "responsible choice" and "irresponsible choice." And I really don't see how there can even be that distinction when referring to abortion. Pro-life means what it means and pro-choice means what it means. She can't just go around assigning her own definition to the sides that have already been defined.

She says that there is no reason at all for an abortion "in her book"? I'm glad we're not going by her book. Mainly because she doesn't seem to think that there should be the option of an abortion in the case of incest or rape. Listen, lady...I believe that God has a plan too, but I don't think that His plan involves some teenage girl getting raped by her uncle and then being forced to carry that baby to term. For instance! You put yourself in that sort of a position, Ms. Angle, and then you tell me how your "faith" is going to work in that situation. What a moron.

People with that sort of thinking pattern cannot be in government. They sure as heck cannot be in the Senate. (I'd sort of prefer that they not be on the planet.) Lawmaking requires logic and reason and facts. It requires very little reliance on faith. Ms. Angle doesn't seem to have enough cranial capacity to do anything other than rely on her "faith". Thus, vote for whoever is running against her. I don't know who that is and I'm not going to look it up. Anyone would be better than her and her "no choice" stance. And if you care to, you can listen to her stance over there at The Huffington Post.