Shithead of the Day
Apr. 21st, 2006 10:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertomSouth Dakota State Representative Joel Dykstra:
Fuckin' Oy.
“I think ‘rape and incest’ is a buzzword,” said Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. “It’s a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?”I'm trying to find a link to the actual quote, rather than just the reference on the blog -- but it doesn't appear to be online. It's in a New Jersey weekly, the Two Rivers Times. So if anyone up that way can find it and get me a scan, I'll put it up here.
Fuckin' Oy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 02:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 03:06 pm (UTC)Rape and incest, commonly defined. I suggest you speak with an attorney for South Dakota's legal definitions. And, while you're at it, resign your office. Someone with as limited a vocabulary as yours is not qualified to hold it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 03:20 pm (UTC)Ooookay. Aside from both those words being in the dictionary, you could go through some psych texts to read about the ramifications and results thereof.
Or you could talk to my mother.
Or, if you're slightly less inclined toward the intellectual, you could watch "Law & Order: SVU."
Or you could SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIEHOLE!
On second thought, don't. You South Dakotan idiot "politicians" are making the 2006 elections and an eventual overturn of your draconian ban easier than a trillion pro-choice actvists could have dreamed.
This is a good example of why I refer to my two years in South Dakota as "having put in my time in Hell."
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 03:49 pm (UTC)Unrelated
Date: 2006-04-21 04:00 pm (UTC)Re: Unrelated
Date: 2006-04-21 04:15 pm (UTC)Re: Unrelated
Date: 2006-04-21 04:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 04:05 pm (UTC)From: [me]
To: Rep. Dykstra
Subject: Definitions
Since you seem to be confused as to the definition of the words 'rape' and 'incest', here are a few links to assist you.
Rape: The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rape
and
Incest: Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incest
Hopefully that will clear up any confusion on your part.
For further information on the definition and common useage of these words please consult you legal counsel, any member of the medical profession, any member of the psychiatric, psychology, or couciling professions, or nearly any person who lives in the real world.
-P
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 04:32 pm (UTC)If a woman has to claim rape to get an abortion, how often will a man get accused of rape when it was consensual at the time because the woman (not necessarily mentally together) to get the abortion she needs approved? And how often will an unwanted baby be born because the woman (not necessarily mentally together) is not willing to report a rape because she still has positive feelings for the man, or because she fears reprisal if she makes it public?
I'm about as far away from Dykstra's position on abortion (I haven't exactly researched that, but I think my assumptions are safe) as anyone you'll find, but I actually find some merit in the idea that special legal status for (reported) rape and incest is a distraction from the real issue.
You may all fire at will.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 04:48 pm (UTC)This entire thing is just pushing the line further and further back. These people care nothing for women's health or well-being, or even that of the fetuses. They have bugs up their asses about what they consider to be "immoral" behavior, and they figure that their morality is more important than women's privacy or health. They don't like sex, they want to control women, they want to appease their weak, petty God... pick one. Or three. Or several more to go with those.
A woman's womb is nobody's business but her own.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 05:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 06:54 pm (UTC)If the SCOTUS says that Roe v. Wade precludes this nonsense, they'll have to say why and get their opinions on the damn record once and for all. End of discussion.
If the SCOTUS uses the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade... you know what's going to happen? A backlash that's going to leave these idiots spitting out teeth from the force of it.
Bring the issue to a head. Stop beating around the damn bush and let's get it over with: are we in America or the Republic of Gilead?
Good logic with one gaping star-sized black hole.
Date: 2006-04-21 07:15 pm (UTC)Perhaps someone you love.
Re: Good logic with one gaping star-sized black hole.
Date: 2006-04-21 07:22 pm (UTC)By the way... what difference is it supposed to make, saying, "someone you love?" Is it more important or more tragic just because it could happen to someone I know and care for? Am I supposed to respond with, "Oh, wait, you're right, this could affect a REAL PERSON, I should totally change my mind,"? Or am I supposed to be like some of the people who protest abortion clinics, mothers and daughters, who can apparently put down their placards and their beliefs long enough to go in and have an abortion, then go back outside and pick the placards back up with a straight face, feeling no moral quandries because it's different when it's your own?
Re: Good logic with one gaping star-sized black hole.
Date: 2006-04-21 09:46 pm (UTC)Re: Good logic with one gaping star-sized black hole.
Date: 2006-04-21 09:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 12:38 am (UTC)I've got what the entire abortion debate needs ...
Date: 2006-04-21 07:18 pm (UTC)Imagine a person A, who is demonstrably going to die without a kidney or liver transplant. (Examples chosen because either type of transplant -- half of a healthy liver, or 1 of 2 healthy kidneys -- is dangerous but by no means guaranteed fatal for the live donor. Heart transplant would be a different ball game.)
And imagine a person B, who has an eligible liver or kidney to donate if they choose. Tissue typing being what it is (despite 'House MD') it's quite plausible that this is the only kidney or liver which can be gotten to A in time.
Now in this situation A -- male or female, innocent or the scum of the earth, beloved family member or total stranger -- is just as dependent on B for life as a fetus/embryo is dependent on its mother. And A is unquestionably a live human being with full civil rights, no "when life begins" ambiguity possible.
Sure, there would be social pressure on B to do the generous thing. Probably lots of B's would go ahead and donate. (I expect I would.) Most of those who refused would offer some sort of excuse like the (real) danger of surgery or the (real) danger that they themselves might need that backup liver or kidney capacity at some point in their lives.
Nonetheless, I don't know of any circumstances -- even if A is a saintly public figure and B is under sentence of death for serial killing -- where B would be _compelled_ to donate that half-liver or kidney. You might think badly of B for not going along, especially if he/she gave a simple "don't wanna" as a reason. I might too. But the law and medical ethics alike wouldn't allow strapping down a screaming, resisting B and stealing that pound of flesh even to save A's unambiguous human life.
Some of that may be path of least resistance. A pregnant woman who says "It's my body, my decision stands" has to get active intervention to not have the baby anyway, whereas B's "It's my body, bugger off" will stand unless surgeons intervene to take that organ out on A's behalf. It's a lot easier for doctors to get sued or arrested for active than for passive consequences of their actions.
But on a purely moral plane, why is compelling a pregnant woman to carry to term against her will different from "we've come for your liver" against the donor's will? Doesn't a random A deserve to live just as much as a random newborn does, if it's a Life Is Sacred issue? And shouldn't a uterus be just as much under its owner's control as a kidney, if it's a Self-Determination Is Sacred issue? I'm not demanding that everyone agree with my own position, just noting that many abortion arguments seem strangely different when plugged into the organ-donor analogy.
The other thing that interests me, as a Lois Bujold reader, is to imagine the SF technology of uterine replicators suddenly becoming a real-world option with today's political climate unchanged.
I expect Life would wind up being exactly Sacred enough that an irresponsible, lazy, slutty woman would be served right by having to carry the baby in her own personal body anyway, but not Sacred enough that anyone else ought to have to foot the bills. Like the way passage through the birth canal now turns a baby from a Sacred Life to a much-resented burden on the welfare system. 'Post-born' poor kids can't _exactly_ be killed outright, but they can be nickeled-and-dimed to death for lack of food, medical care, housing, protection from violent or negligent parents, etc. Like the transplant patient vs. the fetus, this apparently makes a difference.
Re: I've got what the entire abortion debate needs ...
Date: 2006-04-22 05:16 pm (UTC)Re: I've got what the entire abortion debate needs ...
Date: 2006-04-22 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 04:38 pm (UTC)As opposed to, say, "Adoptions, not abortions"?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 05:46 pm (UTC)eep.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 05:51 pm (UTC)Rep. Elizabeth Kraus, R-Rapid City, said no exceptions should be made in cases of rape or incest. It is rare for raped women to get pregnant, but allowing them to have abortions is no different from raping them again, Kraus argued. ''The welfare of the mother and the child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases,'' she said. ''In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity,'' Kraus added. ''In this medical rape, she is robbed of her maternity.''
Published on March 7, 2006, Page 10A, Aberdeen American News (SD)
Rep. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, who is the House GOP leader, said the proposed exception for rape is a distraction often used during abortion debates. ''Does that make that life any less precious . . . regardless of how it came about?'' he asked.
The penalty would apply only to those who do abortions or who prescribe any drugs that would abort a fetus. Women who have abortions could not be charged.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 09:28 pm (UTC)What the hell? Rape is involuntary - that's what makes it a crime and not just healthy sex. An abortion is, however, voluntary, so calling it "medical rape" is inflammatory, deceptive and stupid. The closer analogy is to call illegalizing abortion a form of rape: in both cases you are removing a woman's ability to make decisions over the care of her own body. (In Perdido Street Station, one culture has a single crime: "theft of choice". Rape is one example thereof, and all this stupidness would also be.)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-21 06:22 pm (UTC)And normally I really hate fightin' words. But I hate aggressive barbarism just as bad.
Dykstra apparently doesn't read his own state laws.
Date: 2006-04-21 11:02 pm (UTC)I think you'll find that rape is quite specifically defined at http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-22-1
and that "incest" is defined at http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-22A-2 .
I found these in your own state laws online with a Google search in about three seconds each.
I expect the announcement of your resignation Monday.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 01:56 am (UTC)As noted above, these things ARE defined in law in his own state. I also am quite sure he could meet some women who were brutally buzzworded who can tell him that it's very real.
Frankly, I don't think these people really care. For some demented reason, they want this law so BADLY, they'll trample anything and anyone.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 02:09 am (UTC)Shithead of the Day
Date: 2006-04-22 03:01 am (UTC)Rape is defined in Chapter 22-22-1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.
Incest is defined in Chapter 22-22-19.1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws.
I believe that this means that the State of South Dakota has already defined rape and incest.
Unfortunately Rep. Joel Dykstra is unopposed in the 2006 election.
Ben
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 03:31 pm (UTC)As to incest, they do have a problem defining it. At what degree does it stop being incest? Since we are all the children of Adam and Eve, we are all cousins, all one big family, and so it must all be incest, or else none of it is.
So if there's no such thing as rape, and no such thing as incest, how can abortion be allowed in those cases?
Please note that I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ABOVE. I have just heard the logic (?) over and over from my fundie cousins, to the point that I can recite it.
They have views that are scarier than these, too. In many ways, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, they're out there. No, they aren't going to invite us over for dinner: we might talk to their kids.
Is this more than you wanted to know?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 04:51 pm (UTC)So what do they call it when a man forcibly has sex with another man's wife?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 05:26 pm (UTC)Yes, I perceive certain of my cousins as sick and twisted, but of course, they think the same of me. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-22 05:12 pm (UTC)With most state legislators, the gig is only a part-time thing. Assuming this is the case in South Dakota, you have to wonder what this bozo does when South Dakota's state legislature isn't in session.