America's best Christian talks abortion...

William, you're, um... "talents" are truly wasted here. Clearly I am no match for you with my heathen beliefs and practices and utter inability to cherry-pick the same passages that you seem to think are the important ones.  So I'll leave it to Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, to talk about abortion, and you can take up you're, um.... "sincerely held religious beliefs" with her.

How Pro-Lifers are killing women

Hey, William.... Remember when you said that there weren't any women having their health harmed by the Right's constant attacks on Abortion Rights?

Well, FUCK YOU.

--------------------------------------------------

“Today’s mothers are twice as likely to die of pregnancy- or childbirth-related causes than their mothers were. There is no reason, given our vast resources, knowledge and technology, why we should be going backwards in this area.” – Laura Gilkey, coordinator of The Safe Motherhood Quilt Project, a nonprofit based in Sarasota, Fla. 

Globally, only a few countries have seen a rise in the rate of maternal deaths in recent years. Those include Afghanistan, El Salvador, South Sudan and the United States of America.
--------------------------------------------------

Well done, Republicans, I hope you're happy. First you destroyed the traditional family unit, and now you're actually killing women.

How much longer do we have to suffer these psychopaths, America? How long before more of you start to realize what I've been saying all along: Right-Wing Conservative Republicans only come in two flavors : EVIL and STUPID. One's lying and the other's buying.

How much more damage must we let them do? How many more lives will we let them destroy?

What clever sounds like to a stupid person

See... Don't try to be clever.  Stick to what you're good at.  And appearing clever isn't it.  Unfortunately Conservatives are fairly easy to impress, as long as what they're been fed comes from a Conservative.

"Keep your Government hands off my medicare, indeed."

I've lost track of the number of times my parents, or one of my Conservative friends, have sent me one of the Right-Wing, anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi, or anti-Democrat emails that Snopes has already debunked. (Usually YEARS ago.) If you think what you're saying (or reading) is too good to be true, and no Liberal could ever possibly have an answer for it?

Keep quiet, and do some research first.

You missed something really obvious. You're wrong. And it will take someone like me about five seconds to figure that out.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2/27/13
Morning Weight: 208.8
Pounds Down: 6
Pounds to Go: 34
Days remaining: 204
Gym: Not tonight. (DW has Akido/Iado.)

What a vile pool of subhuman scum!

First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work, or something. You know, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.


Todd Akin, -R (MO)

Republicans are scum.

Oh, not surprisingly every Right-Wing Politician in the country right now is scrambling to distance themselves from these remarks?  But WHY?!  OK, I know WHY, but doing so is a dishonest attempt to try and hide the fact that this kind of ignorance is fundamental to their Anti-Choice political platform!

What's more, this is just the latest in a long line of vile, venomous lies told about women, gays, transfolk, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, atheists, liberals, the poor, unions, teachers, scientists, etc... They are lying, ignorant scum and these comments are far from out of the norm.


And besides... Why back off of these comments, but not ones suggesting that...:
1) Gays are pedophiles?
2) Transgendrism is merely a sexual fetish?
3) Poor people without health care deserve their poverty
4) That there mustn't be any real poverty in this country, since we have poor people who are fat?
5) Autistic children are just faking it?
6) In a disaster Black "loot" while Whites "scavenge?"
7) Earthquake and Flood victims are being punished by God?
8) AIDS is punishment for being Gay?
9) Islam is not a Religion, and that it shouldn't be protected under the First Ammendment?

Obviously, I could on and on. And it's statements like these, and the fact that they are NOT anomalous, but in fact FUNDAMENTAL to Conservative thynking, that are the reason I'm Liberal! And any media stroy that suggests these comments come from merely the frings of the Right-Wing reveal only their own systematic Right-Wing bias and an allergy to acknowledging simple reality.

And what's the Liberal Equivalent of this? Boycotting Chik-Fil-E because they donate money to hate groups? Refusing to allow their Corporate Sponsorhip to use OUR MONEY to pay the salaries of teh likes of Mike Savage and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh?! Give me a break! The Right whines about Christians being "persecuted" when the extent of their "persecution" is that THINKING PEOPLE are no longer willing to give them cart-blanche to LEGALLY PERSECUTE EVERYONE ELSE! And it's about damned time as well! Akin's comment should be hung around the necks of EVERY REPUBLICAN, seeing as how they all want to outlaw all abortions.
This comment SHOULD be the END of the pro-life movement as a political force. It WON'T be, because there is not shortage of COMPLETE FUCKING MORONS in this country who keep voting for these Right-Wing Shitstains.

But it still SHOULD be. Because it reveals the ignorance that permeates the entirety of the Right Wing in this country, on each and every issue.

The only thing "unusual" about these comments is the rarity in which we get a Republican to actually tell the truth about what their Party, Platform and Philosophy believe and stand for.

Scum like Todd Akin are unfit for Public Service. And it is not enough to redeem yourself [Republicans] by distancing yourselves from these COMMENTS. You must distance yourself from the PLATFORM these comments come from and support.

IOW: You have to stop being Republicans.

Every single one of these scumbags should be removed from office. Each and every last one of them. They have nothing to offer anyone on any issue.


--------------
...And to THINK that I almost felt bad for killing this asshole off!

Vagina!

In the weekly contest between Texas and Florida to show who can be the most backwards State, Michigan has apparently chosen to vie for some recognition. Last week, during the public debate on the Republican's latest attempt to outlaw all abortions, without exception, State Representative Lisa Brown (D-Commerce Twp., West Bloomfield) told the Republican led, Male dominated Legislator that "[She was] flattered that you're all so interested in my vagina, but no means no."

For her use of the medically appropriate term for the particular part of the female anatomy that the Republican Men in the legislature were seeking to regulate, she and Barb Byrum, (D-Onondaga) who also sought to remind  the petulant children on the Right side of the aisle what they were, in fact, TALKING ABOUT REGULATING, were censured and banned from speaking on the floor of the State House, indefinitely, regarding ANY Bills, at all.  And indeed when these ladies tried to chime in on proposed spending bills, completely unrelated to abortion, they were barred from being able to speak.

...Barred from being able to DO THEIR JOBS.

...Barred from being able to REPRESENT THEIR CONSTITUENCIES!

To speaker Majoity Leader Jim Stamas (R) and House Speaker Jase Bolger (R), I ask if they've ever read the U.S. Constitution and understand the Freedom of Speech was put in their SPECIFICALLY to protect speech in POLITICAL DEBATES. I wonder if thay are familiar with the way a Representative Democracy works, and I wonder if he is familiar with the Michigan State Constitution and how it apportions and guarentees Representation to the Citizens he is now silencing.  (Shit, I wonder if they even know where babies come from!)

In the on going war on women, women are apparently baned from serving.

The bill, BTW, which puts the health of Michigan women at stake, after just 20 minutes of debate.

Majoity Leader Stamas? Speaker Bolger? You are now fascists. Congratulations.

You have stood up for censorship, for silencing debate, for silencing opposition, for curtailing freedom, for destroying the fair representation of the citizenship, and for your Party's absurd war against women.

I don't know if you remember, but the #1 concern on everyone's mind right now is the ECONOMY and JOBS. You mind telling me where you radical anti-choice agenda, which callously disregards the health of the women you claim to represent fits in?

Oh, and, uh... BTW, since you seem to have a problem with the word VAGINA, and I'm pretty sure you will NEVER be able to silence me:

VAGINA!
VAGINA!
VAGINA!

What are you going to do about that, House Fascist?

Here's what VAGINA looks like, italicized!

Here's what it looks like when you say VAGINA boldly!

You got a problem with that, you misogynistic fuckwad?

And while were on the subject:

Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina! Vagina!

That's a lot of vaginas!

In fact, it 52 - one for every Republican PUSSY, every Republican CUNTRAG, every Republican mewling quim in the Michigan House and State Senate who wants to help "Childbirth" improve it's ranking on the list of 'causes of death' amongst women. 

For some more detailed, and reverent, debate and infomration on this Right-Wing attrocity, I refer you to Think Progress, and HuffPo. 

The Pro-Life Abortion Trap

For those of you who follow the day to day drama that's been playing out in the comments section [and boy has it been busy since William's come to town - 46 comments in one thread, which is more than I've had in any of the 10 previous MONTHS this year!] you might have seen that I laid out a trap for William over in the abortion thread that he walked right into. I'm sure it's not original, but I like to call it the "Pro-Life Trap."  And what I intend to teach him (and any other like-minded folks) is that a principled pro-Life LEGAL position either (1) does not exist or (2) is not defensible.

The Pro-Life trap is simple: DO YOU SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION FOR CASES OF RAPE.

And remember - we're talking about the law and our legal opinions, not out moral ones.  Like almost every one of my readers that I've heard from, I am morally opposed to Abortion. And yes, that includes cases of Rape.  The DIFFERENCE between Conservatives and Intelligent People Liberals on this issue is that we don't labor under the delusion that our opinion ought to be legally jammed down everyone else's throat.  Abortion is only an issue of Life vs. Death when discussing it on a MORAL level.  On a LEGAL level it is an issue of CHOICE vs. NO CHOICE.

What's more, if Williams (or anyone else) wants to argue with Pro-Choice folks that DO have insane opinions about abortion, he/they should go over to Jezebel or Feministing. Though, if he does, he should be warned: They will eat him alive. 

ANYWAY... William chose the easier answer saying in not so few words, "Yes."

What followed was a combination of Conchobhar stealing my thunder and William falling back on that old RightWing tripe trope of claiming to have been taken out of context.  Well, whether he is aware of it or not: he wasn't. And Conch had it 100% correct.

See...

Consider the idea that "Human Life is sacred," and thus therefore never be unnaturally terminated.  Next, consider LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE TEST they apply to the fetus in an effort to PROVE that it is, in fact, HUMAN LIFE, and thus worth protecting. Well, partially out of laziness and partly out of a desire to not limit the discussion to only those tests that I might come up with off the top of my head, I'm not going to start listing them out.  Just PICK A FEW. Whichever ones you want to.  Can you think of a SINGLE TEST for "Human Life, thus worth protecting" that a Fetus will pass, if it was conceived consensually, but somehow suddenly and magically fails if it was conceived forcibly?

Well, I can't.  DNA, living cells, exothermic, grows, replicates, heals, responds to stimulus, develops into a human (OK I lied: I named a few after all) ALL of these apply to the children of the most loving and happily married parents and to the spawned offspring of the most deprave serial rapists EQUALLY.  As one fails, the other fails. And as one passes? So does the other.

So you see, William, while you may THINK that you don't "support abortion as a means of birth control?" On the contrary: YOU DO. You absolutely do. What else do you think is going on here? What... do you think that when a rape victim gets an abortion SOMEONE ELSE delivers the baby? Um... NO. It is, in fact, the very DEFINITION of "birth control" regardless of how you choose to characterize or rationalize it.

In fact, while your position is the already the same as mine MORALLY SPEAKING, (and yes, I say that having read your entire commentary on the matter) the fact is that there is also very little difference in our positions, LEGALLY speaking. You ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT a woman's right to choose under certain circumstances. (Just like me and EVERYONE ELSE HERE!) And the ONLY DIFFERENCE between your position and mine/ours? Is that you choose to draw the line in a slightly different place.  That's it. It is absolutely not one iota more profound a "Pro-Life" position than mine. It is just a slickly stricter Pro-Choice position - one in which you merely delineate the acceptable circumstantial criteria a little differently. The fact remains that YOU HAVE DECIDED that it is LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE to kill a fetus REGARDLESS OF IT'S LIFE AND HUMANITY and all you done is chosen a different set of criterion for it.  The only difference between you and me? Is that you think a woman needs to get YOUR PERMISSION and satisfy YOUR CRITERIA BEFORE you'll support her legal rights!  (And actually... OMG! So do I! Look at that! The principles of our respective positions are, in fact, ABSOLUTELY THE SAME: We simply draw the line in a different place.) (So either your pro-choice or I'm pro-life. Take your pick.)

So calling yourself "pro-life" if it helps you sleep better at night, but your political and legal position is NOT "pro-life" in any principled way. And there is no need for me to debate you any further on this matter, because anyone and everyone is free to read your comments in the previous abortion post.  Unless you have something REALLY FUCKING GOOD to add to the conversation, I'm inclined to let my work, yours and Conchobhar's speak for itself.

 Now, of course there's another side of the Pro-Life Trap. It's arguably more principled, and attempting to defend it requires both more courage and more stupidity that Williams likely possesses.  It is the position that would, for the sake of not in fact merely being a Pro-Choice-lite position, answer my question, "NO."

No exception for Rape.

And hey, you got to admit: It's principled.

The problem is? It also ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PSYCHOTIC.

It is referred to, very accurately, in Liberal circles as "The Rapist's Bill of Rights."  And it truly and undeniably defines the difference between Liberals and Conservatives, once again, as not being so much about LIFE as they are about CHOICE.  Not allowing Rape victims access to abortion? Completely denies women the right to decide if, and with whom, they will bear children. It says, on no uncertain terms, that it is completely up to ANY AND ALL MEN which women will bear children, how many and when.  It says, on no uncertain terms, that I could go out and RAPE THE SHIT out of every woman I choose to, and while I will be punished fro my action, my progeny - all 257 of them, if I've gotten enough rest - will be protected, and MY GENES shall LIVE ON.  And as for those women?

"FUCK 'EM!" says this position, regarding their rights to control what happens to their bodies.  Reproductive Rights are no longer a matter of legal protection, but rather one of BRUTE PHYSICAL STRENGTH.

Now... This was not William's position, and I do not, for a moment, suggest that it is. (After all - I've already proven that he's almost as 'Pro-Choice' as I am! *wink*) But the morons in good people of South Dakota DID, in fact pass a law that did exactly this in 2006. Unfortunately for rapists the world over, the law was repealed by the end of that same year.  (And for fuck's sake READ THAT before you tell me that 'no one' is in fact trying to pass those kinds of laws!)

--------------------------------

BTW... I refuse to add "or incest" to "Rape" when talking about the exception issue. If the incest in question was not consensual (or statutory) then it can simply be called 'rape' and no further information is necessary. Done. And if it was consensual (*ew!*) then why should it require an exception under a pro-life framework? "Incest" is simply an unnecessary and superfluous addition to "Rape."

"Belief" in FREEDOM as opposed to RELIGION

This post is meant as a kind of an in-depth answer to some of the questions poster Duta raised in her comments to my last post. One of the great things about having a regular poster [like Duta] who thinks about things completely differently from you and who comes from a totally different school of thought, is that they will inevitably frame things in a way, or pose a question that, from your point of view, comes from so far out in Left Field that you hadn't ever remotely considered it.  In my experience conservatives don't really appreciate those kinds of points (or people) so I feel like I owe it to both myself and her to try and address these points in greater detail.

The first question, and the easier of the two, was:

What about the muslims in Europe and other places of the western world, making a minimal effort to respect and to adapt themselves to the norms existing in the hosting countries?

It's a pretty common talking point in the United States as well, and it applies not only to Muslims, but spills over into the broader immigration issue as well.  (Applied to Mexican migrant who don't speak english, for example.)  The word most commonly used in the American Right Wing talking point is "assimilation."  IOW: "Why should we accomodate people who aren't making an effort to assimilate?"

In the first place, personally, I don’t see any INHERENT good in assimilation. Don’t get me wrong, when I go to a foreign country, I try to learn some of the language, eat the local food, participate in the customs, etc… I mean, yeah, that’s the whole POINT. But I DO NOT believe that anyone should have to forego something as important to them as their religious practice, or for that matter be forced to participate in another’s religious practice (a sin in most religions) because of it. If you were to visit Iran, for exmple, just I as I feel it would be bullshit for you to be REQUIRED to wear the head covering (etc...) and participate in their prayers and rituals, I think it is equally bullshit to expect them to leave all that behind when they leave their country. Even though most DO... usually as soon as the airplane is outside of their country's airspace and the laws no longer apply. But if they don’t wish to? They shouldn’t HAVE to. That's just how I feel about it. “Assimilation” is just another word for “conformity.” And I’ve never seen any inherent good in conformity. Learn the language. Fine. Try the food. (Unless it is specifically taboo.) But ALWAYS be true to yourself.

And the other side of this is that "American" culture formed by assimilatring aspects of cultures from all over the world.  Primarily Europe, yes, as we are a majority of European descent.  But there is no longer any denying the influence of Asian, African, Latin American and increasingly Middle Eastern cultures as more immigrants for those regions come here.  Is that GOOD? Is that BAD? It's neither, really. Or rather it depends on your point of view.  The fact is that NO immigrant group completely left their culture behind when they came here.  At one point in this country's history, violence between the Irish and the Italians was far worse that any anti-muslim or muslim instigated violence is today.  (Putting aside 9/11, I'm talking day-to-day here.)  My point is that America will absorb some of any new culture.  And in doing so it will only grow stronger. 

What stops something like radical islam from comign in ataking over? Simple: FREEDOM.  Our Constitution.  OUR culture of TOLERANCE.  And the guarenteed Freedom of Religion that comes from the seperation of the church and the state.  In time any group will "assimilate" here, because that which is different becomes part of what "America" means.  That happens becuase America is an entire country of immigrants.  Ironically it is the native American culture that arguably has the least infuence of American culture.  In European countries it is harder to adapt like this, because the idigineous population is homogenius and has a more singularly established culture.  Likewise, those elements in America who fear change, and fear anything that's different, and fear anything they don't immediately understand also have a hard time accepting this.  But the greatest law of nature is that a species that can't adapt will die off.  The world around us is constantly changing, and no amount of conservatism will ever change that.  America thus has an advantage that Europe doesn't have: Since nothing "American" (other than Jazz and Rock & Roll) doesn't come from somewhere else, adaptation is what we do best.  So we'll take the best easpect of middle eastern culutre, and the worst aspects of it will, as in many other cases, be addressed and will eventually die off.  Their "assimilation" will involved both their own felxibility as well as ours.  And, just as in many other cases, it can take a few generations to accomplish this.  But it can happen.  My parent's marriage (Irish to an Italian) would have been unheard of in their parent's youth.  The growth in inter-racial marriage that we're seeing now was unheard off in their day, and actually still ILLEGAL in many states.  In another generation or two?  You won't see the muslims as all that different.  Well... YOU will... but your kids or grandkids won't.  That's just how it goes. 

*phew* I spent a lot longer on that than I'd intended! Sorry, about that!

The other point you made, the one I thougt was more prfound, though which I might end up haveing less to say about was:

You claim you're not religious and yet you seem very reigious about certain words such as Freedom.

Interesting.  So, I'm forced to ask myself if I have a “religious” belief in freedom. It’s an interesting use of the word, "belief.". The problem is that “belief” can have tow different meanings, both of which can be applied to both religion and freedom.  But I tend to mean one with Religion and the other with Freedom.

When I say that I DON’T “believe in Religion” this means two things. First of all there is the value judgment: I don’t believe in the inherent goodness of religion. Second, there is an existential question. To me, “Being religious” means that you believe that by participating in certain rituals (mass, prayer, fasting, worship, drum circles, etc…) you bring about a change that you can’t percieve or meausre, in an object (your soul) that you can’t percieve, measuire or  even prove exists, brought about by the will of a being… that you can’t percieve, measure, adequately define, or prove exists. Well… as I don’t believe in God or Souls (or Heaven and Hell,) as you’d likely define them, in the existential sense. So I REALLY don’t believe that I’m invoking any magical change in the universe by participating in these rituals. If YOU DO? And YOU get something that you feel is tangible out of it? Fine, go right ahead. Not only will I not try to stop you, I’ll fight for your right to do so. Because…


I believe in FREEDOM.

Now, the funny thing is, I don’t believe in freedom in the existential sense either! Actually, I’m positive that the kind of freedom I talk about, as I define it, doesn’t exist ANYWHERE. So when I say that I “believe” in it (religiously, as you put) it is only form the pointof view of a value judgment. I DO believe in the inherent goodness of the freedom of all mankind. I believe, as I’ve defined in the doctrine of choice, that pretty much all moral issues can be resolved almost trivially by respecting individual freedom (choice.) If religion make you happy? Practice it. If you, as I do, believe that THIS LIFE is all you get? Better enjoy it. Better make the most of it. Better do whatever you can to pursue the most happiness you possibly can! And there is only one limitation that I think should ever be put on that: Your happiness is not more important than anyone else’s. So you cannot pursue your happiness at the expense of another’s. As I said before: If religion make you happy? Practice it. But respect the fact that not everyone feels as you do. And if not everyone feels as I do? Fine. You don’t HAVE to be free. You can voluntarily give up as much of your own freedom as you wish. (Like I said: Practice Religion, for example.) But I will stop short of allowing anyone to compel other to do the same. To me the inherent goodness of this is self evident. And I haven’t really be challenged in a way that has ever shaken my belief in this. 

My faith in the Bible, OTOH, was shaken when I was FIVE YEARS OLD. That’s how long it took. Two weeks in Sunday school when the Nun couldn’t reconcile the existence of Dinosaurs with the “true” story of Genesis in a manner that was satisfactory to a five-year-old. From that point on I pretty much knew it was almost all bullshit. And the more I learned about OTHER religions as I matured? The more I learned that every claim to fame of Christianity (virgin birth, resurrection of the dead, divined incarnates, miracle, eternal life, etc…) had been made just about every OTHER religion on earth – IOW every Religion I had either already rejected or was being encouraged by Christianity to reject? I realized that there was not reason NOT to reject the claims of Christianity (or ANY religion) as well.

And what's more, there is nothing of inherent value in any religion that isn’t already part of the secular humanist philosophy or my own doctrine of choice. You don't need religion to tell you that we shouldn’t killing each other, or lying to each other, or stealing from each other or having wars. And considering how many wars have been fought and killing has been done BECAUSE OF religion… I am forced to see it as no more than unnecessary at it’s best, and a destructive force at it’s most common.

But the more I learn about freedom, the more I THINK about freedom, and the more times I’ve seen that philosophical doctrine WORK when it comes to resolving societal problems… the more I come to believe it.  Because it has failed me in only ONE instance: abortion. That’s the only issue it can’t resolve, and then only because it hinges upon when we consider life beginning, when the rights of one entity finally overide the rigths of another.  Outside of that one issue, I've seen no issues that this doesn't satisfactorally resolve.

At least... In my humble opinion.

-------------------------------------------------------------

And BTW... "Freedom" is NOT "the jungle." Freedom, "as [I] see it" is NOT found in the jungle.  Not at ALL.  In "the jungle" might makes right.  "The jungle" only the strongest have their rights protected, and the weak get exploited.  What I advocate for is practically the opposite of the jungle: It is a society that guarentess the protection of the rights and liberty of ALL it's citizens, limiting them only enough to prevent demonstrable harm (the taking of a choice) from another.  Protecting an unpopular minority is as far from the jungle as you can get.  So you're just flat out WRONG there, though the failure may have been a lack of clarity lately on my part,

Freedom of Religion

In the past, I’ve certainly made no secret about my feelings towards religion. In fact, I’ll admit that I'v not been shy about treating it with open hostility. But through it all, I have claimed to hold Religious Freedom as a matter of principle: That while freedom OF religion REQUIRES freedom FROM religion, it is still, “FREEDOM OF RELIGION.” And the time has come for me to defend this principle, and to defend what might be my least favorite religion of all, ISLAM, from a violation of this principle.

I want to issue, without equivocation, a strong condemnation of the new laws in France and Turkey banning the public wearing of Headscarves by Islamic women, and the new law in Syria banning of the wearing of the full veil by female Islamic teachers in the classroom. These laws are clear violations of these individuals' basic human right to free religious expression and represent what I believe to be an abhorrent violation of human rights.

Wow – where did THAT come from? I mean… The whole idea of the veil? I find beyond absurd. It’s a symbol of the oppression of women in particular, and of people in general by the Religion which, more egregiously than any other in the world, seeks to dominate all forms of government and public life, and which invariably seeks to outlaw all other forms of religious expression. Islam is, IMHO, the worst religion for this reason: It carries by far the most restrictive superstitious taboos, has by far the least tolerance for dissent and violation, and if left unchecked, aggressively integrates itself and it’s tenets into the State and into the Public Laws. And once it does this, it commits grave violations of human rights and despicable acts of human suppression. And to the extent that any country in the middle east (or anywhere else) DOES NOT do this, it is directly proportional to how SECULAR their government remains. IOW – it’s like I said before: How crazy you are is X times the amount of how religious you are.

So how can I so strongly condemn Islam and yet defend the veils, headscarves and burkhas? Simple: It all comes down to freedom.

I have said before that I can respect anyone’s religious beliefs provided that they are kept:

1) Out of the classroom
2) Out of our laws, and
3) Out of my face

An Islam – at least within Islamic states – aggressively violates all three. So if we’re talking about a case where someone is FORCED to wear a scarf, veil or burqua? Or for that matter, FORCED to pray, FORCED to fast, FORCED to tithe, etc… Then yes: I condemn that. But it is not the place of ANY government to tell someone who BELIEVES in that level of modesty (for example) and CHOOSES to wear the Scarf, Veil or Burqua that they CANNOT.

Just as government should not be able force any religious prohibition upon me, nor should any government prohibit me from accepting a religious prohibition voluntarily should I choose so. (Hey, this applies anywhere: I fully support the rights of nudists and naturists everywhere as well. But that doesn’t mean I’d support outlawing clothes!) No human being should be told that they MUST or CAN NOT participates in a religious ceremony, practice, tradition, custom or taboo.

The Separation of Church and State must be ABSOLUTE, for the protection of BOTH ENTITIES.

I don’t see how it can be any clearer.

------------------------------------------

BTW – I’d like to point out that this reasoning is very consistent with other positions that I hold with equal vigor:

1) I abhor abortion, but would protect most abortion rights.

2) I despise guns, but oppose most gun control measures.

3) And (in this case) while I despise what the Veil represents, and condemn its forced usage, I cannot abide the idea that it would be TAKEN AWAY from someone who believes in it, and choose to wear it for themselves.

And these are not contradictory, because for me, it comes down to CHOICE: I may not agree with the choices you make but I fight, kill and die for your right to make them. (And I will also fight, kill and die to prevent you from taking them away from someone else!)

-----------------------------------

One last thing…

It should be noted that the ALCU, that “secular enemy of organized religion everywhere” (according to the Christian Funny-Mentalists in THIS country) agrees with me.  And I applaud them  for their efforts in each and every one of those cases!

My Position on Abortion

OK, First things last... What's with all the Right-Wing advertising on this site?! First I had to look at Ann Coulter's ugly mug, now it's Campus Reform and their "End Left Wing Bias in the Classroom!" (Yeah, I mean GOD FORBID we do any THINKING about things like FACTS in the CLASSROOM! If that happens, 98% of the Republican voter base might come their senses and stopping voting that way! The horror!) Anyway, I couldn't care less, actually. Let 'em advertise here. It just means that THEY are paying ME to make fun of THEM. Kinda cool how that works, huh? LOL. So please feel free to visit any of my numerous right-wing sponsors. Make sure to tell 'em "Niceguy Eddie" sent you! LOL. HAHAHA!


OK... ABORTION.


Up front, let me say that this is nothing more than a statement of my position. There's no arguments here, no attempt to convince anyone, and no logical philosophical proofs - like what I had in the ESCR thread. This is just my OPINION. Yes, it happens to be what I think is he most reasonable position; the "way [to borrow a phrase from Rush Limbaugh] things ought to be," if you will. And, JUST LIKE Rush in, "The Way Things Ought to Be," I'm not going to make much of an effort to explain WHY they "ought to be" that way. I'm just going to put it out there, and then hear y'all have to say.


One thing I'd like to clear up first... PRO-LIFE vs. PRO-CHOICE. This is, as every liberal already knows, a completely bullshit way to define one's position. I've never met ANYONE who I could reasonably describe as ANTI-LIFE or PRO-DEATH or even PRO-ABORTION. This isn't a moral debate - everyone I've ever met concedes the point that it's immoral; that's it's arguably the worst possible choice. The debate is not about it's morality, but rather about how to define it's LEGALITY. IOW: Does I feel the need to take away SOMEONE ELSE'S right to make a choice, just because I FEEL a certain way about it? Is it any of my business? No, not at all. (Not that that ever stopped social conservatives from sticking their nose into other people's business!) So there's really only ONE WAY to define the camps: PRO-CHOICE and ANTI-CHOICE. "Pro-life" is a bullshit label and the fact that it has caught on is yet one more piece of evidence against the existence of the "liberal media." (If you want more, you can read THIS, or just check out MMFA.) And, as anyone who has read my Doctrine of Choice post (or know about my 5th principle,) should be able to infer: While I strongly believe that abortion is, in fact, immoral, I am PRO-CHOICE.


Here's how I would set it up. (And yes, I realize that there are both conservatives and liberals who will disagree with a lot of this. That's fine.)


1) Partial-Birth Abortion is banned. Period. If one of you is an MD and can give me a clear example of when this would be NECESSARY to save a mother's life - that's NECESSARY now, not PREFERABLE - then I'll reconsider. What's more, I would ban all third trimester abortions anyway or, if you prefer, since trimesters are kind of arbitrary, all abortions after the earliest point of viability unless the mother's LIFE (that's LIFE, not HEALTH) is in danger, and this threat to her life cannot be averted via a Cesarean Section delivery. (And don't bring up the ectopic pregnancy example here, because if you let one of those go to this far, the mother will already be dead! Those have to be dealt with RIGHT AWAY! So they don't apply at this point!)


2) In the Second Trimester, (or from the beginning of it until the point of viability if you want to go that way, I'm flexible there) abortion will be permitted if there is a threat to the HEALTH of the mother. We can quibble about how broad or narrow to make this, of course, but the guiding principle in the second trimester is that there must be a diagnosable, documented threat to the mother's HEALTH. And if this were made into law, I would have those specific conditions listed out. The debate can then shift to what belongs on the list and what doesn't. Obviously anything that can KILL YOU goes on it, but things like depression, for example, which are more sympathetic than fatal, or like high-blood pressure, which is usually addressed with bed-rest can be debated. (And I know how lousy bed-rest is - my wife dealt with it for about the last five months or so. It sucks. In and of itself though, it is not a justification for abortion, IMHO. Not unless it can't be controlled that way.)


3) In the first trimester, there will be no restrictions placed on abortion at all. Abortion by choice, therefore, MUST be a decision that is made NOW. It's a tough decision, I realize, but the clock ticks very fast, and if you're considering an abortion, it's time to get your shit together and make a choice. The area gets grey VERY FAST, and no one can look at a 10-week ultra sound and tell me that's not a BABY:


So I'd let you have the choice, but you don't have all the time in the world to make it. Just a few weeks really, since most people are already several weeks along by the time they find out. What's more: No exceptions for rape or incest are needed, since these can be dealt with in the first trimester, without need for such justifications.

Just as an aside: Why do we say, "rape or incest" anyway? If the "incest" was not consensual, isn't just a more specific form of rape? If it was consensual, then why would a "pro-lifer" allow an exception for it? Is an embryo OK to destroy provided that it's conception was sufficiently icky? And, if one wants to be truly principled about this, why should any pro-life position allow for these exceptions? If you believe that an embryo is a child, and abortion murder, then tell me: What did the child do to deserve to be killed? This is why I'm basically pro-choice. Because there is no principled, logically consistent pro-life position that any moderate person can stomach, or that voters (outside of South Dakota) would approve of. "Rape or Incest" exception are a pro-lifers cop-out to appeal to moderate people. But make no mistake: These are PRO-CHOICE exceptions. So, as I said before, it's not about PROTECTING LIFE, it's about LIMITING CHOICE. So "Pro-Life" is, again, a bullshit label. "Anti-Choice" is the only moniker we should use.

The Doctrine of Choice

(I'm still working on Keynes, so here's some more brain droppings of mine) (Thanks George!)

The Doctrine of Choice is a pompous name that I've given to a very simple idea that guides my legal, moral and political philosophy more than anything else. At it's simplest it is this: People should be allowed to do whatever they provided that they're not harming anyone else.

A lot of people CLAIM that's what they believe, but I bet they'll fail the test on more than one thing, and on many things if they're a social conservative. Stated a little more specifically it goes like this:

1) Everything is legal, unless it victimizes someone else. To be a crime, something MUST have a victim. (And no, "Society," doesn't count. A tangible victim.)

2) The threshold for someone being a victim is for them have a choice they are otherwise entitled to usurped or taken form them by another.

Now... #2 may sound a bit odd, but it's actually a very low threshold for crime when you think about it. Does someone have to be killed, receive bodily harm, lose a certain amount of monetary valuables? Well, those WOULD qualify, but I set the bar pretty low. All they have to lose is their choice. Now you'd think that setting the bar for crime so low, that I'd end up outlawing many more things than the social conservatives would. But the opposite is true. So let's test this system, first against some easy ones...

MURDER

When you and I woke up this morning, we had a clear choice to make. Face another day, or slit our own throats. Putting the drama aside, obviously, most of us, on most days will choose the first option. But if someone comes along and SHOOTS me? They are taking my LIFE, yes, but they really only need to be usurping MY CHOICE (to live) for this to be crime. (The ADDITIONAL loss of a LIFE is really only relevant to the SENTENCING portion!)

THEFT

I can do whatever I want with MY [after-tax] MONEY. Buy stuff, lend it to a friend, invest it, put it in the bank, give it to a homeless guy, burn it... WHATEVER I WANT. But if someone, say the guy from the previous example, were to STEAL my money, well... That's tantamount to making the decision fore me: and the decsion was forced to give the money to him. Regardless of how much I've lost, it's all a crime because the choice was MINE, and he usurped it.

RAPE

I can have sex with whomever* I* want*, and I can abstain as I wish as well. But someone who's raping me, say, again that slimeball from the last two examples, is saying, "No. It's not YOUR choice, it's MINE. And I SAY, you're going to have sex with ME!"

*Point of clarification: CHOICE in this case DOES imply CONSENT on the part of all parties involved. And CONSENT implies all parties are legal, [human] adults. All parties must be legally able to GIVE consent, which rules out both animals and the underaged. In each case, we do not recognize consent, and a choice is thus usurped still.

So... You get the idea. Here are some more knotty ones...

FRAUD is a crime because it means that the person's choice was not INFORMED. You have usurped the choice in this way by withholding information that otherwise may have resulted in a different choice. In anyway they've been cheated of their choice.

SOME DRUGS remain illegal, but not all. To qualify as a controlled substance something must be both synthetic (meaning that it is consumed in a form that has been chemically altered from it natural form) and addictive. Addictive is important, because addiction is what represents the usurpation of choice here. NOW... the CRIME is on the part of the DEALER. Why you ask, when the USER in fact CHOSE to use drugs? Very simple. It's a case of unbalanced information. Prior to becoming addicted the user has no REAL idea, no real information about how horrible addiction is, what it REALLY does to every aspect of your life and how likely he is to even become an addict. And most who are or have been addicted would have made different choices had they had the first hand knowledge of these things back when they started, but they didn't. How could they know? But the DEALER? HE's got a pretty shrewd idea what's in store for his customers. He peddling addiction via fraud. So anyone dealing addictive synthetic substances (crystal meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, opium, ecstasy, roofalin) is going down. But Tobacco, marijuana, coca leaves, betel nut, 'shrooms... it's all good, baby. They occur in nature, and you just can't outlaw something that's ALREADY THERE, on it's own. If we didn't invent it, how the hell can we outlaw it? REGULATE it? Sure. (18 and over only.) TAX it? You best your asterix. But why throw someone in jail who picked something up off the ground and chowed down or smoked it? No reason to. None at all.

The exception, and it should be obvious at this point, is Alcohol. I say: grandfather it in, and leave it legal. I have no justification for this in my model, other than the fact that it is consumed in moderation without issue (even some health and social benefits) buy almost everyone on the planet. So we'll draw the line HERE, and outlaw anything ELSE that fails the above tow tests.

Also... I say controlled, rather than illegal, becasue I still wouldn't outlaw those other thigns. Should we find that their is some medical use for them, in some small, safe dose? I won't let the law in the way of the medical research. And before you scoff, you should realize that most presciption anti-despreseant and pain-killers are checially very similar to many narcotics. Paxil is almost identical to cocaine in structure but also in the effect it has on the brain. It's just kept in a REALLY SMALL does - miligrams being swallowed insetad of grams being snorted. But you CAN get hooked if you abuse prescription medicinces. Just ask Rush Limabugh.

Now for some tricky ones:

GAMBLING

As long as the game is fair, meaning not FIXED, and everyone understands the rules and the odds? (IOW no fraud involved) Why the hell not? Just regulate it to insure fairness, the way we do today in places that allow it, and keep it to certain ZONES in a given town or city. No one wants a Casino in their NEIGHBORHOOD, but downtown, or on the outskirts? Why not. Let each town decide for themselves. No reason for the STATE or FED to say no.

PROSTITUTION

As the now immortal George Carlin once pointed out: Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? Again I don't care WHAT goes on between consenting adults and neither does out current system of law enforcement... until money changes hands. WTF? Why should THAT matter?! You name me ONE OTHER THING that's it's legal to GIVE AWAY but illegal to SELL and I'll take it all back. But IMHO prostitution is NO CRIME. And thus should be LEGAL.

REGULATED, to be sure. And this is actually the BEST way to address the (faux) concerns that people, usually conservatives, express for the workers in the trade and use as justification for criminalizing it. Disease? Require (and have employers pay for) regular check-ups and condom use to keep your license. (Yes, you'd need a license! How else could you regulate it?!) Customer don't want to pay? Legal contract: Girl can SUE. Assault? Not likely if it all takes place inside the brothel, which has bouncers. This also addresses the next concern: We don't want hookers soliciting on the street, in the neighborhood, at the schools, etc... Well, just like with the casinos, this is merely a ZONING issue. Discreet advertising, discreet signage, and an off-the-beaten-path location, should satisfy any reasonable person involved. We'll never make it into an admirable profession, but there's just no rational justification for criminalizing it.

DRUNK DRIVING

This includes ALL forms of intoxication, not just alcohol, so don't bother using DRIVING as an argument for criminalizing cannabis. That's just stupid. You can't drive drunk, high, low, or whatever. Stay home or call a cab. Why? Because everyone else on the roads made their choice to drive assuming it was safe. Or at least that weren't any reckless drunks out there, bombing around, which is as the law promises them. Plus you have no right to risk anyone ELSE'S life, other than your own. So it's simple. This fails the test.

HOMOSEXUALITY / GAY MARRIAGE

See 'prostitution.' As for the marriage part... again WHY THE HELL NOT? Show me any other legal contract ANYWHERE that I can enter with a member of the opposite sex, but not the same. There isn't one. And as far as the LAW is concerned with marriage that's all it is: a LEGAL CONTRACT. So if you have a problem with this one, all I can say is, "GROW UP."

RELIGION - The meaning of religious freedom should be obvious, and I'm stunned how many people try to say otherwise: (1) the separation of church and state. The above doctrine (as an interpretation of our Constitution) should drive our laws, not religion. PERIOD. (2) The prohibitions of any religion shall only apply to it's VOLUNTARY adherents. (So, "No" to these idiotic Catholic (etc...) pharmacists who won't dispense Birth Control. The church forbids YOU to use it. It has no authority over anyone else, and neither do YOU.) And anyone can leave any church at any time. (3) That also means no teacher-lead prayer in school. This violates YOUR choice to bring you child up in a given faith. Don't care about respecting OTHER PEOPLE'S faiths? Well what if the teacher was Muslim**? THEN would you want them preaching to your child or leading them in prayer? Didn't think so. Freedom for ANY ONE, necessarily means freedom for ALL, as well as the right to NOT believe or practice as well. It's pretty simple and, as far as I'm concerned, self-evident. I'll never get why so many people can't understand this. (And don't be an idiot an think this means that NO ONE can pray in school. THAT would be a obvious violation of their right to practice, which IS and WILL REMAIN 100% proteted. Only teacher-lead prayer in banned!)

**I ask it this way, because in THIS country, it's usually the CHRISTIAN funny-mentalists who don't get it. If we were having this discussion in IRAN, obviously I'd say "Christian" instead of "Muslim" in the above example.

Anyhow, THIS is how I interpret the spirit of the Constitution, and the Rights it grants. This is how I define FREEDOM and LIBERTY. The only laws that are needed would those that arbitrate situation in which one person choices would usurp another's. And it's usually pretty clear in these cases who's right and wrong. Except one.

There is one issue that this philosophy is USELESS to make any headway on.

Abortion.

Because abortion (arguably) involves two entities, both of whom may or may not be having a choice usurped. And one side clearly believes that the rights of one win out, while the other just a clearly believe it's the rights of the other. And you know what? I'm not sure there a "win" here either way. I just don't see this as anything other than lose-lose one way of the other.

So I'll cop-out on this one, but I promise to take up abortion at a later date. I might actually surprise some of you conservatives with my views on abortion, but I'm sure you'll come away disappointed anyway. LOL. The thing is... so will many liberals! You just can't WIN an argument over abortion!

If you are curious how I would interpret any other, just let me know. So far I've never been stumped. (Other than abortion, attmitedly.)