Friday, June 26, 2009
alcohol and children
I am so angry and feel so helpless. I have a new baby nephew. 3 weeks old. He has a mother, but no apparent father. Or at least not one who is in the picture. He is most likely the product of alcohol. My sister was very good throughout her pregnancy and did not drink, which tells me that she understands that alcohol is damaging to her fetus. I just learned that she has already had a drink. She claims it was just one beer but it was enough to cause her to act differently and make her 14 yr old daughter call gramma to take her away. I will not stand by with this behavior. I will HAVE to get involved. First I will send her articles related to alcohol and breast-milk. Maybe she doesn’t know it can damage her baby’s learning. She is slightly mentally handicapped. Quite often, I despise my family! Women have been arrested for nursing while intoxicated. I think there is a case in Europe where a mother was charged with homocide because her 7 week old died after nursing while she was drinking!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
A mother can't help but question
Hmmm, when teenage sons, who have never before shown any interest whatsoever in their own cleanliness (or anyone elses of course), are suddenly washing their own bedding.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
another English essay, 6 pages!
Atheism Does Not Equal Immorality
There seems to be a common misconception among a lot of people when they are confronted with labels like Deist, or Agnostic, or most shocking of all, Atheist! In their minds, apparently, these titles bring up images of immorality run amuck. From my own personal experience as a theist, I know that people do not want to accept someone they care about as being atheist. There was a time when I could not stand the thought either. Many people simply refuse to believe someone’s claim of being atheist if that person is a law abiding, respectable, good person. They might say, “So and so says he’s an atheist, but I don’t believe it.” It’s just too hard for them to fathom good people with no God. Without a God, how do we know the difference between right and wrong? Don’t all atheists believe that morality is relative, and others, that “Anything goes?” But atheists have comparable morals to theists. For atheists, morality is not a way of living just because God tells them they must; morality makes perfect sense when they consider cause and effect.
The religious theory that morality exists only because God has imposed it upon us makes morality seem like a thing we cannot comprehend. It’s illusive or mysterious, and we are all possible cheaters or murderers etc. unless there is an afterlife and a punisher to consider. It’s as if the most intelligent life that we know of, mankind, is too simple minded to comprehend the consequences of his or her actions. Perhaps the theory is that humans are naturally moral beings because God has instilled morality into our souls. Christians, such as the philosopher J.P.Moreland, say that the first and most important reason for morality is “because I love God, I recognize him as my creator” (128) He then adds that one should be moral for the sake of it and because he has concern for “this life and the life to come.” The latter statement is one that theists and non-theists alike can agree on except, perhaps, that atheists might be more concerned with future generations rather than an afterlife in heaven.
Religious believers think that the existence of morality is proof that there is a God. It is thought that without a God, or scripture, there would be no reason to restrain ourselves from whatever impulse we have. Where does morality come from, and who makes the rules? If there is no spiritual director and eternal damnation than what’s to stop us from committing robbery, rape and even murder? However, Charles Darwin reflected that the most significant and important difference between man and other, lower animals, is man’s “moral sense or conscience” (qtd. in Shermer 13). Darwin found himself in awe of man’s nobleness and willingness to sacrifice anything for what he believes is right or just.
Most religious persons have the comfort of knowing what is right and wrong because their priest, prophet, rabbi etc. tell them. But there are also many stories about religious fanatics using their beliefs to justify some of the most horrifying and deviant actions that most of society would consider quite wrong! For instance: recently, in Southern Utah, there have been religious believers who claim to be the posterity of Christ and plan to reincarnate him through incest. Some religious believers refuse life saving blood transfusions. Others make decisions based entirely on what their leaders have required of them, like circumcising a child, or whether a certain food or beverage is beneficial or harmful to their bodies with no thought to scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. In addition, of course, there are the polygamous societies who base their lifestyle around their religion and convince young women to enter into such marriages or else fail to receive “celestial rewards.” And how can we ever forget the fanatic jihadists who were willing to give their lives for their religion by flying planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people?
While it can be said that some individuals leave their religion and become atheists because of morality divergence, atheists are not typically amoral. Most atheists, in fact, are very moral and ethical. Some statistics seem to suggest that theistic countries, such as the U.S., often have higher rates of adolescent abortion, STD’s, homicides, and more marital problems. (Paul par. 15, 16) One would actually wonder if our theistic citizens misbehave because they believe they will be forgiven their “sins.” Or maybe they simply have a less final, and more comforting view of death? Whereas, an Atheist knows he or she is ultimately accountable to his or her own conscience and humanity, and that this life may be their one chance to make a difference.
For Atheists, science is the deciding force of good and evil; what supports life and what does not. Because of our innate social instincts, our need to be accepted by the pack, the human species has evolved to find ways to do just that, be accepted and acceptable. As noted in Robert Wright’s introduction to his book, The Moral Animal, humans have “a thirst for social approval, [and] a capacity for guilt” (9). We have a desire for life, love, family, peace: but even the most basic desires for food, shelter and sex must be satiated in an acceptable way in order to keep our secure place within our society. But it’s not just the fear of rejection or repercussion that makes us want to do good. We have a desire to see our fellow creatures happy and we have that “capacity for guilt” because most of us also have empathy. That is, we can imagine ourselves in someone else’s place. Over time we have adopted certain standards that work for the majority of people everywhere. That standard is now commonly known as the Golden Rule, Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The biggest problem in finding the proper balance of morality and ethics is that in almost any subject that comes to mind there is a controversy. The stem cell research debate for example. Is the manipulation of a human embryo going to devalue humanity? Or is experimenting with that embryo, for the benefit of others, the moral and ethical thing to do? Who gets to decide when life begins or when it should end, as with abortion, Capital Punishment or assisted suicide for the terminally ill? It takes scientific evaluation and thought to discover the answer to these questions, and others.
There is a wide disparity between non-theists and theists alike on many issues like abortion and Judy Ferris put that issue in a good perspective in her essay, Why Should Atheists Be Pro-Life when she said, “For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period, the taking of an unborn human’s life should be a very serious matter” (par. 17). How can a non-theist be any more comfortable than a believer with the loss to the world of any individual no matter how insignificant that life may seem to some. In fact, life should be even more precious because there may not be any other way for that individual to have a chance at life. Or even the comforting thought that the child has a loving family waiting in heaven. If there is not even a possible “reincarnational transfer” as she says, then one has to realize how serious and, possibly permanent the decision to take a life is. Ferris is an ideal authority on the subject because she once had an abortion and believed the dogma of the “Choicists” who told her the embryo she carried was nothing more than a “blob”, but during her pregnancies with her subsequent, younger children she became educated about the life of a fetus. She then came to believe that abortion is equal to murder.
Morality continues to evolve according to experience and new scientific revelation. Whatever actions or non-actions that help our species continue to live, and to live together in harmony, is the moral compass of the modern Atheist. Less than 200 years ago human slavery was perfectly acceptable to many people and deities, including the God of the Bible, as demonstrated in his speech to Moses on Mt. Sinai,
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are round about you; And ye shall take them as
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they
shall be your bondmen forever: but your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over the other with rigour. (Holy Bible Leviticus 25. 44-46)
And yet, today’s Jews and Christians would be horrified at the thought of slavery in their own time, which goes to show that thinking evolves as we gain wider perspectives.
Robert Wright points out, after a lengthy review of polygamy versus monogamy, that although polygamy (regardless of an inequality factor) could be more advantageous to women and less to men because of the ability it gives women to move up the socioeconomic ladder, that in the end polygamy is dangerous for society because it leaves the unmarried men to wander aimlessly about, generally behaving riskily (100). This is one person, using the scientific method, to discover what is beneficial in society and what really is not. Science is simple common sense, with no need to rely on religion to tell us whether a certain behavior is right or wrong. If the scientific method were applied to every aspect of our lives we would all make decisions based on logic, or common sense, rather than fear of eternal damnation, or anticipation of heavenly rewards.
Some of our moral instincts are definitely learned from experience. Probably some very basic, natural instincts have kept humans from danger and even extinction, such as the maternal instinct, or bond, between mother and child. This instinct is not necessarily God given. It is very likely a reaction to the hard experiences of pre-historic life. In order to keep her posterity alive, a mother must create an attachment to her young and a strong awareness of the child’s whereabouts and actions.
Some philosophers and scientists believe that religion was a response to early civilizations needs for a moral “code of conduct.” Humans have required rules and laws to govern themselves by. A belief in an omnipotent God, who will judge us all for our deeds, is, for many, a commanding deterrent. However, people who choose not to believe in such a supernatural being, can feel generally at ease with the laws created by their fellow citizens, and if the laws in place are not acceptable, then citizens have the right to collectively make a change. Michael Shermer, in his book The Science of Good and Evil, says that although religion has brought humans far in their moral evolution, “morality need not be the exclusive domain of religion” (20). Non theists know that their judges are all around them in the form of neighbors, family, community, even nature (22). Atheists store their treasures in the life they are living and the world they live in. Atheists are moral because they want to live in a decent world and they understand that their actions have a direct effect on the world around them, like a ripple in a pond.
Works Cited
Ferris, Judy. “Why Should Atheists Be Pro-life?” Pagans For Life. 08 March 2009. <>
Holy Bible. Salt Lake City, UT. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 2000.
Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Baker Academic, February 1987. p. 128
Paul, Gregory S. “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.” Journal of Religion & Society. (2005): 20 pars. 15 April 2009
Shermer, Michael. The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books. 2004
Wright, Robert. “Darwin and Us.” Introduction. The Moral Animal Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Vintage Books. 1995.
There seems to be a common misconception among a lot of people when they are confronted with labels like Deist, or Agnostic, or most shocking of all, Atheist! In their minds, apparently, these titles bring up images of immorality run amuck. From my own personal experience as a theist, I know that people do not want to accept someone they care about as being atheist. There was a time when I could not stand the thought either. Many people simply refuse to believe someone’s claim of being atheist if that person is a law abiding, respectable, good person. They might say, “So and so says he’s an atheist, but I don’t believe it.” It’s just too hard for them to fathom good people with no God. Without a God, how do we know the difference between right and wrong? Don’t all atheists believe that morality is relative, and others, that “Anything goes?” But atheists have comparable morals to theists. For atheists, morality is not a way of living just because God tells them they must; morality makes perfect sense when they consider cause and effect.
The religious theory that morality exists only because God has imposed it upon us makes morality seem like a thing we cannot comprehend. It’s illusive or mysterious, and we are all possible cheaters or murderers etc. unless there is an afterlife and a punisher to consider. It’s as if the most intelligent life that we know of, mankind, is too simple minded to comprehend the consequences of his or her actions. Perhaps the theory is that humans are naturally moral beings because God has instilled morality into our souls. Christians, such as the philosopher J.P.Moreland, say that the first and most important reason for morality is “because I love God, I recognize him as my creator” (128) He then adds that one should be moral for the sake of it and because he has concern for “this life and the life to come.” The latter statement is one that theists and non-theists alike can agree on except, perhaps, that atheists might be more concerned with future generations rather than an afterlife in heaven.
Religious believers think that the existence of morality is proof that there is a God. It is thought that without a God, or scripture, there would be no reason to restrain ourselves from whatever impulse we have. Where does morality come from, and who makes the rules? If there is no spiritual director and eternal damnation than what’s to stop us from committing robbery, rape and even murder? However, Charles Darwin reflected that the most significant and important difference between man and other, lower animals, is man’s “moral sense or conscience” (qtd. in Shermer 13). Darwin found himself in awe of man’s nobleness and willingness to sacrifice anything for what he believes is right or just.
Most religious persons have the comfort of knowing what is right and wrong because their priest, prophet, rabbi etc. tell them. But there are also many stories about religious fanatics using their beliefs to justify some of the most horrifying and deviant actions that most of society would consider quite wrong! For instance: recently, in Southern Utah, there have been religious believers who claim to be the posterity of Christ and plan to reincarnate him through incest. Some religious believers refuse life saving blood transfusions. Others make decisions based entirely on what their leaders have required of them, like circumcising a child, or whether a certain food or beverage is beneficial or harmful to their bodies with no thought to scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. In addition, of course, there are the polygamous societies who base their lifestyle around their religion and convince young women to enter into such marriages or else fail to receive “celestial rewards.” And how can we ever forget the fanatic jihadists who were willing to give their lives for their religion by flying planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people?
While it can be said that some individuals leave their religion and become atheists because of morality divergence, atheists are not typically amoral. Most atheists, in fact, are very moral and ethical. Some statistics seem to suggest that theistic countries, such as the U.S., often have higher rates of adolescent abortion, STD’s, homicides, and more marital problems. (Paul par. 15, 16) One would actually wonder if our theistic citizens misbehave because they believe they will be forgiven their “sins.” Or maybe they simply have a less final, and more comforting view of death? Whereas, an Atheist knows he or she is ultimately accountable to his or her own conscience and humanity, and that this life may be their one chance to make a difference.
For Atheists, science is the deciding force of good and evil; what supports life and what does not. Because of our innate social instincts, our need to be accepted by the pack, the human species has evolved to find ways to do just that, be accepted and acceptable. As noted in Robert Wright’s introduction to his book, The Moral Animal, humans have “a thirst for social approval, [and] a capacity for guilt” (9). We have a desire for life, love, family, peace: but even the most basic desires for food, shelter and sex must be satiated in an acceptable way in order to keep our secure place within our society. But it’s not just the fear of rejection or repercussion that makes us want to do good. We have a desire to see our fellow creatures happy and we have that “capacity for guilt” because most of us also have empathy. That is, we can imagine ourselves in someone else’s place. Over time we have adopted certain standards that work for the majority of people everywhere. That standard is now commonly known as the Golden Rule, Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The biggest problem in finding the proper balance of morality and ethics is that in almost any subject that comes to mind there is a controversy. The stem cell research debate for example. Is the manipulation of a human embryo going to devalue humanity? Or is experimenting with that embryo, for the benefit of others, the moral and ethical thing to do? Who gets to decide when life begins or when it should end, as with abortion, Capital Punishment or assisted suicide for the terminally ill? It takes scientific evaluation and thought to discover the answer to these questions, and others.
There is a wide disparity between non-theists and theists alike on many issues like abortion and Judy Ferris put that issue in a good perspective in her essay, Why Should Atheists Be Pro-Life when she said, “For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period, the taking of an unborn human’s life should be a very serious matter” (par. 17). How can a non-theist be any more comfortable than a believer with the loss to the world of any individual no matter how insignificant that life may seem to some. In fact, life should be even more precious because there may not be any other way for that individual to have a chance at life. Or even the comforting thought that the child has a loving family waiting in heaven. If there is not even a possible “reincarnational transfer” as she says, then one has to realize how serious and, possibly permanent the decision to take a life is. Ferris is an ideal authority on the subject because she once had an abortion and believed the dogma of the “Choicists” who told her the embryo she carried was nothing more than a “blob”, but during her pregnancies with her subsequent, younger children she became educated about the life of a fetus. She then came to believe that abortion is equal to murder.
Morality continues to evolve according to experience and new scientific revelation. Whatever actions or non-actions that help our species continue to live, and to live together in harmony, is the moral compass of the modern Atheist. Less than 200 years ago human slavery was perfectly acceptable to many people and deities, including the God of the Bible, as demonstrated in his speech to Moses on Mt. Sinai,
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the
heathen that are round about you; And ye shall take them as
an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they
shall be your bondmen forever: but your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over the other with rigour. (Holy Bible Leviticus 25. 44-46)
And yet, today’s Jews and Christians would be horrified at the thought of slavery in their own time, which goes to show that thinking evolves as we gain wider perspectives.
Robert Wright points out, after a lengthy review of polygamy versus monogamy, that although polygamy (regardless of an inequality factor) could be more advantageous to women and less to men because of the ability it gives women to move up the socioeconomic ladder, that in the end polygamy is dangerous for society because it leaves the unmarried men to wander aimlessly about, generally behaving riskily (100). This is one person, using the scientific method, to discover what is beneficial in society and what really is not. Science is simple common sense, with no need to rely on religion to tell us whether a certain behavior is right or wrong. If the scientific method were applied to every aspect of our lives we would all make decisions based on logic, or common sense, rather than fear of eternal damnation, or anticipation of heavenly rewards.
Some of our moral instincts are definitely learned from experience. Probably some very basic, natural instincts have kept humans from danger and even extinction, such as the maternal instinct, or bond, between mother and child. This instinct is not necessarily God given. It is very likely a reaction to the hard experiences of pre-historic life. In order to keep her posterity alive, a mother must create an attachment to her young and a strong awareness of the child’s whereabouts and actions.
Some philosophers and scientists believe that religion was a response to early civilizations needs for a moral “code of conduct.” Humans have required rules and laws to govern themselves by. A belief in an omnipotent God, who will judge us all for our deeds, is, for many, a commanding deterrent. However, people who choose not to believe in such a supernatural being, can feel generally at ease with the laws created by their fellow citizens, and if the laws in place are not acceptable, then citizens have the right to collectively make a change. Michael Shermer, in his book The Science of Good and Evil, says that although religion has brought humans far in their moral evolution, “morality need not be the exclusive domain of religion” (20). Non theists know that their judges are all around them in the form of neighbors, family, community, even nature (22). Atheists store their treasures in the life they are living and the world they live in. Atheists are moral because they want to live in a decent world and they understand that their actions have a direct effect on the world around them, like a ripple in a pond.
Works Cited
Ferris, Judy. “Why Should Atheists Be Pro-life?” Pagans For Life. 08 March 2009. <>
Holy Bible. Salt Lake City, UT. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 2000.
Moreland, J.P. Scaling the Secular City. Baker Academic, February 1987. p. 128
Paul, Gregory S. “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.” Journal of Religion & Society. (2005): 20 pars. 15 April 2009
Shermer, Michael. The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books. 2004
Wright, Robert. “Darwin and Us.” Introduction. The Moral Animal Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Vintage Books. 1995.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Why Should Atheists Be Pro-Life?
Why Should Atheists Be Pro-Life?
By Judy Ferris
I am often asked this question. I usually answer, "Why shouldn't atheists be pro-life?"
Nobody questions why non-religious persons fight drug abuse, drunk-driving, rape, poverty, crime, etc. Why should fighting abortion be viewed so differently?
Some people think that unless you believe in God, or more specifically, a God that will punish you in Hell if you do something wrong, then you cannot be made to behave. They apparently believe that atheists must be criminals.
Yet, many non-religious people actively fight crime, violence, and "wrongdoing" for many reasons. We believe in fairness and justice, protection of people's rights, lives and property. Heck, we even register to vote and try to pass laws to govern the behavior of other citizens! I am living proof that a belief in God or religion is not necessary for a person to become involved in the fight against abortion.
In fact, one thing that both the abortion industry and the pro-life movement agree on is that public ignorance about fetal development, abortion methodology and post-abortion complications is necessary if abortion is to remain legal. Ironically, the religious orientation of most pro-lifers may act as the major factor preventing education from taking place.
Faith and TrustOnce upon a time, I was a "pro-choice" woman. I believed in many mythical things back then: that sex could be "free" from any committments or consequences, that legalized abortion was "safe", that "control" over female reproductive functions would lead to equal rights for women. But the myth I held to most dearly was that opposition to abortion was merely religious.
Since I had allowed my first child to be killed by abortion, I wanted to be reassured that I had nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about. Certain women's groups comforted me by calling abortion a woman's "right" - merely a medical procedure. I would literally hold my breath whenever abortion was the topic on television, waiting for religion to be mentioned. The media never let me down. Abortionists angrily complained about the trauma experienced by patients because of pro-life picketers. Abortion-rights activists harassed preachers who spoke up against abortion, accusing them of being insensitive to women.
In a sense I was being repeatedly promised the same thing: as long as I avoided pro-lifers or religion, I would not suffer any post-abortion regrets or grief. I faithfully followed this advice for a decade. As an atheist, I was confident that condemnation of abortion by religious leaders would never bother me.
I gained so much confidence that I could even bring up abortion in conversation or joke about it. I mouthed "pro-choice" slogans as if they were proven truths. What little information about abortion that filtered through my defenses I assumed was propaganda dreamed up by religious fanatics who would even stoop to lying. I perceived the truth about abortion to exist somewhere between bad enough to be a little upsetting (messy, blood) but not so bad as to warrant further investigation. I placed such faith and trust in the providers and defenders of abortion; I believed they were there to help women, to protect women. I was totally unprepared when reality hit.
Seeing The LightBelieving that the fetus was just a "blob of tissue", that pro-lifers were lying about how developed aborted fetuses are, I had no reason to avoid information from sources that were not "anti-abortion". I learned about fetal development when my other children were born. I experienced nightmares, crying spells and suicidal thoughts. I knew these were not caused by the activities or words of pro-lifers or preachers. Was I supposed to be upset with sonogram technicians or childbirth instructors for educating me?
Still, I tried to defend abortion somehow. I didn't want to be called a "right-to-lifer". I fell back on the "choice" slogans about child abuse, rape, women's rights... but could not find any real evidence to back up their assumptions. I even contacted "pro-choice" groups to ask questions. It was made very clear to me that my support of the abortion industry was supposed to be "no questions asked!" They had no answers.
As an atheist, one of the most ironic discoveries I made when I became pro-life was the cultist nature of the followers of choice. To a skeptic like myself, the "pro-choice" movement started to look frighteningly fundamentalist. I started asking questions and was "answered" with slogans. Dissatisfied with slogans, I continued asking questions and was accused of being "anti-choice". To question was taboo; information from pro-lifers was "heresy", and I had become a "heretic".
Non-Religious RationaleTwo major differences between atheists and religious persons are their philosphies regarding the origin of the universe and what happens after death. If you examine the atheist's beliefs, it is easy to understand why they could or should oppose abortion.
Atheists do not believe that the universe was created; they believe that the universe evolved, rather than being planned. "Choicists" believe that "unplanned" life is not worthy of protection. Furthermore, they believe that unplanned-for-lives are doomed to unhappiness, violence, and abuse.
Evidence that humanity has suffered unhappiness, abuse, and violence is easy to find in any history book or just by looking around you now. If the "every child a wanted child" (and if not wanted, destroyed) "prescription" for "curing" child abuse were applied to the whole violent, unplanned universe... well, that sort of "logic" leads directly to advocating for the destruction of the entire human race! in fact, it doesn't take genius (just honesty) to acknowledge that this sort of reasoning is already being employed in targeting certain groups of humans for reduction or elimination (for their own good, of course, to ease their suffering). Does violence exist because the universe is a bastard, without even a "biological", let alone spiritual "father"? The theory of evolution and the unplanned pregnancy equals child abuse theory clash with each other.
Examining afterlife philosophies reveals more inconsistencies between "choicism" and atheism. Religious persons generally believe in life after death either in a heaven or via reincarnation; non-religious persons generally believe in the finality of death or a kind of non-religious reincarnation.
For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period, the taking of an unborn human's life should be a very serious matter. There will be no comforting of this being by a heavenly father, angels, or relatives after a torturous death; there will be no mere reincarnational transfer. Thousands of times each day unique, never-to-be-again, individual beings have their one and only chance at life terminated without even a trace of "due process".
Unfortunately, many pro-life individuals are keeping the link between religion and opposition to abortion the primary focus in the debate. For some religious pro-lifers, employing non-religious arguments against abortion is sacrilegious. Not only do they see abortion as a sin, but failing to make reference to religion with each pro-life effort is sinful. They are upset and afraid of the idea of atheist or agnostic pro-lifers. They answer questions with scripture regardless of their audience. They pray at pro-life pickets and meetings. In short, they fit the negative, stereotypical way that all pro-lifers are portrayed: as religious zealots trying to "impose morality", mindless puppets directed by pro-life preachers.
Some religious pro-lifers simply need more information. They would use the medical, legal, and scientific facts to argue against abortion, if they knew them. Lacking this information, they are not confident discussing abortion. They worry that issues such as child abuse, rape, and "back-alley butchers" will be brought up. They have not yet heard the well-researched, logical explanations that disprove the popular "pro-choice" reasons for "needing" to keep abortion legal.
I hope to educate others about the facts, confident that they will then oppose legalized contract killing of the unborn once they know the truth. I do not try to "impose morality".
The cold reality is that abortionists are prenatal hitmen, employed to impose morality on innocent unborn humans.
By Judy Ferris
I am often asked this question. I usually answer, "Why shouldn't atheists be pro-life?"
Nobody questions why non-religious persons fight drug abuse, drunk-driving, rape, poverty, crime, etc. Why should fighting abortion be viewed so differently?
Some people think that unless you believe in God, or more specifically, a God that will punish you in Hell if you do something wrong, then you cannot be made to behave. They apparently believe that atheists must be criminals.
Yet, many non-religious people actively fight crime, violence, and "wrongdoing" for many reasons. We believe in fairness and justice, protection of people's rights, lives and property. Heck, we even register to vote and try to pass laws to govern the behavior of other citizens! I am living proof that a belief in God or religion is not necessary for a person to become involved in the fight against abortion.
In fact, one thing that both the abortion industry and the pro-life movement agree on is that public ignorance about fetal development, abortion methodology and post-abortion complications is necessary if abortion is to remain legal. Ironically, the religious orientation of most pro-lifers may act as the major factor preventing education from taking place.
Faith and TrustOnce upon a time, I was a "pro-choice" woman. I believed in many mythical things back then: that sex could be "free" from any committments or consequences, that legalized abortion was "safe", that "control" over female reproductive functions would lead to equal rights for women. But the myth I held to most dearly was that opposition to abortion was merely religious.
Since I had allowed my first child to be killed by abortion, I wanted to be reassured that I had nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about. Certain women's groups comforted me by calling abortion a woman's "right" - merely a medical procedure. I would literally hold my breath whenever abortion was the topic on television, waiting for religion to be mentioned. The media never let me down. Abortionists angrily complained about the trauma experienced by patients because of pro-life picketers. Abortion-rights activists harassed preachers who spoke up against abortion, accusing them of being insensitive to women.
In a sense I was being repeatedly promised the same thing: as long as I avoided pro-lifers or religion, I would not suffer any post-abortion regrets or grief. I faithfully followed this advice for a decade. As an atheist, I was confident that condemnation of abortion by religious leaders would never bother me.
I gained so much confidence that I could even bring up abortion in conversation or joke about it. I mouthed "pro-choice" slogans as if they were proven truths. What little information about abortion that filtered through my defenses I assumed was propaganda dreamed up by religious fanatics who would even stoop to lying. I perceived the truth about abortion to exist somewhere between bad enough to be a little upsetting (messy, blood) but not so bad as to warrant further investigation. I placed such faith and trust in the providers and defenders of abortion; I believed they were there to help women, to protect women. I was totally unprepared when reality hit.
Seeing The LightBelieving that the fetus was just a "blob of tissue", that pro-lifers were lying about how developed aborted fetuses are, I had no reason to avoid information from sources that were not "anti-abortion". I learned about fetal development when my other children were born. I experienced nightmares, crying spells and suicidal thoughts. I knew these were not caused by the activities or words of pro-lifers or preachers. Was I supposed to be upset with sonogram technicians or childbirth instructors for educating me?
Still, I tried to defend abortion somehow. I didn't want to be called a "right-to-lifer". I fell back on the "choice" slogans about child abuse, rape, women's rights... but could not find any real evidence to back up their assumptions. I even contacted "pro-choice" groups to ask questions. It was made very clear to me that my support of the abortion industry was supposed to be "no questions asked!" They had no answers.
As an atheist, one of the most ironic discoveries I made when I became pro-life was the cultist nature of the followers of choice. To a skeptic like myself, the "pro-choice" movement started to look frighteningly fundamentalist. I started asking questions and was "answered" with slogans. Dissatisfied with slogans, I continued asking questions and was accused of being "anti-choice". To question was taboo; information from pro-lifers was "heresy", and I had become a "heretic".
Non-Religious RationaleTwo major differences between atheists and religious persons are their philosphies regarding the origin of the universe and what happens after death. If you examine the atheist's beliefs, it is easy to understand why they could or should oppose abortion.
Atheists do not believe that the universe was created; they believe that the universe evolved, rather than being planned. "Choicists" believe that "unplanned" life is not worthy of protection. Furthermore, they believe that unplanned-for-lives are doomed to unhappiness, violence, and abuse.
Evidence that humanity has suffered unhappiness, abuse, and violence is easy to find in any history book or just by looking around you now. If the "every child a wanted child" (and if not wanted, destroyed) "prescription" for "curing" child abuse were applied to the whole violent, unplanned universe... well, that sort of "logic" leads directly to advocating for the destruction of the entire human race! in fact, it doesn't take genius (just honesty) to acknowledge that this sort of reasoning is already being employed in targeting certain groups of humans for reduction or elimination (for their own good, of course, to ease their suffering). Does violence exist because the universe is a bastard, without even a "biological", let alone spiritual "father"? The theory of evolution and the unplanned pregnancy equals child abuse theory clash with each other.
Examining afterlife philosophies reveals more inconsistencies between "choicism" and atheism. Religious persons generally believe in life after death either in a heaven or via reincarnation; non-religious persons generally believe in the finality of death or a kind of non-religious reincarnation.
For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period, the taking of an unborn human's life should be a very serious matter. There will be no comforting of this being by a heavenly father, angels, or relatives after a torturous death; there will be no mere reincarnational transfer. Thousands of times each day unique, never-to-be-again, individual beings have their one and only chance at life terminated without even a trace of "due process".
Unfortunately, many pro-life individuals are keeping the link between religion and opposition to abortion the primary focus in the debate. For some religious pro-lifers, employing non-religious arguments against abortion is sacrilegious. Not only do they see abortion as a sin, but failing to make reference to religion with each pro-life effort is sinful. They are upset and afraid of the idea of atheist or agnostic pro-lifers. They answer questions with scripture regardless of their audience. They pray at pro-life pickets and meetings. In short, they fit the negative, stereotypical way that all pro-lifers are portrayed: as religious zealots trying to "impose morality", mindless puppets directed by pro-life preachers.
Some religious pro-lifers simply need more information. They would use the medical, legal, and scientific facts to argue against abortion, if they knew them. Lacking this information, they are not confident discussing abortion. They worry that issues such as child abuse, rape, and "back-alley butchers" will be brought up. They have not yet heard the well-researched, logical explanations that disprove the popular "pro-choice" reasons for "needing" to keep abortion legal.
I hope to educate others about the facts, confident that they will then oppose legalized contract killing of the unborn once they know the truth. I do not try to "impose morality".
The cold reality is that abortionists are prenatal hitmen, employed to impose morality on innocent unborn humans.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
STEELE VS. STEELE -- TRIES TO CLARIFY VIEWS on abortion
HERE ARE A COUPLE OF REALLY GREAT COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE. I like them because they seem to be from Liberals who are "saddened" by the use of abortion as birth control. Actually, I don't see how a person can be pro-choice and pro-life though.? The thing I would like people to think about is that the issue of abortion has NOTHING to do with religion! A fetus is a living thing. How anyone can pretend it's not is mind boggeling to me. As soon as that embryo has implanted into the mothers womb it should be considered a person. Abortion is just murder. There doesn't have to be a God involved in that fact.
I think the biggest problem the GOP has with this issue is that it cannot separate the idea of being pro-life from the idea of being pro-choice. It is very possible to be both, and I think a lot of the country are both pro-life and pro-choice. I am a Democrat, and while I feel that there are WAY too many abortions performed in this country, I do not think it is something that needs to be made illegal. I am all for educating everyone on the choices they have with their pregnancy (abortion, adoption, keeping it), and I would love to see less people actually choose to have abortions. I look at abortion as a last resort, and am saddened that some use it as their preferred method of birth control. Jackson, Seattle (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:32 PM)
AND THEN;
It always amazes me that the republicans are so worried about life and so "compassionate", but when it comes to providing the social programs so that the "unwanted" child has a decent life, they are dead set against it.
So they are pro-life, but against that life having a fair chance at a equal health care, good education, and a strong future. Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:39 PM
I think the biggest problem the GOP has with this issue is that it cannot separate the idea of being pro-life from the idea of being pro-choice. It is very possible to be both, and I think a lot of the country are both pro-life and pro-choice. I am a Democrat, and while I feel that there are WAY too many abortions performed in this country, I do not think it is something that needs to be made illegal. I am all for educating everyone on the choices they have with their pregnancy (abortion, adoption, keeping it), and I would love to see less people actually choose to have abortions. I look at abortion as a last resort, and am saddened that some use it as their preferred method of birth control. Jackson, Seattle (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:32 PM)
AND THEN;
It always amazes me that the republicans are so worried about life and so "compassionate", but when it comes to providing the social programs so that the "unwanted" child has a decent life, they are dead set against it.
So they are pro-life, but against that life having a fair chance at a equal health care, good education, and a strong future. Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:39 PM
Friday, March 6, 2009
a response to an MSN article about kids and homework.
Kids and homework. I agree with this essay.
I have a bachelor's degree and also a teaching certificate. My husband has two masters degrees. We definitely feel education is important. That being said. . .
There are so many things we need to do as parents to ensure our children grow up as well-rounded individuals. Education is very important, there is no question about that. But there is a whole world of education beyond what our children need to learn in the classroom. I feel it is important for my children to have opportunities to take music lessons, play sports, do chores around the home (cooking, cleaning, etc. for when they grow up and move out), play with friends and even just hang out and have some down-time. I know I need that. I don't expect it's any different for my children. A child, or adult for that matter, who has a well-rounded life is much more likely to be successful in every aspect of their lives even though they may spend less time in one particular area.
The concern I have had with my four children's homework is that sometimes it is so excessive that getting any of these other priorities accomplished can be next to impossible. Or, if we are in the midst of soccer season, getting homework done is next to impossible. I feel we also need to remember that children, even (if not especially) teenagers, need a lot of sleep, about ten hours a night. My children are in school for about seven hours a day. I feel that is enough book education, unless, of course, they are not doing their work during school hours.
For high school students especially, having five and six hours of homework is ridiculous. The argument of many teachers that this homework is preparing them for college doesn't necessarily work for me either. Even in the thick of my college education I never had 12 - 13 hours of school and homework a day. Just being sent home with busy work is not teaching them to study and learn. Those are skills that need to be taught, not just figured out as we bumble our way through loads of homework.
I feel that homework cuts into the other areas of life that I feel it is so important to teach and train my children in. How can they find out their talents, skills and interests in life if all they do is sit around doing homework? Many of us have careers that draw from many areas of our lives, not just our book education. I feel we need to give our children a chance to learn in all areas and live a balanced life. This is vital to their success, happiness and well-being. And isn't this what we ultimately want for our children?
I have a bachelor's degree and also a teaching certificate. My husband has two masters degrees. We definitely feel education is important. That being said. . .
There are so many things we need to do as parents to ensure our children grow up as well-rounded individuals. Education is very important, there is no question about that. But there is a whole world of education beyond what our children need to learn in the classroom. I feel it is important for my children to have opportunities to take music lessons, play sports, do chores around the home (cooking, cleaning, etc. for when they grow up and move out), play with friends and even just hang out and have some down-time. I know I need that. I don't expect it's any different for my children. A child, or adult for that matter, who has a well-rounded life is much more likely to be successful in every aspect of their lives even though they may spend less time in one particular area.
The concern I have had with my four children's homework is that sometimes it is so excessive that getting any of these other priorities accomplished can be next to impossible. Or, if we are in the midst of soccer season, getting homework done is next to impossible. I feel we also need to remember that children, even (if not especially) teenagers, need a lot of sleep, about ten hours a night. My children are in school for about seven hours a day. I feel that is enough book education, unless, of course, they are not doing their work during school hours.
For high school students especially, having five and six hours of homework is ridiculous. The argument of many teachers that this homework is preparing them for college doesn't necessarily work for me either. Even in the thick of my college education I never had 12 - 13 hours of school and homework a day. Just being sent home with busy work is not teaching them to study and learn. Those are skills that need to be taught, not just figured out as we bumble our way through loads of homework.
I feel that homework cuts into the other areas of life that I feel it is so important to teach and train my children in. How can they find out their talents, skills and interests in life if all they do is sit around doing homework? Many of us have careers that draw from many areas of our lives, not just our book education. I feel we need to give our children a chance to learn in all areas and live a balanced life. This is vital to their success, happiness and well-being. And isn't this what we ultimately want for our children?
Friday, January 30, 2009
English
I make a fool of myself every time I have to participate in class. I am such a dunce! When will I grow up?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
