Saturday, February 18, 2012
Um--I hate "Some radio dumbass said somewhere" posts, but Dana Loesch just pissed me off
So, persons seeking an abortion in Virginia can't consider the vaginally-invasive procedure of trans-vaginal ultrasound as "rape" because they previously gave their consent to the person who impregnated them (provided, I necessarily state, that that particular original action was consensual).
Um, gross? Is the byword now of all slutdom that "peniswasinyou"? Is Ms. Loesch by any chance married? If previously penetrated, is she saying she's now fair game? Obviously the fuck not, because that is disgusting. I am previously penetrated, darlings, and I don't think I'm open to rape. I think my consent is still needed for each encounter I have.
And I very much don't agree that the state has any business inserting any damn thing in any damn hole of anyone's body without their consent. Even if abortions are supposedly "invasive" at least they are consented to. Assuming the state has "rights" just because any assemblage of legislators can assert them is sick. And wrong.
I submit Loesch is totally bent. And not in the good way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
TWGB: Von Shitzinpantz
Trump: I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order pic.twitter.com/4qeH81ERWo — Acyn (@Acyn) May 2, 2024 It's hard not to view ...
1 comment:
Good post. But, I think the point of the clip was more to do with highlighting Loesch thinking that a forced, mandatory, and basically legislatively punitive procedure is somehow similiar or akin to regular intercourse.
There are plenty of conservatives that believe in the proposed Virginia (and elsewhere) legislation as a step in the continuing crusade towards a ban on abortion. That is just the current and unfortunate state of affairs. Your outline of why such punitive legislation is fundamentally r*tarded and a violation of a woman's right to her own body is good.
Loesch, however, seems to be taking the conservative view even further with a kind of dehumanizing, mocking, and dismissive slant on their position that relies on a truly repulsive equivocation. Plus, her position at CNN makes it worse. If she were just some backwoods crazy person (which she obviously is, lol) then who cares. But to have a national network tacitly endorse such statements by still employing her is just ridiculous.
Post a Comment