Skip to main content

Colorado Republican district attorney Ken Buck compares pregnancy to cancer

On a talk show earlier today, Colorado Republican district attorney and Democrat Senator Mark Udall's challenger in the coming midterms - Ken Buck - had an interesting comparison to make with regard to women's reproductive rights, when he said the following:

"Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body - it's certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient. I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body. There is another fundamental issue at stake, and that's the life of the unborn child."

Ken "What the" Buck's comparison makes absolutely no sense at all. If he wanted to be consistent, then the following scenario would have to be true:

Setting: Mr. Buck in a hospital, after first being diagnosed with cancer

Dr. Cynthia Deepsigh: "So, Mr. Buck, I don't know how to tell you this, but via these tests, it appears as if you have cancer. The good news is that I feel we've spotted the cancer at an early enough stage where, with medication and treatment, I think we can beat this thing. What do you say?"

Ken Buck: "Well, doc, for as much as I'd like to be in control of my own body and make my own decisions, I feel it's immoral for me to alter God's plan any, so I will have to decline on the medication and treatment, and just let nature take its course."

Dr. Deepsigh: "But, you'll certainly die if you decide to do that! I insist - let us help you get over the cancer! We can do this!"

Buck: "I appreciate the offer, but I can't accept it. It's just like with women and abortion. While I can understand that, like me right now, they'd like to be in control of their bodies and be able to make their own decisions when pregnant, it's immoral for them to do so, and the same goes for me and my current condition. It's all in God's hands. I have faith that he'll pull me through this."

Dr. Deepsigh: "Without medication? I'm sorry, but you're not going to..."

Buck: "Go against God's wishes. Thanks for the offer, doc, but that's going to be my final decision."

Dr. Deepsigh: "Okay, then. Well, goodbye, I guess, and I mean that in more ways than one."

Buck: "Goodbye, doc. Have a nice day."

Dr. Deepsigh: "That's not what I meant. Whatever... Well, I'll get your papers, let you go, and then head out for a few drinks."

Buck: "Grapejuice, like in church?"

Dr. Deepsigh: "Yeah, that's it, plus some vodka - lots and lots of vodka."


Considering Mr. Buck is currently getting treatment for lymphoma, he appears to either not understand his own comparison or be a hypocrite. Of course, both could be true. Hopefully, Mr. Buck is able to beat his cancer, that he doesn't attempt to take away women's right to make decisions about their bodies, and that he attempts to find some serious help for his condition known as BS (or Being Stupid).

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/15/3168071/republican-senate-candidate-cancer-pregnancy/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...