Theocracy - Abortion

As stated in my last article, Theocracy - an introduction, I plan to examine various issues that are commonly referred to as examples of religion being forced on others. Over the years, I have discussed and debated abortion and have frequently heard the comment “don’t force your religion on me”, or some variation thereof. I believe it can be shown; quite conclusively that such a statement is based on a falsehood. While doing this, I hope that I can also help some on the pro-choice side who may, in my opinion, shrink back to that position out of a fear that if they opposed abortion; they would be forcing an entirely religious belief on others.

I dealt with some misconceptions in the previous article, such as, focusing solely on motive or how some present an issue, rather than on the actual matter or law being proposed. I briefly mentioned that atheists and agnostics oppose abortion. This may surprise some, but the argument against abortion need not reference the Bible or other religious documents. There is also no need to bring in the issue of when the soul enters the body. In my experience, the only one to refuse giving up on that as an argument was an individual arguing for the pro-choice side. Perhaps this was intentional, as the issue of when ensoulment occurs is very much a religious and/or personal belief. In trying to limit the pro-life argument to this framework, one could then say it is impossible to know or it is an entirely personal view and therefore the default position is pro-choice.

But, we have medical science and biology to guide us. We do not need to artificially limit ourselves to something as vague and controversial as ensoulment. We have better tools at our ready and such an important issue demands that we use them.

Besides my personal experience in using a secular argument against abortion and seeing several atheists and agnostics do the same, there are others who are not theists, yet oppose abortion in various degrees. A small website that can serve as an example is the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League. Their member list includes their non-theist position as well as what exceptions they would allow.

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Member List

Perhaps, some may now be willing to drop the erroneous view that only a religious person can be pro-life, or that it is only a religious issue. Still, some may yet feel that as a liberal or libertarian they must not support major restrictions on abortion. However, an argument against that was made at the website LeftOut – A Haven for Progressive Pro-lifers before that site was retired in 2003.

As they say in “The Basics of Pro-Life Progressivism”:

That's all. Fetal rights + parental responsibility = a pro-life stand. No need to pass any ideological, religious, sexual, racial, or economic litmus tests.

Since that site was created in 1997, others, ranging from personal websites, blogs and organizations have sprung up, bringing more witness to the fact that being pro-life does not mean forcing religion on others. A few searches with Google will lead one to a variety of political, religious and non-religious people who are pro-life. This may contrast sharply with what one sees typically on the news. Before the reader dismisses the notion that there is media bias on abortion, they should read a 1990 Los Angeles Times study on the matter.

”Although reporters (and editors) insist they don't let that happen, abortion opponents are equally insistent that media bias manifests itself, in print and on the air, almost daily.”

“A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.”

Also from that study:

”Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play…”

Some may be tempted to dismiss a 15-year-old study. I would have no problem with that if a recent one has shown clearly different results. The problem, however, is that even if that bias is a relic of the past, it has still become part of the socio-political landscape and culture and the effect on people's beliefs linger on.

To tie all this together, we have a Jewish, atheist, civil libertarian, left-wing individual who also happens to be pro-life. Nat Hentoff would certainly not be described as a right wing, Pat Robertson acolyte, and Neocon high priest. For those interested in his views on abortion there are a number of his articles located here.

Perhaps now, we can fully dispense with the notion that only right wing Christians are pro-life, or that restrictions on abortion are merely religion being forced on others and therefore, violating the 1st amendment. As we have seen, atheists, agnostics, pagans, leftists and others can embrace the pro-life position, without contradiction. While some may be intentionally pushing laws to institute purely religious matters and others may be doing so unintentionally, though with the best of intentions, abortion is not one of those issues.

Previous pro-life posts:

Knee Jerk Arguments
Interesting contrast
Fundamental Issues
Abortion - no consequences?
Stem cell research
Another interesting contrast
I see - pro-life people :-) part I
I see - pro-life people :-) part II
Do Unto Others...
What Kool-Aid do GOP Senators drink?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

But, but he cried...

With all the Katrina news reports and blame games going around, perhaps you saw Aaron Broussard's tearful breakdown on Meet The Press, or saw a video that made its way around the internet. The crying moment came at this point:

"The guy who runs this building I'm in, emergency management, he's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in a St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, 'Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?' And he said, 'Yeah, Mama, somebody's coming to get you. Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you on Friday.' And she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night."

The first time I saw this was in an online forum. Several commented that this was important for everyone to see. Before his breakdown he severely criticized the Federal response and praised the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of New Orleans.

My comment, was - "ok, he cried, that must mean that everything he says is accurate to the nth degree and the only problems were at the federal level. I was called an ass for that, which basically proved my point.

Now, we have this from Wuzzadem.com

Broussard claims Rodrigue was talking to his mother for four days after she died, promising her some nebulous "cavalry" was on the way. His story doesn't jibe with the reporting of CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, or even Thomas Rodrigue's own account.

[...]

To their credit, even Lies.com issued a correction after initially reporting on Broussard's accusations:

So, assuming the MSNBC story is accurate, Broussard’s story was at least significantly embellished... Broussard, for all the apparent sincerity in his emotional on-air breakdown, was willing to lie in order to make his story work better as political theater, which in turn makes it harder for me to credit the rest of the slow-FEMA-response anecdotes he described.

I won't be as kind. At best, I think Aaron Broussard is the political equivalent of a price gouger; taking advantage of a tragedy in order to gain political capital. He may very well be purposely trying to blame someone's death on an innocent party (or parties). Either way, it's despicable.

I suppose I am being an ass again by making sure others see this information. Afterall, he cried, and that means he cannot be questioned. I wonder, if I were to cry while defending Christianity, would that mean my arguments could not be questioned, or that if you do object, you are just being an ass?

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Important News!!!!

Apparently, some media outlets feel that it is imperative to display a photo of President Bush writing a note about needing a bathroom break. Yes, folks, it is a newsworthy event to reveal that President Bush actually has normal biological functions!

Never mind (off the top of my head):

Katrina disaster relief and what went wrong in the disaster response

A judicial confirmation hearing (ok silly Democraps on the Judiciary committee knock that one down a few notches)

Palestinian violence in Gaza

succesful military operations in Iraq

Iraq constitution taking shape and being readied for popular vote

Oil for food scandal still percolating

Able Danger still being blown off by 9-11 commission

Flight 93 memorial using a Crescent

CAIR faking photos

Next news flash:

President Bush also farts and sometimes they are silent but deadly. This one may require several special news reports and Michael Moore "documentaries".

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

A question for Judge Roberts

As the confirmation hearings begin for Judge Roberts nomination to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, much blather is being thrown about by members of the Senate Judiciary committee. It seems that Senators like to hear themselves talk, regardless of how predictable and boring they will be. Is it any surprise that liberal Democrats are causing Orwell to spin in his grave with their twisted definition of judicial activism? They are all for destroying precedent, when it advances their cause. Yet now, we must preserve the rulings of the court they deem precious. As if, there is no debate and all is settled. How convenient and incredibly predictable.

I am willing to bet, that liberals (including that RINO Spector) will avoid asking Roberts one particular question. In my opinion, Roberts should be asked what his view is concerning the Kelo decision. Why would liberals avoid that? Quite simply, the current liberals on the court voted for Kelo. This decision, enraged many and crossed the political spectrum. Do Kennedy, Schumer or Spector, who are clearly demonstrating that they would prefer a John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Stephen Breyer or a Ruth Bader Ginsburg clone, really want to remind voters that those justices created the Kelo ruling?

Hopefully, a Republican on the judiciary committee will have the political intellect to ask that very question. Barring Roberts supporting the majority opinion, the best spin that Sentor Kennedy and friends can hope for is to say they also want someone like Sandra Day O'Connor, who dissented from that vote. But this only reinforces how liberal the other justices were in that decision and means they want to maintain the current balance of the court. This balance has seriously endangered property rights. The Republicans need to make that point.

Previous posts:

Bush made a mistake
Judge Roberts
Let the games begin
"It's good to be the king"
Sandra Day O'Conner and the Supreme Court

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

Sept. 11

This is one of those anniversaries that many of us would prefer not to remember. The shock of that day is still palatable to me, though I suffered no personal loss. How much more, those poor souls, who lost loved ones on those flights or in the buildings struck by the terrorists? We have seen the public expression of grief by some, who were anointed by the MSM, much like Cindy Sheehan has been. Yet, there are others, who remember silently, whose grief is shared in small circles, away from the glaring light of a media with its own agenda. I could throw quite a few words at that subject. Yet today, it is best to think of those who remember family members and loved ones who perished on that fateful day. To remember also, that some fought back and may have prevented a worse fate. My thanks to those brave Americans that resisted, my prayers for those who are reminded of loved ones whose warm embrace or laughter they can no longer experience except in memory.

We must not forget, we must not once again become complacent.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions

The new math

And to think, I didn't care for Calculus in college. Recent events have caused me to rediscover this amazing formula for describing certain cause/effect relationships.

Something I didn’t like, bad or terrible happened
+
Dinner also not cooked well
x
I farted more than normal
/
Said fart didn't smell like roses
x
Bush is in office
=
Bush caused, desired and plans for more people to die, fact
x
DailKos + democraticunderground + moveon.org + George Soros
=
Bush is also eating newborn babies for breakfast

Seems to me, that is about the level of intellectual thought some noisy people are applying to the New Orleans hurricane tragedy. I don't care if you are in public office, the media or one of the pretty people in Hollywood or even that you claimed to have voted for Bush. Complaining about a lack of military/National Guard response shows a complete lack of understanding about logistics and the actual deployment of our military.

Blaming Bush for levees breaking because of financial cutbacks indicates a lack of knowledge about what studies were planned and how long it would take to implement improvements for category 5-hurricane protection, once approved. It should also be noted that one levee that broke had recently been upgraded.

"According to Naomi, any concerted effort to protect the city from a storm of category 4 or 5 will probably take 30 years to complete. And the feasibility study alone for such an effort will cost as much as $8 million. Even though Congress has authorized the feasibility study, funding has not yet been appropriated. When funds are made available, the study will take about six years to complete. “That’s a lot of time to get the study before Congress,” Naomi admits. “Hopefully we won’t have a major storm before then."

There is enough suffering and dying as it is. Must some people also spit on the bodies of the dead and use the suffering for their own emotionally flatulent rhetoric before they are even buried, just to gain political advantage? It is obvious that looters stealing televisions will feel no shame. I doubt those using this tragedy for partisan gain will experience any shame either.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions