Learn more about Charles Darwin and his work.
Looking for stuff about birds?
Lean more about lions
... And Mike Huckabee is not standing for it...
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has endorsed an amendment to Colorado's constitution declaring that a fertilized egg is a person."This proposed constitutional amendment will define a person as a human being from the moment life begins at conception," Huckabee said in a statement backing the Colorado Human Life Amendment.
"With this amendment, Colorado has an opportunity to send a clear message that every human life has value.
This is not good enough, because it does not cover unfertilized eggs. Menstruaters are Murderers! This includes women on the Pill. The only proper, holy way to be is pregnant or nursing, and don't let us witness the nursing, by god!
Politics
Comments
Perhaps in order to preserve every sacred ovum, we should harvest the ovaries of every newborn female to save those primordial follicles that will undergo atresia and never have the opportunity to be ovulated. We can keep them on ice with the frozen scrapings of every nocturnal emission. After all these potential humans must be treated with the full dignity of an adult or we get the HOLOCAUST.
Posted by: FutureMD | February 26, 2008 8:46 PM
Ah, good old Creationist logic! They bristle at the thought that human beings might have evolved from single-celled organisms, then turn around and proclaim that single-celled organisms are human beings.
I agree with you: Colorado should forget about this silly constitutional amendment business, and just execute every woman who's ever menstruated for serial murder. If that doesn't show their abiding respect for human life, I don't know will! (Perhaps a war crimes tribunal for every man who's ever masturbated?)
Posted by: LRM | February 26, 2008 9:24 PM
Your headline--caught my sperm murdering eye;-)
Isn't it sad that men are legally bound (chained) by law to support a womans choice to procreate(with or without his consent) have nothing left to combat the injustice of supporting women's birth choices but religious arguments?
I have a hunch that if we made it legal for men to walk away once a woman chooses to carry a kid to term, this religious argument would go away. Then maybe we could address the issue of state subsidized wombs...
Posted by: the real cmf | February 26, 2008 9:35 PM
and mind you, we are possibly also murdering our grandchildren, as all female gametes are actually generated during embryogenesis - which means our potential daughter will be carrying potential half-grandchildren....
...oh my, let's not tell them about that...
Posted by: steppen wolf | February 26, 2008 10:39 PM
"The only proper, holy way to be is pregnant or nursing, and don't let us witness the nursing, by god!"
Indeed, keep the bitches pregnant, in the kitchen and under wraps. Our nation was founded on these Judeo-Christian values, and it is only muslimofascist homoimmigrant nazis like the people posting here who want to change it!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | February 27, 2008 1:57 AM
In connection with some of their other policies, this brings to mind the old saying that for some of these politicians, the sanctity of human life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Posted by: Thinker | February 27, 2008 5:04 AM
But being on the pill prevents me from ovulating, surely that can't be considered murder? I still got all my eggs! (Well, except the ones from before I went on the pill.) On the other hand, nothing will prevent men from murdering sperm short of cutting off their testicles; after all there's a constant turnover isn't there?
Posted by: Felicia Gilljam | February 27, 2008 8:32 AM
Felicia:
You are right. The ovum is not released. But, worse, it is politically suppressed. Is house arrest OK? I think not.
I think that sperm is produced after other sperm is released (otherwise celebrate men would eventually explode). On the other hand, yes, even masturbation is a form of genocide.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 27, 2008 9:02 AM
Greg - no, it's the men who don't get to celebrate who explode.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 27, 2008 12:09 PM
Oh, goodie, an MRA. I love you guys; you're so amusing. Here, let me. *whump*
Isn't it sad that men are legally bound (chained) by law to support a womans choice to procreate(with or without his consent)
Uh, once it's born, it's a kid, and in our culture, it's legally owed support from both parents, including the (deadbeat) dad.
However, if you have a problem with the idea that someone might use your gametes to make a child you don't want, don't leave your gametes lying around in other people's reproductive tracts where they might get used for such a thing. Fortunately, we've had the answer for this puzzling dilemma for a really long time (as far back as the 1600s, if some accounts are to be believed): that is to say, wearing a condom! No gametes left around in anybody's reproductive tract means no unwanted children further down the line. Amazing!
The flip side of this argument has been painfully obvious to women for longer than recorded history, of course.
Of course, condoms are on the list of things the pro-forced-birth contingent wants to get rid of, just not as close to the top as, say, abortion and undetectable, female-controlled methods of contraception...
Posted by: Interrobang | February 27, 2008 12:35 PM
whatever
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 27, 2008 1:40 PM
Interro...*wutever*.By MRA I imagine you mean Mutual Recognition Arrangement? Or did you mean Mutant Registration Act? I don't think this is about that...
I have never heard one man, in my entire life, coo " I just LOOOooove babies...They-eer soOOO cuUUte." It just isn't a guy thing.
and Interno, you obviously haven't heard the statistics on single mother raised kids who fill the prisons--the direct result of a collusion of bad birth control/abortion policy, and the "tender years doctrine," which favors women by rote over men in custody hearings, etc.
Likely you have never noticed as well how many guys end up on the stuck end of the stick in single parent households--some 90% are *led* by women--women who wanted a child, and did what it took to get it, and the check that accompanies the "biological father".
Talk shows are full of women who would do anything to get a chec....er...child, with that rare simp who argues on Maury that he wants to be the father of some trailer-billy spawn, only to find that he isn't, but ten or twelve other fellahs might be da daddy.
All of this, in the era of low cost abortion, some form of sex ed, and FREE birth control: kind of makes the case that many women will get pregnant at ANY cost.
Why worry about getting rid of condoms, when that argument was preselected years ago as trivial, considering as that men STILL have no pill of their own, and there are more than enough women out their who pop their ovaries at the fun of baby roullette and birth hormone highs, who are backed by a very vocal lobby of angry, hormonally charged but mindless fembotz who excuse away American womens failure to utilize the rights granted by Roe v Wade, opting often instead to ensnare future progeny from the one myopic guy who would bang 'em for 'the cause'....
Posted by: the real cmf | February 27, 2008 6:59 PM
Get 'im, Interrobang!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 27, 2008 7:11 PM
Oh, yeah, in case I forget: they also had indentured servitude, slavery, and high rates of maternal death through childbirth. Maybe that was just natural selection weeding out the....never mind...
But I appreciate your acknowledgement of women USING MEN :
"don't leave your gametes lying around in other people's reproductive tracts where they might get *used*". Are you suggesting we leave the gametes elsewhere?
That's a start;-)
*slam*
Posted by: the real cmf | February 27, 2008 9:05 PM