Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts

Thursday, July 17, 2014

The Family Bookshelf

My friend, Cara, is currently visiting family and dealing with the double standard of the atheist having to keep certain things to herself in order to keep the peace.  I suggested she write about the experience and the following is what she wrote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every family I know has one, as sure as they are to have family secrets, family gossip, and the real or perceived family black sheep.  Everyone I know has a family bookshelf.  Some consist of a handful of books shoved in the corner beside the couch, while others have “branches” that extend to fill rooms.  I’m sure there are those whose family bookshelf consists of a handful of out-of-date magazines piled on the back of the toilet, or rows upon rows of DVDs which fail horribly to provide any degree of literary fulfillment.  One’s family bookshelf can speak, often better than words themselves, about that particular family. It can speak of priorities, interests, and personal tastes; or it can speak of darker things: of obsessions and unhealthy fixations.


My given room while visiting my parents every year contains one such structure: the same shelves that were a fixture in our home my whole childhood, though the books it contained have changed and developed just as my siblings and I have.  Spending a month with my parents when I’m so conditioned to solitude results in my often retreating into that room to escape from the responsibilities of being company.  At least that’s what I try to tell myself.  When I look closer though, I can’t argue that what I’m really hiding from is the person I think my parents want to believe I am: that for one month every year, hiding alone in a room is the only way I have to be myself. And it’s during these respites that I lie on my bed and stare at those shelves.  I read the book spines and see how much those shelves mirror my parents, or perhaps, more accurately, mirror the parents I believe them to be.

The easiest aspect, by far, is the shelf of photo albums.  My whole life is there: captured moments that serve to shape memories, even years after those times have passed. There’s the album that contains my baby pictures, the one that chronicles our family’s time living abroad, there are birthdays, graduations, reunions, and even an album that celebrates the life of my maternal grandmother who passed away two years ago.  Like that album, which has been shelved, my mother’s sense of loss and grief must be tucked away, because she doesn't show it. Undoubtedly  the pain is still as tangible to her as the pink, flower-covered album is to me, as it sits within arm’s reach, though she can’t dismiss it as easily as I can, I’m sure.  Those albums, those family histories, as one of the only constants on those shelves, always remind me that I have a place in this family that’s unshakable.  They couldn't excise me from their lives any more than they could erase me from those albums while keeping anything intact when they’re done. It’s like a promise that some have but all should, but sadly don’t.  I am lucky.

Most of the rest of the bookshelf is divided in uneven thirds, though the themes overlap. There are religious books, religious anti-abortion books, and veganism books. It’s hard not to see this as the summary of who my parents are, and that being the exact opposite of who I am. There are the odd books here and there that I can feel connected to them through: Carl Sagan’s Cosmos; the complete works of Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Mark Twain, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle; a stack of six Jane Austen books. Yet the fundamentals that make them them, as represented by the rest of the books, are so deeply ingrained in their worldview that my presence feels like a challenge to the very heart of who they are. The temptation is there to pull out the anti-choice Handbook on Abortion written in 1971, and start a discussion on women’s vs. fetal rights. I should be able to; after all, wasn't I subjected to endless indoctrination sessions when I was a kid, impressing on me of the evils of abortion, including misinformation about the dreaded “partial-birth, late-term abortions”?  I was sat down with my sisters and made to watch The Silent Scream, as if the horror of it could somehow inoculate us against ever committing such atrocities.  If my mother had the freedom to share all that with me, why can’t I work up the courage to say that I support Planned Parenthood and abortion should be available to all?  Am I afraid of being less loved and respected, or am I just afraid of the ensuing awkwardness?  Or am I convinced that being “pro-life” is so ingrained into my mother’s being that the chance of her changing her views are infinitesimal?  It feels easier to bite my tongue.

One and a half shelves contain twenty-three volumes of The Pulpit Commentary, there are at least nine bibles, and two whole shelves of books by Christian philosopher George MacDonald.  How do I pick up one of my parents’ three copies of What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills to discuss my views on it? My parents’ would defend the words of Jesus, where I would just be trying to say, “How do you know he even existed?”  Of course he existed.  Of course Jesus still loves you. Of course.

Though I normally remain silent, the other day when the conversation turned to the rapture and God eventually putting an end to human suffering, I read the following Tracie Harris quote to my mom: “You either have a god who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a god who simply watches it and says ‘When you’re done I’m going to punish you.’  If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That’s the difference between me and your god.”  My mom was silent for a bit, deep in thought, then agreed that that was one of the greatest challenges in understanding God.  Then she presented me with a book off of her shelves called God & Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross by Christian theologian, Douglas Hall, saying it was the best explanation for why God allows suffering.  “The best Christian explanation,” I replied, feeling like we were speaking different languages.

Shortly afterward my mom pulled out another book, written by United Church minister Anne Hines, called Parting Gifts: Notes on Loss, Love and Life.  She read me an excerpt:
We all know that the purpose of family is to provide us with affection and a sense of belonging we all require. Our parents and siblings are those who love us entirely, not for anything we’ve done, but simply because we exist.  They are living, breathing covered wagons of emotional support and nurture, circling around to protect us when the forces of life threaten our well-being and our self-esteem. Family provides a soft, safe place to be in a hard and dangerous world.  This is the purpose of family.

Until a few years ago, I would have said this was true.  In fact, the main and most important role of those closest to you is to yank your metaphorical chain, poke you with a psychic stick, bring up your most deep-rooted, vexing personal issues and make you totally insane.  The definition of family is not “people who push one another’s buttons.” It’s “people who push one another’s buttons, hold them down and then slap a piece of duct tape over them.”
I tried to fathom why she’d read me this, and made the assumption that it had to do with the veganism she and my brother perpetually push on us: that she was trying to justify the force of her views with the excuse that it’s her responsibility to push my buttons.  But I wonder if she was trying to give me permission to speak my mind, despite the fact that my ideas clash so harshly with hers.

The fact that I eat meat, drink milk, even enjoy honey, is a source of pain to my mother.  That I've concluded there is no god pains her as well.  I am hurting her just by what she does know about me.  How could I reveal more?  How could I expose the parts of me that run so counter to her deeply-rooted sense of morality? So I remain silent.  I rob my parents, whom I love, of the opportunity of knowing me better.  I judge them by their books and they know only the shadow of me.  I resent them for not seeing me, ignoring the fact that by hiding, I’m neither allowing myself to be known nor pushing my parents’ buttons, thus failing them far worse than they've ever failed me.  I hope, ultimately, that knowing my shortcomings in this regard will force me toward being more open.  Last year, while hearing about abortion from my mom, I told her that only about 10% of Planned Parenthood’s work involved abortions, but the rest was essential medical services provided to low income women.  I was met with silence, but sometimes that just indicates thought.  Maybe next year I’ll be able to share more.  Maybe the process of contradicting my parents’ deepest held beliefs shouldn't be attempted all at once, but in stages.  I hope someday that I will wake up to discover that without noticing it, my parents and I have met in the middle and allowed common ground to be a greater focus than our differences. Maybe then I won’t have to hide upstairs, staring at a bookshelf that screams at me how wrong I am.

Monday, March 10, 2014

David Silverman Goes To CPAC, Some Atheists Miss The Point

As soon as American Atheists announced they were going to CPAC, they got nearly as much fight from atheists as they did from the conservatives who got them kicked out.  Dave Muscato's personal (not in his official capacity with American Atheists) response to one such complaint is the best defense of the effort that I've seen so far.
If an atheist is being discriminated against for religious reasons, or is being intimidated such that s/he's staying in the closet about her atheism, or being forced to pray in a government space, or being forced to learn religious mythology in science class, etc, it is not our place, as an atheist-rights nonprofit, to treat that person any differently regardless of whether she was a conservative or a liberal. We still fight for her because that's what we do.
While there, Dave Silverman said something about abortion that resulted in some atheists getting upset at him.
“I came with the message that Christianity and conservatism are not inextricably linked,” he told me, “and that social conservatives are holding down the real conservatives — social conservatism isn’t real conservatism, it’s actually big government, it’s theocracy. I’m talking about gay rights, right to die, abortion rights –”
Hold on, I said, I think the Right to Life guys who have a booth here, and have had every year since CPAC started, would disagree that they’re not real conservatives.
I will admit there is a secular argument against abortion,” said Silverman. “You can’t deny that it’s there, and it’s maybe not as clean cut as school prayer, right to die, and gay marriage.”
People were upset over that for a variety of reasons.  JT Eberhard debunked them so well, I was compelled to tweet this about it:
It's well worth the read.  It says exactly what I was trying to explain some, that the argument against Silverman is not based in reality.  It was all I had to say about the matter until I read a few other pieces from the perspective JT was challenging.

On the blog Reasonable Faith, objection to even going to CPAC was repeated.
So, they’re closet atheists? “A lot of them, yes.” And beyond that, he says, “a vast majority of Christians here would support atheists being part of the movement.” Well, they need all the help they can get.
Iffy. There may be a lot of atheists lurking about. But ever since Edmund Burke the conservative tradition has emphasized the need for religious institutions and religious indoctrination to ensure social order. Even an atheist might endorse religion if they think it will keep the masses in check. I’m reminded of Emerson’s line that his aunt was not a Calvinist but wished that everybody else was.
They're much more likely to keep going with the religious line if the atheist community keeps telling them they're not welcome.  Why would they want to join us if we're telling them they're not welcome?  On the other hand, if we show ourselves willing to support them in their atheism (without necessarily supporting all of their politics), they'll be more likely be openly atheist around the Christian Right that dominates American conservatism.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say we can agree that bad arguments won't hold weight if they lose the protective veil of religion & the vagueness of gods.  Getting conservative atheists (who do exist) to be openly atheist is a step toward this end.  Shunning them just because they have different politics is a step away from it.

Jason Thibeault's response to the hullabaloo was much longer, and thus much more wrong.  I've generally liked what I've seen from Thibeault, but on this issue, he's so intensely wrong I simply cannot speak up.  If I addressed all the wrong things, this post would be way longer than it already is, but some the overall point needs addressing.
People are upset about this, and I strongly feel, rightly so. I’m pretty upset about it too. Not that Silverman is explicitly anti-choice, because he’s later apparently multiple times clarified that he’s not personally convinced by those arguments. I’m mostly upset that he raised the issue of secular arguments for conservative social causes, thus painting himself into a corner where he could be trapped into having to weasel out of a specific counterpoint that easily undermined what he was saying. I’m further upset that by hedging on this issue, he gives cover to people who think he means there’s a valid, cogent argument against the right of a mother to choose whether to be pregnant.
He knows Silverman isn't anti-choice, so he's just upset that Silverman admitted that there are secular arguments against abortion.  Those arguments do, in fact, exist.  The other option Silverman was to lie.  I tend to prefer honesty over lying.  I expect Thibeault has a similar stance, despite his inaccuracies here.

He claims Silverman hedged & painted himself into a corner.  Also nonsense.  Thibeault's post goes through a lot of mental gymnastics & hypotheticals to justify this stance, but it's all entirely unnecessary and done for reasons I cannot figure out.  It's especially confusing because he stated the plain truth in the middle of all of it.
He did not say that there was a valid, cogent argument against abortion. Only that there’s a secular one. 
That's it.  He only said there was a secular argument against abortion.  Because there is.  The quality of that argument was completely irrelevant to what Silverman was talking about there and counterproductive to his entire purpose for being there.  He was there to show conservative atheists that it's okay to be openly atheist.  Not to pick fights with them.  There's nothing wrong with saving the arguments for later, and doing so need not imply malice or incompetence.
But my criticisms are entirely predicated on the face value of what he said, without reading anything extra into it.
They're really not.  His criticisms are entirely reliant on reading more into it.  Entirely reliant on a pile of completely unnecessary hypotheticals, "what ifs", and the complaint that he didn't make a point to argue against abortion right then & there.  That last bit is the crux of this.

Silverman is accused of painting himself into a corner while simultaneously being accused of avoiding the argument.  It cannot be both.  But that incoherence fits the rest of it.  The argument against Silverman here is so bad and so desperate, it includes some blatantly inaccurate statements.
There’s even a secular argument for prayer in schools. But first you have to have a secular prayer, to eliminate the religion from the context of the consequence as well as the argument. When you do that, you’re left with, essentially, arguments for the American Pledge of Allegiance, which is still said in most states. It’s a vocal exhortation to an entity that is not a deity, said mostly to remind yourself and others around you that you are affiliated with that entity. Only in this case, it’s a country, not a god.
There, by definition, cannot be a secular argument for (school led) prayer in school.  Prayer is explicitly religious.  "Secular" explicitly means "without regard to religion".  The example of the Pledge of Allegiance is a huge stretch, to the point of just being flat out wrong.  The Pledge is not prayer.  And since 1954, it's not even secular. And even though, it's currently religious, it's still not prayer.  It's not TOO a god.  It merely references one.  My money, before I fix it, isn't praying either.

Silverman is accused of hedging because he didn't go off message by not going after abortion at that moment.  It's like his famous "Tides go in" encounter with Bill O'Reilly.  He got criticism for not correcting O'Reilly on the air.  I was among those criticizing him initially, until I realized why I was wrong.  Rather than letting O'Reilly derail the conversation, Silverman staid on message.  He wisely saved the argument for another time.  He did his job.

I'm sure I will end up criticizing Silverman at some point.  While quite good at his job, he's not infallible.  And I have a big mouth.  But if/when I do, it will be based on something he actually said or did.  And it won't be something as silly as an over-hyped complaint about one instance where he didn't do what I specifically wished he'd done in one fleeting moment.  Especially not one where he said something accurate and staid on message, like what happened in this instance.

So far, my only complaint about David Silverman since joining American Atheists is that he hasn't grown the devil beard back yet.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Abortion Will End Tomorrow

Tomorrow will be the last day for abortion.  It will end tomorrow.

Tomorrow, at 1pm EST on Twitter, people who call themselves "Pro-Life" will be praying to end abortion.


Frankly, I'm glad they're doing it.  I'd much rather they waste their time on harmless, ineffective endeavors like prayer than sabotaging womens' health or murdering more people.

Plus, it could make for some fun trolling on the Twitters.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The Brilliance Of @PattonOswalt

If you were on Twitter tonight, whether you follow Patton Oswalt[1] or not, you may have seen some interesting tweets from him.













Well, that doesn't look good.  Each one of these tweets from his rant tonight expresses a sentiment that would be disappointing to see expressed from someone you respect.  But, there's a funny thing about Twitter.  They have a 140 character limit, so people often split thoughts into multiple tweets.  Here's the entire rant.
















Another funny thing about Twitter is how face paced it is.  It's not uncommon to only see one tweet from a series.  Sometimes people only see part of something said, and do not bother researching further to see what the entire thought was being expressed.  So they irrationally get mad at someone for something they know that person wouldn't have done instead of taking the effort to actually figure out what's going on.


Then there's the people who miss the entire point.  Some people just don't get humor.



But, some people do get it.



Some others appreciate what happened tonight.









Count me among those who appreciate it.  Context matters.  And this lesson in that was fucking brilliant.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  https://twitter.com/pattonoswalt

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Petition To Restore The National Motto (Or Moto)

"In God We Trust" on our money is a minor thing to many.  Even many atheists don't care much about it.  I'm not among those people[1].  It's something I care quite a bit about, because I don't think it's an inconsequential matter.  It's too often used by Christians as their evidence of the completely false claim that we're a Christian nation.

Getting it fixed is not an easy task, but persistence on such matters is what gets things done.  It's why I carry the Sharpie (and have successfully gotten other to do the same).  And it's why I've signed this petition on whitehouse.gov[2].
Please restore the original moto "E Pluribus Unum" as well as placing in on currency again.
The current moto added to currency in 1864 and as the moto in 1965 only serves as to be a decisive point between different religions or the lack there of. The original moto meaning One From Many is much more fitting and celibates the cultural diversity that make the United States so unique.
Additionally this is a clear violation of the First Amendment which: "prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion"
Sure, it's got some spelling errors, and it's the wrong place to make such a request since it would require an act of Congress.  And, even if it were something within the President's power, it's not something we could realistically expect from Barack Obama[3].

But that's not the point.  The point is to keep pushing to restore our country to the secular nation it was founded as instead of the place where Christians are so comfortable pushing their religion into government they pass laws to allow people to say "Merry Christmas"[4] even though it wasn't at all illegal.  I'd rather be a secular nation than a nation that elects people into office who oppose abortion because they think fetuses masturbate[5].  Little things like this can actually make a difference if done often enough, by enough of us.

If enough people signed these things, even the terribly written ones like this one[6], they could have as much impact as atheist monuments[7].  After all, these petitions do sometimes make news[8].  Even for non-serious requests[9].

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://aparticularblogbyaparticularatheist.blogspot.com/2013/03/why-i-carry-sharpie.html
2.  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-national-moto-e-pluribus-unum/58JXzNBB
3.
4.  http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/06/14/18959929-freedom-from-religion
5.  http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/michael-burgess-fetus-masturbation/66345/
6.  We already know you don't need good grammar to get what you want from Washington.
7.  http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-fla-county-atheist-monument-19343424#.UcEqFPnVC8A
8.  http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/10/18886451-pardon-edward-snowden-petition-seeks-white-house-response
9.  http://theweek.com/article/index/238746/the-white-houses-nerd-delighting-death-star-petition-response

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Some Questions For So-Called "Pro-Life" People

Today, the Facebook page Bigot Vanquisher has posed a few questions[1] on the issue of abortion that I think are worth sharing.
For those who are 'against' pregnancy termination, would you answer the following questions please?

1) If a woman accidentally gets pregnant (because she is a stupid whore, obviously) do you think she should be forced to carry the pregnancy? How far would you be willing to go to make sure she carried the pregnancy to term?

2) If abortion was illegal and a woman got an alley-abortion and managed not to die, but got caught, what should her punishment be?

3) Would you rather a young woman had access to an early pregnancy termination, or put her newborn baby in a dumpster or toilet?
I have some of my own to add.
  1. How much of a tax increase would you be willing to accept to provide the universal healthcare for pregnant women to keep them healthy enough to prevent the complications that are the reason for most late-term abortions?

  2. How much of a tax increase would you be willing to accept to provide for the care of the children who would have otherwise been aborted?

  3. Have you lobbied your legislative representation to make those changes happen?

  4. If against your taxes going up for programs that would reduce abortions, how do you justify calling yourself "Pro-Life".

  5. Have you ever lobbied to have our military budget cut?

  6. If you support our military spending, how do you reconcile that with calling yourself "Pro-Life"?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  http://www.facebook.com/BigotVanquisher/posts/593778917316295

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Pro Life Kills

On Gawker today:
A 31-year-old woman admitted to a hospital in Galway, Ireland, late last month with severe back pain was revealed to be miscarrying, but doctors repeatedly refused to abort the fetus.
Savita Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant at the time, eventually developed a life-threatening infection to which she succumbed a week later.
People who call themselves "Pro Life" often claim they respect the sanctity of human life.  I call bullshit.

I am someone who personally opposes the practice of abortion.  I hate that it exists, and I hate that it is sometimes (while still rarely) used as a backup birth control.  But I'm not so selfish as to attempt to force my personal opinion on other people's bodies.  And I don't have my head so far up my as that I would let a woman die because I dislike a procedure that would save her life.

The very least that should happen is these doctors immediately losing their licenses to practice medicine.  Although, manslaughter is an appropriate word to use here.

(Found via Recovering From Religion-Tucson, Arizona)