![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenThis is so cute. Bittersweet, but cute That's right, haters: these gays is married. The mention of the two women who are in their 70s and who had been together for forty years almost made me cry. Remind me why we have to defend against that kind of dedication in marriage again?
No God? No problem! You can still hate on women and bid to control their bodies! Except, of course, it helps if you mention women nowhere in your article. Seriously, Amanda pointed that out at Pandagon, and I wouldn't have clicked the link to it if not to check for myself. He uses the words "conception," "fetus," and "childbirth," and that's as close as he gets to even inferring about the existance of the baby-making containers. Of course, he is diligent in mentioning TEH BEBBIEZ every opportunity he gets. This is, abstracted to absurdity, what pro-lifers sound like without their cooing platitudes or Justice Kennedy's patronizing devotion to protecting females from abortion-related regret. It is terrifying when you strip down their false canonization and see through to the true force driving them: women are not people and they might as well not exist except to push out babies.
Last but not least, birth certificates for stillborns: the movement, the pain, the legal consequences. Oh wait, ha-ha! Just kidding about that last one. I support a rational solution to the problem of what to do for people who are--reasonably--aggreived to lose a planned and wanted pregnancy. I say, give them a Word-document piece of paper that looks really nice and has the doctor's signature and the hospital's name (but no other identifying details) to go with the details of the birth. This would give the sort of closure these women claim to need, which I sympathize with a lot more than people who have spontaneous miscarriages and carry around bloody pictures of their "missing angels" (::GROAN::). Plus? There'd be no sticky need to create separate legal documents for dead babies (sure to get messed up by either government or hospital bureaucracy and lead to dead babies with full birth certs and live ones without); avoid the thorny issue of forcing legal recognition of a non-person (and avoid anti-choice kow-towing); spare taxpayer expense to fund the various committees to regulate these documents; and escape the possibility of issuing 25,000 birth certs a year that might then be used to perpetuate fraud, identity theft/illegal change that might, you know, aid terrorists in eluding authorities and getting into the country? Those things we're supposed to be really, really adamently opposed to said terrorists doing? Anyone? Bueller?
No God? No problem! You can still hate on women and bid to control their bodies! Except, of course, it helps if you mention women nowhere in your article. Seriously, Amanda pointed that out at Pandagon, and I wouldn't have clicked the link to it if not to check for myself. He uses the words "conception," "fetus," and "childbirth," and that's as close as he gets to even inferring about the existance of the baby-making containers. Of course, he is diligent in mentioning TEH BEBBIEZ every opportunity he gets. This is, abstracted to absurdity, what pro-lifers sound like without their cooing platitudes or Justice Kennedy's patronizing devotion to protecting females from abortion-related regret. It is terrifying when you strip down their false canonization and see through to the true force driving them: women are not people and they might as well not exist except to push out babies.
Last but not least, birth certificates for stillborns: the movement, the pain, the legal consequences. Oh wait, ha-ha! Just kidding about that last one. I support a rational solution to the problem of what to do for people who are--reasonably--aggreived to lose a planned and wanted pregnancy. I say, give them a Word-document piece of paper that looks really nice and has the doctor's signature and the hospital's name (but no other identifying details) to go with the details of the birth. This would give the sort of closure these women claim to need, which I sympathize with a lot more than people who have spontaneous miscarriages and carry around bloody pictures of their "missing angels" (::GROAN::). Plus? There'd be no sticky need to create separate legal documents for dead babies (sure to get messed up by either government or hospital bureaucracy and lead to dead babies with full birth certs and live ones without); avoid the thorny issue of forcing legal recognition of a non-person (and avoid anti-choice kow-towing); spare taxpayer expense to fund the various committees to regulate these documents; and escape the possibility of issuing 25,000 birth certs a year that might then be used to perpetuate fraud, identity theft/illegal change that might, you know, aid terrorists in eluding authorities and getting into the country? Those things we're supposed to be really, really adamently opposed to said terrorists doing? Anyone? Bueller?
