Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Assistant to the Quote of the Day

"They keep making this case in public because it has important policy consequences for them. You see, if you can't get pregnant by being raped then anybody who is pregnant by definition was not raped. It could not have been a rape; no matter what you say you must have wanted it if you ended up pregnant. And if you wanted it there's no reason to feel sorry for you and let you end this pregnancy. You should have thought about that before you lured your supposed rapist to do this thing that you obviously secretly wanted. What was the line there? 'To get pregnant takes a little cooperation.' So we know you secretly wanted it otherwise you wouldn't be pregnant and we wouldn't now be talking about what the government is going to force you to do with regard to your pregnancy."

-- Rachel Maddow, brilliantly turning the argument around, exposing the true motives of those pushing the false claim that women who are raped can't get pregnant and basically annihilating the anti-abortion legislation crowd

Seriously, set aside twenty minutes and watch this.

It's just a masterful takedown.


JohnF said...

I'm at the point now where I literally don't know how ANY woman, even Dana Loesch, could vote (R).

Chez said...

Because Loesch actually DOES have a vagina that can defend itself against penises. That's obvious.

Matt said...

The infamous vagina dentata. I had heard legends of such, but never expected confirmation of it's existence.

Claude Weaver said...

I pondered on this whole "real rape" argument being made, and I just realized something:

There are those who argue that same-sex marriages would lead to legitimization of pedophilia, bestiality and other "sexually perverse" relationships.

But by trying to to remove the concept of consent from the discussion (which they do by defining rape as purely physical force, rather than any kind of mental or emotional manipulation as well), they are saying that any other type of sexual act is by its very nature consensual, regardless of if one or both parties could possibly give consent. This mentality presents the ironic approval of said perverse relationships, since as long as you ask nice and/or put enough peanut butter on your sexual organ of choice, the other party isn't being violated.

In other words, gays don't cause animal fucking and child molestation. Roofies do.

L. said...

I like my sister's theory on Conservatives and the "degrees" of rape:

"You know how Conservatives are accusing Liberals of trying to take their guns away?

I think they're concerned they won't have any guns left to rape us. Seriously, they are spending way too much time categorizing and justifying different kinds of rape."

Feel free to inflame internet comment sections with this theory.