How twisted do you have to be...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
...To come up with this?

<blockquote>"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." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli</blockquote>

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

Mr. Napoli also stated that in a case of "Simple rape", there should be no thought of ending a resulting pregnancy. Mr. Napoli has yet to define just what he meant by the term "simple rape".

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Nuc
Bullypulpit said:
...To come up with this?

<blockquote>"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." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli</blockquote>

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.

Maybe his point was that there should be no exceptions to the law. And what the hell? You can just go to your local Indian reservation and get one. Gotta love them redskins.
 
dilloduck said:
Maybe his point was that there should be no exceptions to the law. And what the hell? You can just go to your local Indian reservation and get one. Gotta love them redskins.

Or settle for a magazine and a bottle of lotion like millions of men do...
 
well it is a bit disturbing that he could think up a scenario like that, but whats your point?

Abortion is wrong period.

life is tough sometimes, but there is no excuse for terminating someone elses life.
 
I go back and forth with the abortion issue. ITs wrong. Its killing human life. Its completely irresponsible. But so long as tax dollars arent spent to fund organizations that do them, then we shouldnt bother dictating to other people how to live their lives.

If people want to commit sins in the eyes of god then they will pay for it when they goto meet their maker. As it stands many that have abortions are irresponsible anyway. Thus they shouldnt be having kids in the first place. It doesnt excuse their behavior. ITs just cold reality. They more then likely will generate a child that is a hassle to the mother and thus will eventually become another burden of the state. We have enough of those out there that if some women wants to avoid responsibility early and have an abortion instead of dumping a helpless kid off later then so be it.

Abortion is a state issue. IT should be something that is voted on by the people. Thus i dont mind the South Dakota ruling. IT wasnt a verdict given by a judge. IT was a law created by elected officials. IF people dont agree with their decision, they can vote them out next chance they get.
 
Avatar4321 said:
well it is a bit disturbing that he could think up a scenario like that, but whats your point?

Abortion is wrong period.

life is tough sometimes, but there is no excuse for terminating someone elses life.

You would force a woman to carry the child of her rapist? You're almost as bad as Napoli.
 
insein said:
I go back and forth with the abortion issue. ITs wrong. Its killing human life. Its completely irresponsible. But so long as tax dollars arent spent to fund organizations that do them, then we shouldnt bother dictating to other people how to live their lives.

If people want to commit sins in the eyes of god then they will pay for it when they goto meet their maker. As it stands many that have abortions are irresponsible anyway. Thus they shouldnt be having kids in the first place. It doesnt excuse their behavior. ITs just cold reality. They more then likely will generate a child that is a hassle to the mother and thus will eventually become another burden of the state. We have enough of those out there that if some women wants to avoid responsibility early and have an abortion instead of dumping a helpless kid off later then so be it.

Abortion is a state issue. IT should be something that is voted on by the people. Thus i dont mind the South Dakota ruling. IT wasnt a verdict given by a judge. IT was a law created by elected officials. IF people dont agree with their decision, they can vote them out next chance they get.

<blockquote>
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

James 4:12
Who art thou that judgest another? </blockquote>

Since you cannot stand in the same position as a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, whether it was the result of rape or an unplanned pregnancy resulting from failed birth control, or an unplanned pregnancy where the woman and her family simply can't support another child...Can you truly stand in judgement of them?

As for the measure being the "will of the people", The "people" have been known to be wrong on occaision. This is one such occaision.
 
Bullypulpit said:
...To come up with this?

<blockquote>"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." - South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli</blockquote>

This from Bill Napoli to define just what would constitute an exception to South Dakota's new and repressive anti-abortion law.

1. Not just ANY rape will do...A woman must be brutally raped.

2. The victim must have been a virgin prior to the assault. Once a woman has had sex, she can, apparently, no longer be raped.

3. The victim must be religious. And which religion might that be? If I judge Mr Napoli correctly, it can't be anything other than that "Old time religion".

4. The victim must have been "saving herself for marriage". Will she have to prove this in court?

5. The victim must have been "sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it". Apparently light sodomy just won't make the grade.

6. The victim must have been impregnated. It only stands to reason that one can't have an abortion unless one is pregnant.

Mr. Napoli also stated that in a case of "Simple rape", there should be no thought of ending a resulting pregnancy. Mr. Napoli has yet to define just what he meant by the term "simple rape".

What kind of twisted bastard comes up with stuff like this this? And why is he even claiming to be able to make medical decisions for women he hasn't even met? Lord knows, there are so many incompetent women running around out there that a man has to make thse decisions for them. It's a good thing that incompetent women like Condi Rice, Michelle Malkind, Madelyne Albright and all the women who are MD's and engineers and pilots, and, good heavens!, the female members of South Dakota's legislature have men like Bill Napoli around to make these important decisions for them.

On a more enlightened note, Cecelia Fire Thunder, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Reservation is working to establish a Planned Parenthood clinic on the reservation where South Dakota law has zero, zip, nada jurisdiction.

Wow. Way to dissect an opinion given as example as if it was law. :smoke:
 
insein said:
Abortion is a state issue. IT should be something that is voted on by the people. Thus i dont mind the South Dakota ruling. IT wasnt a verdict given by a judge. IT was a law created by elected officials. IF people dont agree with their decision, they can vote them out next chance they get.

Wouldn't it be refreshing though if legislative representatives created laws based on the desires of their constituency rather than their own political agenda? There wouldn't be a need to vote them out.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<blockquote>
Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.

Romans 2:1
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

James 4:12
Who art thou that judgest another? </blockquote>

Since you cannot stand in the same position as a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy, whether it was the result of rape or an unplanned pregnancy resulting from failed birth control, or an unplanned pregnancy where the woman and her family simply can't support another child...Can you truly stand in judgement of them?

As for the measure being the "will of the people", The "people" have been known to be wrong on occaision. This is one such occaision.

The is an alternative. It's called Adoption.

And you are misinterpreting the Bible in the very way all non-Christians and many liberals do in an attempt to support an immoral lifestyle.

So if a guy murders his wife, by your logic we must let him do it, under the guise of not judging him.
 
Abbey Normal said:
The is an alternative. It's called Adoption.

And you are misinterpreting the Bible in the very way all non-Christians and many liberals do in an attempt to support an immoral lifestyle.

So if a guy murders his wife, by your logic we must let him do it, under the guise of not judging him.

Bad analogy...We try him for murder. If he is found guilty, he gets life in prison. Let him face final judgement when he meets his maker. :rolleyes:
 
Bullypulpit said:
Bad analogy...We try him for murder. If he is found guilty, he gets life in prison. Let him face final judgement when he meets his maker. :rolleyes:

So trying him for murder and sentencing him to life in prison, is not judging him? What do you call it- making a non-judgmental suggestion?

Perfect analogy, actually, since in both cases, someone innocent is dead.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007
Abbey Normal said:
So trying him for murder and sentencing him to life in prison, is not judging him? What do you call it- making a non-judgmental suggestion?

Perfect analogy, actually, since in both case, someone innocent is dead.

<blockquote>

Leviticus 19:15
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1 Corinthians 6:2-3
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?. </blockquote>

The Bible is rather inconsistent, isn't it.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<blockquote>

Leviticus 19:15
In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

1 Corinthians 2:15
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

1 Corinthians 6:2-3
Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?. </blockquote>

The Bible is rather inconsistent, isn't it.

Well hell---lets just get rid of our judicial system because the bible tells us so. :rolleyes:
 
Bully quoting the bible, and hillary too. That ship has sailed long ago guys, you guys are on the wrong side. TOOO funny.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Bully quoting the bible, and hillary too. That ship has sailed long ago guys, you guys are on the wrong side. TOOO funny.

Isn't that a hoot? I love it when Christian haters quote the Bible if they can get any traction from it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top