It’s Raining Lunatics
Life would be so much easier if Christianity had never existed. Seriously, the Romans didn’t actually throw Christians to the lions like Christians would have you believe, but if they had, I’d sympathize with a gal who once said of Christianity, “the Romans didn’t have enough lions.”
I’m not saying we’d be living in a Golden Age, but it might seem like one in comparison to what we have now. It’s as if all the lunatics in the world have gotten together under the banner of some bizarre superstition and now want to legislate the rest of us into having to become lunatics too. I guess, as they say, misery loves company and these people are obviously miserable as can be (how can you not be when you hate life and worship death?)
Today’s dose of drivel?
Anti-abortion group wants to make birth-control illegal in Florida
By Josh Hafenbrack, Tallahassee BureauTALLAHASSEE — A nationwide anti-abortion group launched an effort in Florida Friday to outlaw all abortions and certain types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill.
The religion-infused movement, called “Personhood Florida,” would define conception in Florida’s constitution at the “biological beginnings,” supporters said — when the sperm meets the egg. The group filed its amendment today but the exact ballot language is still being worked out, said Secretary of State Spokeswoman Jennifer Krell-Davis.
The amendment seeks to outlaw all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. Also criminalized: the morning-after pill and oral contraceptives taken by women, known as the pill. “There are some (birth control) methods that kill a child,” said Pat McEwan, who is leading the Personhood Florida group.
The amendment faces extremely long odds. First, supporters must gather 676,811 signatures to make the ballot — by Feb. 1, to go before voters in 2010.
And Florida has a 60-percent threshold for constitutional amendments to become law, a very difficult hurdle even for less radical ideas. In Colorado, the only state where the “personhood” amendment has appeared on the ballot, voters overwhelmingly rejected the idea by an almost three-to-one margin.
Even if adopted by voters, the amendment runs counter to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that held the U.S. Constitution grants women the basic right to an abortion.
Supporters say they’re pushing the personhood amendment not only in Florida, but in a dozen other states.
At a press conference in Tallahassee, speakers blamed abortion for the financial insolvency of Social Security and the bankruptcy of American auto manufacturers, citing the millions of terminated pregnancies since Roe. v. Wade as costing the nation citizens and customers. They also said that a fetus is a person and should be given protections of law.
“It is obvious in our ultrasounds that that little baby, even at just eight weeks old, is a person,” said Brenda MacMenamin, a Personhood Florida organizer. “Their rights our self-evident and they are inalienable. We want to give the voters of the state of Florida the right to vote on personhood.”
Unfortunately, people have an inalienable right to be lunatics.
On top of this, another lunatic is demanding that abortion be banned in the State of California. And of course, you know they won’t stop there. It makes “god” angry, you see…and it’s not enough for these lunatics to just not do anything to piss of their pissant little godling…they don’t want US to piss him off either. Personally, I’m pretty fucking far from worrying about if a dead illiterate Galilean peasant is mad at me. And even if you want to credit YHWH with existence (and I am willing to do that) claiming he’s identical with some dead illiterate Galilean peasant is taking things a bit far…besides which there is the not-so-little problem of asking yourself whether or not you wish to blaspheme a god by claiming he’s a lunatic like they are.
I would like to invite these people who hate life and the world so much to just leave. Seriously. Just leave. I don’t care how you do it, just go. We’re tired of you, tired of your shit. You’ve made the rest of us miserable for twenty centuries and we’ve had it with you.
Update: This just in from NARAL Pro-Choice America:
Anti-choice gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell has opposed birth control — even for married couples and states that “homosexuality and abortion are both cause and effect of family breakdown.” McDonnell claims:“ … homosexuality and abortion … are both cause and effect of family breakdown.”
In outlining the policies he believes that his political party should pursue, he targets reproductive rights, single mothers, and same-sex couples and families …
“Continue to work for passage of strong state anti-abortion laws … fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals and single-parent unwed mothers … fight the use of federal funds for state sex education programs.” [1]
We’ve seen the damage anti-choice governors have done in the past. Sarah Palin, anyone?
[1] “The Republican Party’s Vision for Family: The Compelling Issue of the Decade.” Robert McDonnell. Regent University. 1989.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion and writes for PoliticusUSA (www.politicususa.com) 
I second that. Also it's important to point out that if these people had the theocracy they wanted, it would turn around and bite them in the ass. they would be sorry to learn that what they envisioned for the world would be quickly perverted by even their own standards. Perhaps it's only if their own personal freedom were taken away, that they would not take it for granted anymore. Maybe then they would appreciate the rights of women to physical autonomy.
Straight and to the point. L like it…..a lot!
While l believe in the freedom of speech, these narrow-minded, doom-ridden bigots should also respect other peoples freedom to not believe in their bull-shit.
"…and it's not enough for these lunatics to just not do anything to piss of their pissant little godling…they don't want US to piss him off either". LOL to that.
What a laughable, pitiable little petition.
These idiots must know that any creature with an umbilical cord attached to its mother, which breathes, digests and excretes with the help of the mother's body, from INSIDE that too, is not yet an individual.
Such a breath of fresh air to hear my Hellene buddies tell me, that abortion is legal, because it is only when the umbilical cord is cut, when the baby takes its first breath outside of the mother's body, does a soul enter the body of the new born (along with its first breath of air), and thus render it possible for it to be termed an individual.
What kind of "person" is a foetus, when it is totally dependent on its mother for all its bodily activities?
I hope these crazy petitions never get to see the light of day.
Jenn, thanks for commenting. They're not students of history to be sure…if they were, they'd understand the first thing they did upon running out of Pagans to kill was to go after each other.
Nice 3D art, by the way!
Time to form the shield wall, Stu. I agree. I'm for freedom of speech but as you say, these people don't seem to understand that their rights end where mine begin.
My ancestors believed the same thing, Indrani. Life began at birth, when the soul entered the body. A child not named and claimed was not a child at all. My suggestion to them is that if they don't believe in birth control or abortion, to avoid them. That's the right they do have. They don't have the right to dictate their nonsense to the rest of us.
"Nice 3D art, by the way!"
Thank you, Sir!
I think birth control pills and contraceptives are fine as they stop the cycle of life before brain development and sentience begin. But when they fail, I've recently changed my position on abortion. I'm against it for any reason. This is not for religious reasons but because I'm vegan.
If I don't support the killing of animals because of their sentience, I can hardly support the ending of a pregnancy after brain development and thus sentience has begun. Which is at 5 weeks and women often don't know they're pregnant until 2-3 weeks. (Sometimes longer!) Even reproductive specialists will say that's not enough time to make an informed and emotionally detached decision.
So I would support any reasonable movement to have abortion outlawed. And I would support better education for our young people and greater distribution of the pill and condoms.
"A child not named and claimed was not a child at all."
I'm really asking…are you serious? What do you mean by the above? Are you saying a newborn without a name is not a child?
Birth control has been illegal before. This is nothing new, but these people are living in the past while the rest of the world is moving on.
In the case of UNWANTED pregnancy the fetus is akin to a sexually transmitted disease and a parasite. And I'm speaking as a mother.
Gran, you can be against anything you want as long as you're against it for YOURSELF and not everyone else.
Thank you for this post. I'm tired of people thinking they can make ANY choice about a woman's body. It sickens me.
I have an IUD in, and it's one of those "iffy" contraceptives that can stop pregnancy (ie. remove a fertilized embryo from the uterine lining).
But I cannot physically carry a foetus to term, nor birth a child–either the child would die, or we both would due to medical issues. And the government here won't allow me to have a hysterectomy because I "might change my mind"–about what, I'm not sure. I have PCOS and a heart condition—having children physically would be WAY too taxing on my body.
But again….another thing the government wants to control for women—the choice to remove their uterus.
They're barking mad, of course. These loons would like to turn the U.S. (and everyplace else) into the Republic of Gilead in The Handmaid's Tale.
This quotation has been attributed to more people than you can shake a stick at, but it still rings true:
"You can safely assume that you made God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people that you do."
And hates the same things, I would add.
And please don't get me started on Sarah Palin. Gah!
Gran, you cannot assume everyone thinks the way we do today, in our culture, in our specific point in time. Our ancestors (the Norse) believed that life began with naming. When the baby was named, the soul would enter into the baby and it would be a human. Until then, it was not. You may think this is insane, but they did not. Can you prove they are wrong? Of course not. Nobody can prove anything related to the soul. My point is that no one person, no one culture, no one religion, has a right to decide for everybody what's right and what's wrong, and I'm talking about vegetables and babies both.
Gran, I really can't state my stance any more clearly than this: I will thank an animal for dying for me so that I can eat. I will honor him. I will apologize to a tree before cutting it down. But I will kill the animal and I will cut down the tree.
Pom, well said. Thank you for saying it so clearly. The problem is with people who think because they think something is wrong (and I'm talking about things like circumcision as well) that nobody should be able to do it. I'm not a mother, but I am circumcised and I like to think I am not mutilated or an abomination because of it. Nobody, nobody at all has a right to tell me I can't eat meat, I can't circumcise my children, and I can't use birth control because sperm is sacred, or a woman can't use it because it might end "life" (whatever you want to define as life – see my above comments to Granamyr). The easiest solution in the world is for people who don't like it to avoid doing it and to leave the rest of us the hel alone.
Aelwyn, that's the problem precisely. These people think in absolutes. They don't think about complications that this woman or that woman may face with regards to pregnancy. They don't think about incest or rape or any other factor that might come into play (like saving the mother's life at the expense of the fetus). Being a father three times, I can honestly say that while I would have mourned the unborn child, I'd have chosen my wife's life over that of the fetus every time.
It was not the government's job to impose morality, but to protect us from criminals. Conservative Christians do not understand that.
Well put, Makarios! I know of similar ideas being expressed by scholars:
E.P. Sanders notes that many New Testament scholars write books about Jesus in which they discover that he corresponds with their own version of Christianity (E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 330, n. 148).
The Jesus Seminar understood the importance of Sanders’ cautionary note; their rule was “Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you” (Robert W Funk, Roy W. Hoover, The Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels. The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (1993), 5, n. 10).
Hraf, I agree whole heartedly – idiots like this are making me crazy. And they are giving liberal Christians a really bad name. Not all Christians believe this way. Alot of us believe in plurasm. In respecting others beliefs. In living by the life Jesus lived rather than spewing rhetoric and hate based on how he died. I do have to point out that Jesus was not illiterate, and that is historically supported by the teachings of the Synagoe of his day and era, even if you want to toss out reports of him reading and writing because they happen to be in the Bible. All male Jewish children were raised to be able to read the Torah – reading it in the Synagoge aloud at their coming of age was tradition and requirement. Don't mind a bit you hammering the lunatics – but don't buy into popular culture of Jesus as an illiterate peasant that even sincere misguided churches hold. It doesn't hold up. I keep hoping someone finds HIS writings someday – that would set the world on it's ear – and I suspect might topple the Christian church as we know it! Would that not be a lovely thing? Of course…those who would suddenly find themselves discredited by Jesus' own words would simply ignore them as a fake, the way they ignore the Hammadi texts. You can lead a lunatic to knowledge but you cannot make them think! Agh!
Oh, Hraf – your link to "This Lesbians Life" on Vox has a problem – they are no longer there, or on Vox. Didn't know if you knew or not.
Hey Cameron. My own relatives in Minnesota are good, practical-minded liberal Christians. I have the greatest respect for them. They endorse a live-and-let-live philosophy of life. I recognize that conservative Christians would probably label them (as a result) as heretics or non-Christians or Pagans.
With all due respect, I do still endorse the idea of an illiterate Jesus (and it must be pointed out that unlike many Pagans, I actually accept that Jesus was a historical person – for many, the point would be moot).
First of all, there were not many synagogues in Second Temple Judaism (and none proven in Nazareth) and Jesus was a Galilean, a people only recently converted to Judaism (in Hasmonean times and frowned upon by people in Judaea – "nothing good comes out of Galilee") and who spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew (or Greek).
And I don't believe it is just a "popular" view that Jesus was illiterate but a scholarly one as well (Bart Ehrman among others).* We know, for example, that Jesus' two main followers, Peter and John, were illiterate because Acts 4:13 tells us so – and if they could be illiterate, so could Jesus.
That said, I do think it would be wonderful if we discovered actual writings of his, or even the original manuscripts the four gospels are based on. I agree they would turn modern Christianity on its ear.
Thanks for letting me know about the link. I thought that was one I had recently fixed but perhaps not. Tough to keep up with changing links. I'll look into it!
* Bart Ehrman, Jesus. Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 45.
Gran, you said "I'm against it for any reason" and "So I would support any reasonable movement to have abortion outlawed."
Are you applying your judgment, to female rape case victims as well?
Let's say, I'm somebody you don't like. But I force my way into your home and hand you a gift. The gift is again, something you neither want, nor need. But the law of the land has it, that you would be forced to keep the gift and put it up for public display, just because I walked into your home and gave it to you. How would you feel, if things were this way?
Mother nature gives the infant as a gift, to a woman. And it is common sense, that what we do with a gift, should be left to our discretion. Once it has come to us, we are in charge of it, and can decide to do away with it, if the gift doesn't suit us.
I want to clarify, that like Hraf, I am not a supporter of using abortion as a form of contraception. Hraf and myself, have had this discussion in the past and we both agreed, that women must use contraceptives when they don't want to become mothers. Knowing abortion is available to get rid of a child, and therefore become lax in the bedroom in using the pill or a condom, is irresponsible behaviour.
But the problem is, you cannot monitor individual behaviour. This is why, abortion must always remain legal.
I clarified myself Gran, just in case you were going to ask me, if I supported irresponsible behaviour by women.
If the value of life in all circumstances were truly equal, it would be a contradiction to enforce anti-abortion laws and punishment, because to do so would imply the value of the mother's life as less than the fetus. Especially when pregnancy imposes such radical changes and can create serious vulnerabilities in a woman's body. To force those changes on someone's body through laws is to imply their body is not their own in the first place.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Simple, yet lost on so many. One can be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. This is why I refer to people who want to make abortion illegal as anti-choicers and misogynists. Interestingly enough, women can be, and many are both.
Wow, Hrafnkell! You're burning up the internets with this one! Atta boy! lol
I do have something to say about the idea of "responsible" and "irresponsible" women when it comes to abortion. It's a bit off topic but not too much…
The idea that all women can reasonably and responsibly take contraception is, in itself, nearly as unreasonable as the idea of stripping women of their reproductive rights. Medically speaking there is not a single FEMALE birth control out there that does not manipulate the hormones of the woman taking/using them. For some this is an inconvenience that ends shortly after using the contraception stops. For others a lifelong battle with health can ensue. In short, it's quite presumptuous to say that women are "irresponsible for not using birth control" when in fact they may be taking more responsibility (for their health) than other women.
And not that this needs to be said again, but if I have to say it a million more times – I will. Making abortion illegal does NOT stop abortions from happening – it makes them more dangerous for women. You know? The living person the anti-choice is trying to control the rights of???
** LMAO – my verification word? "nochrist"
Jenn, that's one of the things that pisses me off the most about these people. They claim to be pro-life but they're advocating the death of the mother in 100% of the cases where the life of the mother is at risk. Who are they to decide that the mother is less valuable than the child? And how does making that judgment (for everyone) make a person pro-life? I've repeatedly questioned them on this and they just insist I'm a baby-killer. It's like arguing with children. It really is.
Well said, Pom, on both counts. Banning abortion is sorta like banning sex. We've seen how well that works with Sarah Palin's daughter.
But the life of the mother means nothing to these people…they're not pro-life, they're just pro-idiocy.
"Gran, you can be against anything you want as long as you're against it for YOURSELF and not everyone else."
As a society we collectively decide to not tolerate and end certain practices. (Human slavery, child labor…) My hope is that one day we will come to realize that we need not kill sentient life…all sentient life. Until then, yes…it's legal to do so. But I'm working for change by speaking my opinions openly and honestly.
From the perspective of the one conceived, I don't think the method of conception matters. We all want to live and the by the acquisition of sentience, I think it's a much safer assumption to say that being indeed *wants* to live. Therefore any claim or desire others may have on it, or any benefit they might receive by ending it's life is forfeit.
As difficult as it may be for a mother to live with said child once born, it is her emotions she needs to deal with. I don't see how removing the end result of a tragic situation like rape repairs the initial intrusion. And let's be clear, it is the intrusion (rape) that is the violation, not the pregnancy.
I never said the ancients Norse were wrong, H. And you're asking me to prove a negative which is a fallacy. You're free to believe apples grow underground because your ancestors said so. Doesn't change the reality that they don't. In the mean time, I'm keeping sentience as my standard and sentience begins in utero.
I find it a bit…interesting, H that you rail Christians for disapproving of abortion for religious/spiritual reasons yet…you yourself cited a religious/spiritual reason for being *for it*. Such views are obviously mutually exclusive. I feel it's being hypocritical of you to rail them but cite spiritual reasons yourself as justification for your opinions. If yours count as support *for it* then theirs should count as support *against it*.
And re-reading a couple of these posts I have to say, the life of both woman and child mean everything to me. I just don't choose one life over another. You do all you can for both in such cases.
Gran, so you're against abortion at any and all times. You say you wish to save sentient life. How about the life of the mother when, if she gives birth, she will likely die. You say the mother's life is less valuable than the child's? You're against abortion then too? You're saying society gets to make that medical decision, not the husband? Not the mother herself?
So now I'm a hypocrite, am I? How exactly do you figure that? Facts are not hypocritical, Granamyr, and I suggest you try reading a little more closely in future. One culture does not get to establish the normative for all the others. One religion does not get to establish the normative for all others. Is that too difficult for you to understand?
Listen to yourself for once. You sound just like an intolerant Christian but you have something other than YHWH as your god. You don't like eating meat so you don't think anybody else should be allowed to either.
You don't like abortion so you don't think anybody should be able to have one.
My entire point was that while one culture may approve of something, or one religion might, another will not. You can hate meat all you want; you can disapprove of abortion all you want, but that doesn't mean you're right and everybody else is wrong.
It's a bit arrogant, isn't it? The difference between us is that while I think you're wrong, I support your right to eat only vegetables and I support your right to not have abortions if you're against them. I think some things other cultures do is a bit bizarre and I don't approve of them all, but it's not my right to tell me they're wrong and I'm right. Do you see the difference? At all?
We just want to be left alone to follow our customs and traditions. And Gran, it isn't "society" that's deciding these things; it's a religion, a small but very vocal group of religious extremists. You may or may not have the same motivations they have, but theirs are religious. Mine are not.
I didn't cite religious reasons for being FOR abortion. My reasons are based on tolerance and a more nuanced view of right and wrong than opponents seem capable of.
I told you what my ancestors thought. I have previously told you why I'm pro-Choice as opposed to anti-Life. And it is because no one person has a right to tell me, based on their religious beliefs, that I'm wrong and they're right. To suppose that abortion is right in any and all situations is no better and no worse than saying it's wrong in any and all situations. As Indrani told you, I'm not for abortion as a means of birth control. But there are many valid reasons to have an abortion. You seriously think you have a right to tell a 13-year-old girl who was raped by her father or uncle that she has to have a baby? You seriously think that?
Anti-Lifers have their religion. They can follow it. It's really quite simple. You follow your beliefs and I'll follow mine. You can't prove when life begins; neither can I. What we're left with is an arbitrary choice made by a specific, particular religion whose judgment isn't even sound by Biblical standards, a Bible that means nothing in any event to anybody who doesn't follow an Abrahamic religion.
Finally, and I've said this before, it's not government's job to dictate or legislate morality, Gran. The law is there to protect us from criminals. If people were running around forcibly aborting babies, you'd have a case. But they're not. Until you can prove when life begins, when the spirit enters the body, you're entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to force your opinion on anybody else.
And if you wish to continue to call me a hypocrite, I'll appreciate you show me the minimum amount of courtesy in my own virtual hall. I refuse to monitor comments before allowing them to post and I've yet to delete a comment other than spam, but I am more than willing to make an exception in such cases.