At some point, these fake-christians will actually let a woman die, and frankly, I look forward to the caterwauling once they get arrested for murder.

Another good illustration of the misogyny of the anti-choice crowd is their reaction to the teenage girls in Massachusetts who chose to get themselves pregnant. Checkout the Roy column in the village voice for some choice examples:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/06/knocked_up_slut.php

These people are drooling over the prospect of punishing these girls for the crime of being female and having teh sex. The pretty pretty babies they claim to hold so dear are irrelevant to the Christ commanded mission of slut shaming.

People like that are enough to make me reconsider my opposition to capital punishment. If there is a hell, they will certainly burn in it.

My wife, a believing Catholic, (if it matters) had a Catholic attending physician during her troubled pregnancy with our daughter.  At about 26 weeks into her pregnancy, she had a premature delivery, on our living room couch, and our daughter lived for about 10 minutes. 

We called her obstetrician, who felt himself not competent to perform the D&C;(look it up) he thought necessary for my wife’s health and recommended that my wife go to the county wide emergency hospital because as he said, “They do these procedures very often, so they are highly practiced with them.” 

On the surface it seems, great advice.  However, one of the “physicians” at that facility decided there was cause to be suspicious about this story and called the medical examiners office to report our “apparent” attempt to abort our much desired child. 

God should damn such “Christian” busybodies to the same hell they have condemned us and others like us to.  I seldom go a day when I don’t wish that my daughter was with us.  And my heart still breaks when I think of how the hurt was magnified by this persons insensitive righteousness.

Anyone who asks “Then why did they choose that line of work if they don’t intend to perform the tasks” needs to read all the comments on that Kos diary, particularly the ones from dogemperor.

dogemperor is the owner of that Kos diary, and is very knowledgeable about the Christian Right, having been a walk-away from an Assemblies of God neoPentecostal church. D. also publishes on www.talk2action.org, and appears to be well regarded by the professional authors and reporters running the blog. Reliable source, I’d say.

Hey asshat, where in the world did you get the idea that EMTs would refuse transport for any reason, especially the puke you spew in this post? Bound by the actual law of “desertion of a patient”, the liability is astronomical as well as loss of license irregardless of any individual morals,  in any and all states of this USA republic. Post a citation of this supposed moral law or retract your statement. I support free choice but when shitbags like yourself lie about real life episodes that might endanger someone with a real emergency (to support your arguments side) from calling an ambulance because of the vomit of this post, I could personally beat you to a point where I might have to treat you.

When I got my EMT card, the standard that we were expected to strive for was “Nobody. Dies. On. My. Bus.”

As a bit of professional ethos, it was so ingrained, I thought all EMTs would be familiar with it. In retrospect, perhaps it was just the way they taught emergency medicine at St. Vincent’s. But it’s more likely that Dominionists are impervious to professional standards.

EMT-Paramedic - Ordinarily, I don’t recommend feeding the trolls, but try reading the link before you start to spew.

And by the way: Fuck you.

EMT-Paramedic, read the linked post. The outrage is not about EMTs doing their job, but about people sabotaging the system and trying to get legal protection for this sabotage. Direct your anger about the attack on professional standards to the people attacking them, not to those to report the attack.

I read this yesterday and was actually rendered speechless.

How can this be seen as anything but a violation of equal protection under the law?

Hey asshat, where in the world did you get the idea that EMTs would refuse transport for any reason, especially the puke you spew in this post?

You mean other than the fact that EMT Stephanie Adamson in Illinois did refuse to transport a patient who needed an abortion or she was going to die?  What’s your argument, that she’s not a “real” EMT even though she was trained and was working at the job?

If you want to come in here claiming it never happens, please talk to Ms. Adamson and find out why she’s suing for religious discrimination because of her patient-endangering actions.

How can this be seen as anything but a violation of equal protection under the law?

Dominionists don’t believe in equal protection under the law; they believe in 2nd-class citizenship for non-Christians (or rather, non-Dominionists).

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

the perfect example of how the media and public pretend not to see blatant misogyny.

I always saw it as a society turning its head from the blatant absurdities of the religion they themselves practice.

I think what we have here is a problem of semantics. Removing an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy is not an “abortion” in any sense of the word. Medically, it’s not considered an abortion. Legally, it’s not considered an abortion. It was legal before Roe v. Wade and would still be legal if Roe v. Wade was overturned. The Catholic Church has absolutely no problem with either of these procedures. I can’t imagine any other religion would have any problem with them either.

Either these EMTs are very, very confused, or they’re complete morons. I am very pro-life, and I see nothing wrong with removing an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy to save the mother’s life. Indeed, it would be immoral not to do so. Neither of these procedures is an “abortion,” medically, legally, or morally. A molar pregnancy isn’t even a baby – it’s a tumor. Please don’t conflate all pro-lifers with these idiots.

Please don’t conflate all pro-lifers with these idiots.

There are plenty of pro-lifers out there who don’t think a woman should be given an abortion to save her life.

And, yes, there are abortions that are medically necessary to save a person’s life - ectopic pregnancy is not the only life-threatening complication that exists.

Ironically, the few instances wherein a late-term D&X;procedure was ever legal in the USA was for the health or life of the mother.  I believe that clause was not kept when congress unconstitutionally outlawed that a few years ago. 

Nice try, though.

Sarah, I don’t know the RCC’s position on molar pregnancy, but I do know that as far as ectopic pregnancy’s go the position is that they do not endorse any procedure that directly harms the zygote/embryo/fetus. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, that precludes the safest, least invasive procedure for this doomed pregnancy, which is administration of methotrexate. The RCC supports only the removal of the Fallopian tube that the precious pre-borned baby has lodged itself into. In other words, the RCC endorses impairing a woman’s fertility, rather than preserving it, because a doomed embryo is deemed to be more important than an actual woman. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=95532

Either these EMTs are very, very confused, or they’re complete morons. I am very pro-life, and I see nothing wrong with removing an ectopic pregnancy or a molar pregnancy to save the mother’s life. Indeed, it would be immoral not to do so. Neither of these procedures is an “abortion,” medically, legally, or morally. A molar pregnancy isn’t even a baby – it’s a tumor. Please don’t conflate all pro-lifers with these idiots.

If you believe that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is identical to a born baby in that to remove one from the womb is the same as killing a child, then the circumstances surrounding killing that child are immaterial to the fact that you are killing a child. All these people are doing is moving the goalposts: rather than declaring that life begins at implantation, they’re declaring that it begins at conception. Rather than define human life by its potential, they’re defining it by its locality. Even a molar pregnancy often still has a heartbeat, or some other vestige of “life” that must be terminated. After all, we don’t kill little kids when they get stuck in a crawlspace, why should we kill them when they happen to get stuck in mommy’s falopian tubes?

I have no doubt that most pro-lifers including the pope believe that it’s fine to take out an ectopic or molar pregnancy—but it’s “destroying life” in the same way that performing an abortion at the fifth week is. But because an ectopic or molar pregnancy could happen to pretty much any Good Catholic (or other God-Fearing type), pro-lifers find a way to square with it and make it Not About Killing Babies. Since that could be themselves, or their wives, or sisters, or daughters, they decide that that particular cluster of dividing cells is somehow morally “different” than the same cluster of dividing cells that happens to be in the womb of Random Slut X. When she removes that cluster of cells, it’s murder. When a doctor performs an abortion on a God Fearing Woman who has an ectopic or molar pregnancy, it’s an acceptable procedure.

To be pro-life is to stand on an icy hillside in the middle of an avalanche. Even if you feel like you’re on solid footing, and can see the “top,” your peers are going to sweep you down with them as they explore how far down into the depths of misogyny they can go.

At some point, these fake-christians will actually let a woman die, and frankly, I look forward to the caterwauling once they get arrested for murder.

Unfortunately, Scott, I don’t think that the EMT worker’s liability in a case like that would be equal to a murder charge—-it would be more like Manslaughter I or II (probably II).  This would be because the EMT worker’s actions would not be driven by malice but rather by a desire not to be involved, even at a third or fourth remove, in wickedness.  If you really believe that a woman who has engaged in unsanctioned sex has brought God’s judgement down upon her own head then you’re scarcely in a position to interfere with God’s judgement, are you?  To do so would be to become complicitous in evil, and if you’re a good Christian you don’t want that, far less if you’re a convinced Dominionist.

(That’s why it’s impossible to have a discussion with people who think like this—-so far as they are concerned, they’re the good guys.)

If you believe that a fetus, embryo, or zygote is identical to a born baby in that to remove one from the womb is the same as killing a child, then the circumstances surrounding killing that child are immaterial to the fact that you are killing a child.

Yep.

I meant to link this on here when I saw it a few days ago.

Remember, leading GOP VP candidate Bobby Jindal supports forcing both the mother and child/fetus/etc. to die instead of saving the mother.

To do so would be to become complicitous in evil, and if you’re a good Christian you don’t want that, far less if you’re a convinced Dominionist.

There are a few religions out there which have a strong belief in avoiding polluting or harming actions—two that I can think of are Jains and ultra-orthodox Jews. 

Both groups are small, not culturally dominant even in parts of the world where they’re likely to be encountered, and most importantly, they tend to cloister themselves off in specialized communities and lines of work so that they can live up to the demands of their religion while also not royally fucking other people over.

This is where Dominionism fails, because you just can’t have that kind of pollution-free lifestyle and also want the same thing for the entire country.  You can’t be a cloistered minority and the ruling class at the same time.

This is where Dominionism fails, because you just can’t have that kind of pollution-free lifestyle and also want the same thing for the entire country.  You can’t be a cloistered minority and the ruling class at the same time.

Oh, well, I’m okay with the ritual-purity obsessions of cloistered minorities.  It’s pretty evident, by which I mean evident to the casual observer, that such obsessions are one of the ways in which cloistered minorities get to be cloistered minorities in the first place and that they’re also foremost among the strategies cloistered minorities use to maintain/protect their cloistered-minority status.  Cloistered minorities, because they’re cloistered minorities, always face danger from within and without: from without they face hostility from the larger social body and from within they face the desire to assimilate with the larger social body.  Purity obsessions operate so as to reduce the threat from both directions (though in certain cases they may enhance the threat from the first): they increase the distance between the minority community and the larger society, rendering a strike across the widening void less likely, while they increase the in-group cohesion of the minority community, making it less likely that individuals within the minority community will find it possible or desirable to assimilate with the wider society.  (In another comment queue on this same blog there’s a fairlly involved discussion of the cleanliness laws adumbrated in Leviticus and of the rôle they played in setting the Israelites apart from neighboring communities from whom the Israelites were not too dissimilar.)

Ritual-purity requirements can benefit a cloistered minority, but they can’t benefit the larger society without which the cloistered minority would be neither cloistered nor a minority—-i.e., would not exist, not in its cloistered-minority form.  This is not only why large, multiplicitous societies should eschew such requirements, it’s why big-tent societies always find they do eschew such requirements in practice, whatever sort of lip-service they may tender them in theory.  A big-tent society which attempts to play by cloistered-minority rules will destroy itself, for the same reason you can’t have a donut-hole without a circumambient donut.  (IOW, what you said.)  But here’s where Dominionists differ from the Jains and the Orthodox Jews: what the Jains and the Orthodox Jews want (I leave aside those Orthodox Jews with millenial leanings) is more or less just to plug along the way they always have, but Dominionists and their fellow-travelers find the prospect of societal collapse, widespread destruction, chaos and anarchy, fill-in-the-blank, kind of appealing.  Their eschatology has always promised a shocking and awesome end to Babylon (the larger society being Babylon, of course) and they’re not in the business of trying to prove Revelations wrong.  If anything, they conceive of themselves as being in the business of trying to bring Revelations about.  Thus the Dominionist’s basic mind-set is the mind-set of a saboteur (and the moral-refusal laws of Missouri prove that the way little else could).  I doubt you could say the same thing about the Jains or the Orthodox Jews.

That’s exactly what I’m saying, bekabot.  It’s one thing to be all, “well I’m a Jain, so I can’t get a job as a leatherworker,” and something very different to decide that you and all your coreligionists want to take over the country and force everyone to be like you, and ALSO you demand the right not to engage in things your faith considers find morally problematic., even if that means some innocent people will die.

It’s one thing to be all, “well I’m a Jain, so I can’t get a job as a leatherworker,”

The dominionist version is exactly the opposite, no? It would be “I’m going to get a job as a leatherworker, and then I’m going to lobby for laws that let me keep my job while not doing what I was hired for.”

Ultimately, I think that the ritual-purity metaphor may be just a front, because every time these assholes win some battle they move the goalposts. They’re tainted by being asked to fill a prescription for methotrexate, then for EC, then for birth-control pills. Then they’re empowered to refuse to sell condoms… The no-connection-to-wickedness thing is a way to exercise the power they want, not an end in itself.

The dominionist version is exactly the opposite, no? It would be “I’m going to get a job as a leatherworker, and then I’m going to lobby for laws that let me keep my job while not doing what I was hired for.”

Yeah, that’s exactly my point.  In a Jain-dominant country where Jains were itching to have complete and official control of the government to create a Jain theocracy, society could not function.  Unless you gave individual Jains the ability to opt out of any part of their job that they found morally abhorrent, and also had a significant underclass of non-Jains who were willing to pick up a bare minimum of the slack just to the point where society wouldn’t collapse.  Which is what the Dominionists are trying to do.