Okay, I'm going to open up a bit here. Perhaps more than I should.
It seems that each day, I wake up thinking about new arguments against religion--new analogies that may make a light bulb go off for some Christian that will trigger doubts--or perhaps a new quote that may send a listener back to their Bible for investigation.
I spend a large amount of my time scheduling debates with Christians, arguing against those who are 'pro-fetus, anit-choice' and getting guests to appear on Dogma Debate so I can, yes, debate them.
And when I travel, I meet some amazing people. Believers of every faith, even quirky, magic Native-American goddess ones, and of course, nonbelievers.
When I stand back and watch some of their day to day activities, I see them helping one another. I visit these different cultures and small-town churches, and see that there is no homeless shelter, because everyone has a home.
I see religious retirement homes with 19-yr-old volunteers that aren't doing it for community service.
I see organizations designed to help children, who put on free community events, and provide free medical care and education in their respective communities.
And then, I feel guilty.
I feel guilty for not directing my focus toward a more charitable cause,
such as a medical center for kids, or a volunteer program for the elderly. I feel like I'm wasting my time.
Witnessing these touching human interactions, I begin to have a bit of cognitive dissonance of my own, and wonder if I'm happy; and more importantly, if I'm making anyone else happy, or truly doing the world any good at all.
Am I really making the world a better place? Or am I wasting a lifetime being against something, rather than for something? It seems that I am always taking a negative position, starting a fight, or challenging authority in protest.
To be honest, I don't like the way that feels, and in my darkest hours, I've considered giving this all up to focus on a more charitable cause with immediate results.
And then, I remember what's at the root of the monster I'm fighting.
The kids that I see others helping, are growing up in this world, and will have to deal with the discrimination facing them.
I often look out over the playgrounds and wonder which ones will grow up to realize they are gay or lesbian, and need a straight advocate on their side, willing to fight against the religious majority.
I think back to the letters I've received from retirement homes, where atheists in their final years have requested books by Dawkins or Hitchens, and have been denied on the basis of 'hate speech.'
And then it occurs to me; those who I start fights with, are those who are oppressing our innocent human population in one way or another. And that means, I am not living a life against religion, as much as I am living a life for freedom and equal rights.
And if that means trampling religion as it stands in my way, so be it.
Those religious oppressors have set them self against science, progress, truth, and civil rights; and have appointed themselves as spiritual leaders, claiming to have knowledge we're not righteous enough to have.
And when you set yourself against something as powerful as human evolution and sociological progression, you're asking to be destroyed. That's where I come in.
And then I feel guilty again. Guilty for considering not doing this any more, and letting you down.
Each and every atheist out there can make a difference. While the results aren't always immediate--every respectful discussion you have, that challenges religious authority, is a step in the right direction.
Don't worry if you have doubts about your purpose, or wonder if you're really living a life believing in nothing like we often hear. We're not.
We believe in each other to continue evolving and progressing, despite those who want to keep us in a stagnant pool of fear.
And most importantly, we believe in a future without religious discrimination.
Our life is not against anything, but those who oppose freedom from religion. And that, my friends, is a life worth living, and a war worth fighting for.
23 comments:
As a Christian, I'm certainly not anti-choice. In fact I'm adamantly pro-choice. It's just that the choice needs to come before conception. Is it too much for us to ask ourselves to be sexually responsible? Really?
You should let women who are raped and become pregnant know that they really just needed to make better choices and be more responsible sexually.
I live in a state where sexual responsibility in any sort of practical way is dependent on the morals of others. For example; in my state a doctor or pharmacist can deny me birth control based on their own morality and the state will back them up on it, completely disregard the other medical applications of birth control, like it's use in treating PCOS.
Really? You think all rape victims are being sexually irresponsible? Geez how naive some people can be. Not every person who gets raped was asking for it or made poor choices in who to date. I'm asking politely for you to stop assuming things.
Sexually responsible or sexually stifled? With sex education being what it is, it goes against the curious nature of human beings. How can people be sexually responsible if they don't know anything except abstinence? Not that abstinence is bad except it can cause all sorts of other mental, emotional and physical side effects that most people are not aware of because of their lack of education on the matter.
First of all, to take an exception to make a point (1 / 17,000 rapes result in pregnancy) shows that you're base is lacking - I think.
====
Second: Two of our seven adopted children were conceived through rape. They are intelligent, vibrant, creative, loving girls who, according to you should have been denied life because of the crime of someone else. - I disagree
=====
"abstinence is bad except it can cause all sorts of other mental, emotional and physical side effects"
Are you suggesting that if my wife was in an accident or got sick or in some way became incapable of maintaining sexual intimacy with me, that I'm going (no actually you're saying that both of us) to suffer some kind negative side effect? Because we can't have sex? Seriously?
Heather, I was making fun of the first person who posted. That was my mistake, I didn't hit reply, I just typed the post in the space available. He said that he didn't believe women should have the right to abortion because they weren't being sexually responsible.
Michael, could you show me where I've ever said that women shouldn't have the right or access to abortion?
Thesauros,
First of all, this blog was meant to inspire atheists to get involved, and stay involved. You have latched on to one sentence, and made this about something it's not.
But since you went there, let's go there.
Once a child is born, and due to a medical condition, needs a kidney to stay alive, would you support legislation forcing the father to donate a piece of his body to save the child's life?
No? I thought you were about protecting life at all costs. After all, he made the decision to have sex; why not force him to keep that child alive?
What about when that 'child' is 40, and needs a blood transfusion. Would you support legislation forcing the father to donate blood to keep his 'child' alive?
No? I thought you were pro-life, even sacrificing bodily autonomy. I must have misunderstood.
If I caused a car accident, which resulted in life-threatening injuries to an innocent motorist, would you support legislation forcing me to donate a piece of my body to save them, because I was at fault?
No? Well that's strange, I thought you were all about protecting life, and sacrificing bodily autonomy to save those lives.
Answering 'no' to any of these questions means you value your own rights to make decisions about your body, even when another life is in danger.
My point here is, the 'Pro-Life' position has never really been about protecting 'life.' It's always been about limiting women's rights to make decisions about their body.
In every other situation where the women is removed, you support bodily autonomy, and the right to choose, even if a live baby is going to die as a result of the decision.
Once the fetus turns into a live-human, you don't seem to care as much about that life.
But when we introduce the woman, you'll say that fetus has more rights to her body than she does, because of a decision she made 3 months ago? Cognitive dissonance.
Just because one supports the rights of women to make decisions concerning their medical conditions and bodily autonomy, it does not mean we love to see dead babies, nor does it mean all women who want an abortion are whores, or otherwise acting irresponsibly.
You completely avoided your own contradiction.
You said it was all about sexual responsibility, at first. Then, when Michael brought up rape, you completely abandoned that notion and tried to get emotional and personal with your own situation. Avoidance comes with cognitive dissonance. We understand.
women's rights to make decisions about their body.
I'm simply saying that women and men have options in how we live that would allow us to avoid having to kill our children. I'm not some holier than thou Christian sitting on my throne handing down judgments. I've been there. In high-school I place myself in a situation where my first thought was, "We have to kill it. Get rid of it. We're in no position to take care of a child. It has to go." Luckily it was a false alarm, but my whole point is, "If I wasn't in a position to care for a child, then neither was I in a position to be creating a child." But of course from your point of view, if I'm not ejaculating into someone's vagina then I might experience some kind of emotional damage. Pfft!
=====
"you don't seem to care as much about that life."
What do you know about me or my life that would allow you to make that kind of statement. There's a good line, "We don't become bigots because we misinterpret the facts. We misinterpret the facts because we're already a bigot." Think about that!
In my book, "Trolling for Atheists" I state categorically that a women's right to obtain abortion must be maintained. That it must never be removed.
=====
Are you suggesting that rape is not a special category, separate from most aspects of sexual intercourse? Do you really see sex with your girlfriend as the same as rape? I see that you really do understand avoidance and cognitive dissonance.
Half of your post didn't make sense. Also, you quoted someone else and applied it to me, when I never said it.
So, the bottom line here is, you agree with women having the right to abortion. Therefore, you're not my enemy, and this isn't a war I'm willing to have.
You're already in support of women's rights.
Thank you for stopping by.
Thesauros, when you were talking about your own children, you seem to think that just because your children were conceived via rape that other people should have the children, but many people don't think like you do.
My own sister got pregnant from sex that was not thought through very well, since she is in college and is by no means ready to take care of a child. The sex was simply a one-night stand where I believe both parties weren't taking proper precautions to not have a child.
As far as your wife getting some ailment where sex is impossible, leaving her for that reason can vary person to person. If you consider sex to be a form of passion and vital to your relationship (look into Sternburg's love triangle), then your relationship is transformed into a different one and cannot be the same as it was before, so the only practical thing to do would be to stay in the relationship or leave.
Relationships should take both reason and emotion into account, and should be in balance. If people do not want a baby, or are not ready for one, then certainly an abortion can be possible, and even after the procedure the cells can be donated to a stem cell research facility to work for the betterment of science and other works.
"that other people should have the children,"
I understand that not everyone thinks like me. Smalley believes that those who don't think like him on this issue are his enemies. I get that. I saying that: (a) Like your sister did once, and I did on literally countless occasions, we should not put ourselves in situations where in a moment of panic and desperation we might think that our only choice, that our best choice is the taking of another human life.
Is that really too much to ask of humans? It seems so. And I find that terribly tragic.
And (b)when our actions do create life, then love for the other – in this case our child – needs to determine our actions. Is it really a loving thing to do to deny life to another human being? Just asking. I think how you answer may say a lot about how your world-view is working for you.
I've simply come to a time in my life where responsibility and honesty (don't tell yourself this is not a child / human when DNA at 3hrs. 3 days, 3 weeks, 3 months etc. so clearly shows that it is) are very important to me – important to the survival of the world itself.
=====
"Relationships should take both reason and emotion into account, and should be in balance."
Relationships should take love into account (Love: The volitional, willed, desire to do what is best for the other person). I know that some people would leave a marriage where sexual love was no longer available but that is putting (I believe) our corrupted self-love first. On Christianity that is simply not acceptable.
======
"If people do not want a baby, or are not ready for one, then certainly an abortion can be possible, and even after the procedure the cells can be donated to a stem cell research facility to work for the betterment of science and other works."
Yes, but as a counsellor I've worked with far too many women whose present and perhaps all of their future has been shredded by the decision to take another human life. Something that could have been prevented if our society valued and promoted and worked for responsibility.
Instead Emotions without rationality are valued above all. Why, we might get sick if we're not having sex. What a crock! What an absolute crock!! Instead, let's tear our babies limb from limb or better yet, suck out their brains as they exit the birth canal. There's civilization for you. No emotional sickness there.
"that our best choice is the taking of another human life."
It isn't the only choice, but we do have obligations to consider such as college, our own goals and our own interests. This isn't a selfish situation, but it's one of clarity and commitment, as well as practicality. My sister is in college, she also would not get support of the father, the father is a state away, she is by no means ready for a family. The risk in birth is also a factor, it's the same as taking medication that is meant to prevent disease. There is risk in everything, but as David says (and I agree with) I would not want a reoccurring cycle where a body becomes a "communal object" rather than a sentient being that is free to make their own choices. I have faith that sentient beings will make an informed decision as well, I think you believe most people have a problem with weighing options, but I certainly do not have that problem.
=-=-
On life
Life is indeed important, but you seem to believe that a fetus has the same attachment to the future as does a fully grown adult. What is going on in the earliest stages of brain development for a fetus? Eating and survival. Given the choice between the mother and a fetus, I am going to guess most would save the mother, but let's make a different thought experiment. A fetus or a random college student, would you pick the college student to live? Someone that has dreams of becoming a contributing member of society, or would you pick a fetus that essentially has no slate yet to consider those goals (forget a blank slate in this case, the slate does not even exist yet). Considering this option, I would pick the college student to live, even though the fetus has a potential for a future, that future is nowhere near in existence yet.
=-=-
On relationships
This is a bit contradictory because I see Christians as people that can love themselves as well. The two groups are not mutually exclusive. And you seem to skim over that, for some marriages, this can be a big factor. I'm sure you could do some sort of study to test out what many people would think to do in the case that their partner did lose the ability to have sex. Corrupted is a bit of a loaded word here, since self-love as in survival or even future/current happiness could be effected.
=-=-
"Yes, but as a counselor I've worked with far too many women whose present and perhaps all of their future has been shredded by the decision to take another human life. Something that could have been prevented if our society valued and promoted and worked for responsibility.
Instead Emotions without rationality are valued above all. Why, we might get sick if we're not having sex. What a crock! What an absolute crock!! Instead, let's tear our babies limb from limb or better yet, suck out their brains as they exit the birth canal. There's civilization for you. No emotional sickness there."
The society does value life though, but babies should be PLANNED. Women should have their decisions RESPECTED. Our own bodies should be owned by... us. I'm not going to try to attempt to know the women you have spoken to, but unless you can follow-up on their stories, they seem to have made proper choices because they are the ones that have made them.
Emotion without rationality shouldn't be valued because in that respect you can make numerous mistakes. Rationality, in philosophy for example, allow us to challenge common emotional appeals and make progress, if everyone went on their emotion then you may have a classical example of a lynch mob going after an innocent person. We have reason and we should use it.
Furthermore, your ending is quite graphic, almost akin to a horrid picture of an aborted fetus used by the extreme side of an anti-abortion group, I'm not swayed by comments of that sort. Also, I'm in the same career as a psychology major (still working on my degree), I simply have the different point of view on this topic.
"A fetus or a random college student, would you pick the college student to live?"
My point is, why does someone have to die at all? Is this your example of humans not having a problem with weighing options?
=====
"Corrupted is a bit of a loaded word here"
I admit that decades of counselling have skewed my view of human nature for the worse (the horrors that we inflict on one another is disheartening to say the least), but I disagree. I think the term corrupted is exactly the correct term. One small example. When you view a group photo that includes yourself. What do you look at to decide if it's a "good" photo or not? I can look it up if you want because this was one of the question in my graduate thesis project but if you say anything besides "myself" you are of a very, very small minority opinion.
=====
"babies should be PLANNED."
Yes! That's my whole point. I can hardly believe the degree of push-back I get for suggesting that we act in a sexually responsible manner so that the life we create (a life that is the normal and expected biological result / purpose of sexual intercourse in all species), is planned. You say rational, I say responsible - synonyms really, but on this blog the two terms appear to be worlds apart. I'm asking, "What is wrong with humans that we cannot act in such a way that we do not need to kill another life in order to "save" our own?"
And hiding from the reality of how abortions are done, because it's unpleasant to contemplate is frankly immature and emotional - i.e. not rational.
"My point is, why does someone have to die at all? Is this your example of humans not having a problem with weighing options?"
You miss the purpose of a thought experiment, I'm saying that the characteristics of a fetus and a fully grown adult are not the same. Their concepts of a future are different, if someone makes the choice to have an abortion they should not be accountable for a "death" or "murder" in any sense of the word.
=-=-
"When you view a group photo that includes yourself. What do you look at to decide if it's a "good" photo or not?"
Personally, photos don't interest me too much. Whether they include me or not, I would say that it's an average photo. You still think corrupt is a good use of a word? I feel sorry for you, then.
=-=-
"What is wrong with humans that we cannot act in such a way that we do not need to kill another life in order to "save" our own?"
It's not killing or murder, though. It is not the same as murdering a full-grown adult for the reasons that I have given in my previous post about futures. Your argument is very emotional, even when you try and bring up reason.
=-=-
"And hiding from the reality of how abortions are done, because it's unpleasant to contemplate is frankly immature and emotional - i.e. not rational."
But that isn't how a majority of abortions are done. They're a very standard procedure that is used to fix a person's problem or mistake. It's a valid option, not one that needs any grotesque pictures or descriptions attached to it.
"Sexually responsible or sexually stifled?"
Heather this one's for you!
Check out
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/06/who-sexually-transmitted-superbug-could-be-major-crisis/?hpt=hp_t3
In case you don't have the time, here's a short quote: "The organization has just released a global action plan encouraging . . . increased prevention efforts and monitoring of gonorrhea treatment failure"
Oh no! Prevention efforts! This is sexually stifling. Right? How dare they do this? We have an emotional and physical obligation to screw around with strangers, Yes? We'll get sick if we don't. Why, we should even leave our spouses if we're deprived of sex within the marriage. Who are these people to take away our freedoms? The nerve of these guys to suggest that casual sex might be dangerous. How horribly reasonable of them. I'll bet they're religious! They'd have to be to stifle our sexuality like that. Right?
Of course, even as they describe the results of this disease, if you're rational like Ethan, you won't be "swayed by comments of that sort."
Don't come here and tell my readers what I believe. You apparently don't know.
I never said people who don't "think" like me are my enemy. Those who use their own personal beliefs to become active, and vote against rights, or try to control others' rights due to their beliefs, are my enemy. There is a HUGE difference there.
Posting lies about me on my own message board is the quickest way to get deleted. I'm all up for debates, and there are thousands of people that post here that disagree with me, and I'm fine with it.
But you will not come here and lie or misrepresent my views. The fact that you did that, says that you're running out of honest things to say in support of your own position.
Stay honest, and keep debating.
You're chasing a rabbit down a hole that doesn't exist in an effort to appear that you're winning something.
No one on this blog thread would disagree that it's important to make sexually responsible decisions. I don't know where you got otherwise.
You replied to a post about atheists being involved by narrowing in on less than one half of one sentence, which hinted that 'pro-life' is really 'anti-choice.'
Then, with an extremely myopic viewpoint, you reduced an entire discussion down to you just "asking people to make responsible decisions." When provoked with rape, you changed the subject to how you have cared for the children of rape victims, and avoided the point altogether.
If I seem frustrated, it's because I am. I'd much prefer people that comment here to stay on topic - agree or disagree. You have hi-jacked this discussion and pounded your chest over something which doesn't really face a lot of resistance.
All of us here agree that: 1) women should have the right to choose an abortion 2) all adults should make sound decisions to be safe and thoughtful when having sex.
The quote about a lack of sex making someone crazy, is out of context. It's in reference to sex being one of the 5 survival instincts in which humans need. It's a sociological issue, not a medical one which causes psychosis.
Regardless, I've seen enough of this nonsense.
Stay on topic, or go post somewhere else. This blog is not about abortion.
"reduced an entire discussion"
I reduced the discussion. You mean the discussion that people are having with me? That discussion? Are you feeling left out? Or what? Never mind. I'll go.
Oh, sorry Ethan, I didn't notice you had tried to carry on the discussion, narrow though it may be. I would have liked to follow up your comment, "It is not the same as murdering a full-grown adult" by hearing your thoughts on atheist Peter Singer's suggestion that mothers should be able to kill their children up to the age of six months, for the very same reason you've just stated but, I've been cut off by Smalley, so God bless, and good luck on your journey.
I find Peter Singer quite an intellectual and practical person. Good luck on your journey as well.
Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. You didn't (and I didn't quote you as saying it explicitly), I was basing the comment on this statement which has a clear corollary, "I'm ADAMANTLY pro-choice. It's just that the choice NEEDS to come before conception" (I use the caps for emphasis). If you had said that "the choice SHOULD come before conception" or "it would be nice if the choice came before conception, but I'm kind of indifferent" then the implication of your post wouldn't be so clear. Let me give you an example. If I said "I'm ADAMANTLY pro-choice about guns. It's just that the choice NEEDS to be that people never get them," I think the reader would be on pretty solid ground in assuming that I believe that people shouldn't have the right to have guns. Perhaps you can clarify your position. In the meantime, this actually doesn't have much to do with my point, which (in the grander scheme of things) is that an impregnated rape victim may not share your view that they "needed" to be more "sexually responsible".
Post a Comment