Saturday, August 25, 2012

In which I respond to my first raving "pro"-lifer

I admit it took longer than I thought it would to attract my first truly raving "pro"-lifer to my post on the personhood movement, but it finally happened. An anonymous commenter left two responses that I thought required a more detailed response than that which can be provided in a simple comment, so I decided I would write a new post in reply to them.

One request though, please read and understand the original post before reading this, which is certainly more than our anonymous commenter did. Our intrepid "pro"-lifer merely repeats things I dismiss in the original post (as if repeating something shown to be stupid somehow makes it right the second time) or parrots all the usual talking points that they have heard from their pastor, priest, right wing radio host, right wing website, right wing friends. Nothing new or exciting, except the incoming Godwin, which I admit to hearing for the first time in the context of the abortion rights argument.

One further warning to our anonymous friend - pick a nickname/psuedonym to post under. Any subsequent anonymous comments will be deleted, not because you are right, not because I cannot respond, not because I'm afraid of the truth etc etc. So many comments get made by anonymous drive by commenters that having a name associated to your comment means I can respond to the right people. It's easy to do, you don't even have to register anywhere - just select 'Name/URL' from the drop down box labelled 'Comment As' underneath the text box you type your comment in, then pick a name, anything as long as it can be used to direct replies to.

For the purpose of this post, I will refer to the anonymous commenter as Gloria. In honour of renowned feminist and pro-abortion rights activist Gloria Steinem.

Saturday, April 28, 2012

For the religious: If you want to piss me off, try this

I'll let you into a little secret: I run a little hot. You shouldn't be surprised (if you know me or if you've seen my writings around the interwebs) to learn that I have a quick temper and I let it out on the internet. In person I am a lot more controlled, but push far enough and I will snap. Usually I give people a chance, if they are polite and original I can hold it back and I will be polite right back. If you start off as an ass or repeat tired old arguments as if they are brand new, you get one barrel of the literal shotgun. If you want both right away though, there are a few things you can do and when it comes to religion there's one that really makes me see red - accuse those without religion of being immoral, selfish, amoral, greedy or somehow less 'nice' than those with religion. That will get you an immediate "Fuck you."

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Why do you oppose gay marriage?

I've struggled for quite some time now to write a post about gay marriage rights (which really should just be gay rights, since marriage is a basic right for everyone). I've started a couple and deleted them because I just couldn't find the right approach or motivation to complete that I needed, until this weekend. I can always count on the Catholic Church to give me the motivation I need to point out how bloody hideous and ridiculous the whole bloated institution is, so when it started getting more vocal about gay rights it was all the help I needed. The post will hopefully be in two parts, the first dealing with the objections to gay marriage that I've heard or come across and the second dealing with the nonsense that came from the Catholic church this past week.

Objections to gay marriage rights

There are lots of different versions of the arguments put forward to oppose/demonize gay marriage rights, but the list below hopefully covers most of them in a general format - almost all the arguments you hear will fit either under one of these broader categories, or across more than one.

  1. It's wrong.
  2. It's against God's law/the Bible/the beliefs of religion X.
  3. It's (meaning homosexuality) not natural.
  4. Marriage is about procreation and gay people can't procreate/but gay people can't have children.
  5. It's icky/makes me uncomfortable.
  6. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
  7. Gay marriage would destroy/reduce/undermine all marriage.
  8. I don't like gay people.
  9. It's against the law.

Now, I may have missed some, and feel free to chime in with those, but broadly speaking every argument I have heard used against gay marriage fits in one or more of these at a time. And I'll be honest right from the start, I think they are all bloody stupid. Not a one of those is an argument that makes me want to re-evaluate my position - they are all idiotic. So let's take a look at why.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Why the personhood movement is wrong

Conservative 'pro-life' groups in the USA have always been looking for ways to overturn Roe v Wade and ban abortions of any form performed for any reason ever since the ruling was handed down, and their latest high profile strategy has been the attempted introduction of so called 'personhood' amendments in several US states. These amendments usually center around one principle - define life as beginning at fertilization, thereby granting full human rights to the newly formed combination of two gametes. Amendments that attempted this have already been rejected by voters in Colorado, Alaska and Mississippi. And this is a good thing. In fact, a very good thing. For one very good reason:

Defining human life as beginning at fertilization is arbitrary and stupid.

However, the national GOP would love to introduce a federal level personhood amendment - and this act of religious dogma dressed up as human rights concern needs to be fought and finally, utterly, defeated.