rigorousintuition.ca

Sometime late February, I heard a story on NPR regarding the South Dakota state legislature's decision to remove a woman's right to choose. The story included a horrific audio clip from an interview with South Dakota state legislator <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/1998/mbrdt128.htm">Bill Napoli</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. I heard the following, and my jaw hit the floor.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.<br><br>BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Digby <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_digbysblog_archive.html#114145668396763220">blogged about this</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> last week; it's a worthwhile read.<br><br>Now, I admit to having very little knowledge of RA, beyond my exposure here at RI and some cursory reading online. I was stricken with the strangeness I experienced to hear this scene described on the radio. I'm curious if anyone else caught this? Thoughts? <p></p><i></i>

He kind of sounds like he's describing something he actually saw, or was involved with. Creepy. <p></p><i></i>

He was asked to present an example and he did. I don't have to be a child molestor to know how fucked up human nature is and think of grotesque things that it is capable of. <p>--<br>CyberChrist<br>http://www.hackerjournal.org<br>My brain is hung like a horse.</p><i></i>

<br><br>yeah...this was up on crooks and liars yesterday...really really creepy shit. the comments section was a-blaze. <br><br>What I'm wondering about though, is this...is he citing an actual real-life rape CASE that he had heard about, or is he stating what would hypothetically be necessary for him to be OK with abortion?<br><br>I took it as he was stating what would be necessary for him to feel OK about an abortion.<br><br>His "example" is sick because it clearly points towards the idea that a woman must suffer greatly at the hands of her rapist if she's going to expect an abortion. she can't just be "raped". if she's just "raped"...that's not "good enough"....she has to be !!!RAAAAAAAPED!!!!!! to deserve an abortion in Napoli's eyes:<br><br><br><br><br>Going on the assumption that he's talking about what he FEELS would be necessary to allow an abortion.....I have a few comments...<br><br><br>BILL NAPOLI: <br>"A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."<br><br><br>OK, why is it necessary that the female be "religious"? Why is it necessary that this hypothetical girl was going to save her virginity? Why does the hypothetical example require sodomy?.... and most importantly of all, why the fuck does the rape need to be as brutal as possible to validate his "thumbs up" on abortion? <br><br><br>Like I said, "rape" doesn't count in his eyes...it has to be horrifically brutal to validate it. the fact that his hypothetical victim needs to be innocent and pure and religious, etc etc, just proves the point even more, IMO.<br><br>creepy. <p></p><i></i>