24 thoughts on “Who Needs Batman, When You’ve Got Greg Abbott?

  1. Em, I get your point, but that second-last paragraph is just too far. If it’s a balance between an innocent having to carry a child to term or an innocent dying, I’m going to go for the former every time.

    Personally, I think Abbott’s response fits the serial-rapist “stranger danger” framework, but not the “someone you know”. We could maybe reduce the incidence of the crime by increasing the penalty. Historically, it has been a capital crime.

    1. I can’t wrap my head around that argument when I hear it.
      It sounds like a complete denial or dismissal of the physical and emotional effects of doing so, like it’s just no big deal and no harm to the woman.

        1. Like forcing a woman to be retraumatized over her rape every time she looks at her child? Because that’s what you are talking about.

          1. Yeah, forced pregnancy is traumatic enough by itself. Activists here have already seen suicides and attempted suicides as a result of the law, and I don’t think these were rape-caused pregnancies. This will cost people’s lives, and the pro-forced pregnancy people simply don’t care.

            1. Suicides? Already?

              Man, this is like hearing about cannibalism in the Superdome.

              I’m not saying that it’s *NEVER* going to be appropriate to resort to that.

              I’m just saying it’s a hair early.

          2. This is the argument that I hate.
            There’s a simple method around it — ADOPTION.
            Now, say along with me, for Nine Months having to deal with Morning Sickness, loss of career prospects, having a growing parasite within your body.

            … but ten months, folks. It’s not forever. (and, yes, in this case, we are doing irreperable harm to the innocent babe by not breastfeeding them. Wet Nurses, folks — and Abbot should be championing them.).

            We can get into poisoning oneself through carrying male babies to term, if you like. That’s a thing that lasts forever.

            1. Sorry, but I’m not up for nine months of harm forcing a woman to carry to term, even IF you can find someone to adopt her baby. The statistics on that aren’t terribly good, especially for babies born to women of color.

              Far better long term to let women decide if they want to become or stay pregnant.

              1. Calling adoption a simple solution is ignoring that it’s so hard emotionally that most women can’t do it. If that’s where their head is at then they’d rather abort, that’s much easier on their body, mind, and pocketbook.

              2. It was Katie who used the word “simple”, not me. But in her defense, something can be simple without being easy. Is it easier to have an abortion than to have a baby? Emotionally, maybe, short-term. But is the easy thing always the right thing?

              3. No. I’m surprised someone would ask that. My premise is that no emotional damage can balance the equation for cutting a life short.

              4. Are you in favor of other State forced solutions to medical issues?

                Should the state fix the pandemic by forcing vaccination? Fix the lack of blood by taking it from the unwilling? Fix the lack of some organs by taking them?

                These solutions would save innocents. They all have the problem of forcing one innocent to save another.

                Note pregnancy is by far more damaging than say blood donation much less vaccination.

            2. Are you in favor of forced organ donation? Forced blood donation? Forced vaccination?

              And “forced” means “the state will make you do this even if we need to strap you down, we have more authority over your body than you do”.

    2. Given how poorly police and the justice system do with sexual assault right now, both in terms of how often they arrest, how often they prosecute, and how often they get bad verdicts (in both directions), I can’t imagine increasing the penalties, much less making it a capital crime, is the answer. The answer is much more difficult and complex, and sociocultural, than throwing years or lethal drug cocktails at it.

      1. Giving women more power to say no to sex has historically increased the odds of incest.

        wow – thats so misogynistic I don’t even know where to start.

  2. Comments like Abbot’s, and the reaction to them, always make me think of that observation about how fascists use illogic and absurdity to their advantage.

    He wasn’t making a carefully constructed proposal for a policy. He wasn’t critiquing any existing condition. It was a jumble of gibberish and word salad meant to cynically defend the indefensible.

    Abbot and his supporters can indulge in absurdity and demand that we respond with careful reasoning and logic, because their underlying premise is that whenever they hold power, there is really only one logic at play, which is that those with power are protected, while those without are not.

  3. Obviously what Abbott said is a despicable lie that wouldn’t fool a 6-year-old, and what it really means is “I don’t care.”. But why would he say it? What audience is he playing to?

Comments are closed.