Two of the three most traumatic events of my life are abortions.
The first when I was about 20 seemed excusable due to relative poverty, the woman (now my ex-wife) never said a word about why she did it. I had only a few days from her abrupt change of heart until she did it and I could not talk her out of it. The child was planned and celebrated, then destroyed upon a whim. I should have left the woman but drowning in despair I did not.
The second when I was about 30 was something I again fought against unsuccessfully. My inability to talk my wife out of aborting that child (complicated by her denial of its existence) left me feeling so useless that I nearly killed myself. I pulled myself back from the brink (and I understand why people ‘cut’ themselves) due to recollecting how a friend was affected by her father committing suicide- so I stayed alive for the sake of my children (then 5 and 3 years old).
I have only had fleeting remembrances of joy since then (1984), and little of comfort or peace. The loss of a child is hard, harder when so many deny it ever existed.
And yet I oppose the present anti-abortion legislation. My reasons in descending importance:
- it will only slightly reduce the number of abortions and is likely to lead to the deaths of women;
- it is unjust in that it will disproportionally affect the poor, the people who have the most justifications for it;
- I am not fit to judge my fellow man, and have not met anyone else who is;
- the government has shown itself NOT competent in matters of life and death, but is driven instead by ideology and political theater catering to the more vicious emotions of humanity;
- if the proposed laws had been in force back then my ex-wife may have died, denying my living children their mother;
- the means taken to pass the bill: Special sessions should be restricted to urgent business. To state that abortion has become urgent after 40 years is disingenuous at best, and clearly being done for political reasons, not for the health of the women involved. The voting rules of our great state are an attempt to keep bare majorities from deciding significant matters. If you can’t get a bill passed in the regular session then the issue needs to percolate in the minds and spirits of the population for a few more years.
From Greg Abbott:
“When government is limited, freedom is expanded.”
The continental congress extended itself into a full country gov’t creating greater freedom for most colonial citizens (at least in the north).
South Africa goes both ways, the gov’t retracted itself in some ways to end apartheid, but probably has expanded more to give blacks freedoms that would not have been achieved without gov’t action.
I am greatly annoyed when people present themselves as being a member of a particular culture as an attempt to dodge responsibility for their actions, delegating that responsibility to those who set the norms for that culture. The obvious case being: “God Hates Fags, the bible tells me so”.
The only decent reason to state one’s culture is to identify the context for one’s speech, to improve communication.
This post was triggered by this article: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/why_i_cant_stand_white_belly_dancers/
(in response to a blog post that micro evolution is proven but macro is not)
Evolution exactly is differential survival of variations.
The bible as you find it in churches these days is reconstructed from fragments written in long dead languages, based on the assumption of a single original set of events and a ‘unchanging’ Words of God.
The number 20,000 is often quoted for the number of bible fragments known, with only 4 significantly complete copies all of which are generations past the time of Christ.
The evidence that ‘micro’ evolution leads to ‘macro’ evolution is inferred from the millions of fossils collected and the thousands of genes sequenced across species. The rules of the language of DNA are being refined, and are available right now for examination, versus having to guess at the meanings of the words in ancient documents.
Allen’s passing a lie detector test to me is inconclusive.
From personal experience I know that at times of great stress people do things that are so foreign to their own self image that they do not accept that they performed the deed, and never would have done the deed when life is flowing easy.
At my father’s memorial the only people crying were the ones that had not known him well or long. The last time I was in his physical presence I held him at arm’s length when he tried to envelop me in a hug, both because of the wide range of neglect and abuse directly of me, but in nearly equal measure due to his response when he asked me why my sister wouldn’t talk to him. When I suggested he needed to admit he molested her he would first say (we went through this routine more than once) that he doesn’t know why she would think such a thing about him. I would answer “because you did so, by my own observation”. He would ignore that and say “well I’m sorry she thinks that I did that”, to which I would say “I heard her crying and watched you leave her bedroom”. He would then say “well if I did something like that I’m sorry”. I would try to explain that refusing to acknowledge to himself that he did this makes his apology empty, he is still not willing to feel even second hand the pain he caused another.
Just listened to Francis Collins describe how he became Christian from being atheist. It sounded as if the man forgets the emotions of early childhood and ignores how they inform adult emotional needs.
I also didn’t hear even a scintilla of recognition of the whole of the bible, he only hears the ‘god loves me’ part.
He feels like the christian god explains so much that he otherwise doesn’t understand, but ignores that many others do understand what he does not and do so from observing nature, not from the words of politicians and poets long dead.
I’ve been asked “why are atheists so angry?”.
The snarky response: “because you only hear the loud ones”.
My more elaborate rejoinder: “why do religious people try to lubricate their way into heaven with the blood, sweat, and tears of other people?”