Moral Morality

It is not the job of any democratic government to regulate morality and especially to not make laws based on any particular idea of what morality is. Dictatorships and Theocracies legislate the morality of the land, democracies recognize the individual as the social unit of consequence and part of freedom and liberty is managing your own morality; leaving government to legislate our interactions with each other, such as in contract law and the criminal code.

The anti-abortion lobby is a moralist lobby – they are seeking to enshrine their morality into secular law in a democratic nation under the false belief that America was founded as a Christian nation. And their reasoning is that they beleive that morals are external to humans and handed down in absolute form by a deity.

In the Jesusverse, original sin is the knowledge of good and evil – in other words, being able to make moral distinctions is original sin and treading on an area reserved for god.

So in claiming that there’s a god and thus absolute morals because while god knows better than us, yet is incapable of providing credentials, we are all supposed to put aside what our experience and reason tells us about moral distinctions on the say so of people who are more concerned about their absolutist morals being imposed on the population rather than how that would restrict the freedom and liberty guaranteed by the foundational documents of the land – the constitution and bill of rights.

That morals vary widely demonstrates that there are no absolute morals – only degrees of worse or better, relatively speaking. There are many different systems through which people understand morals and morality; although most systems of morals do not consider a person’s underlying motivation, which to my mind, makes them lacking in force or meaning

The idea that morals should trump actual living people is appalling; yet, this is what religious people regularly do – hold their claimed morals above people. This is why they are consumed with the unborn and comatose rather than a living person who needs social assistance for a hand up in the world. The unborn and comatose aren’t demanding and can’t participate in decisions – and it’s the being in charge of decisions that the religious want to take away from people.

Imagine that your spouse, parent or child was in hospital and you weren’t able to make decisions for their care and treatment, especially end of life treatment, because this ability was legislated away regardless of the doctor’s assessment and medical reality.

Living in a democratic country means you get to decide for yourself what happens to you in your life. Whether you marry, whether you have children – these are important decisions that we all have to determine for ourselves.

Yet, anti-abortionists would tell you that they know better than you do about what you should allow to happen within your body.

Part of the anti-abortion sentiment arises from anti-sex attitudes, that if you don’t want to risk pregnancy that you should keep your legs shut – an outdated,  controlling and unrealistic desire to maintain the illusion that there’s girls you marry and girls you have fun with – something that benefits only the girls who say no and no one else.

Really, if we want to reduce the divorce rate, we should be encouraging people to be in touch with their sexuality and to marry someone they are compatible with. Sexual incompatibility leads to marriage problems and often to divorce.

We learn morals from our parents, our experiences and what the society we live in tells us is moral within the context of the society. Being educated and learning about more cultures, it’s not hard to see that morals are context sensitive and relative to circumstances – and you can determine what’s moral or not with a broader perspective – what’s common morals to cultures through the ages and what’s clearly okay or not based on a macro view.

Morally capable adults do not depend on fairy stories to know how to behave, they can and do distinguish between unacceptable and acceptable under certain conditions. There is no list of absolute morals that can be memorized and attempted to be applied in life – moral lists generally fall apart over rule conflicts – can you lie to spare someone’s feelings or to save a life?

When it comes to morals, you have to do the work yourself – and when you can do that, you don’t need any gods and certainly, you don’t need your morality legislated by people who have no consideration of your life. So why should their morals be respected or enshrined, when they are absolutely heartless and ignore the circumstances of making a life changing decision.

Because collective and individual survival and thriving is best ensured by cooperative behaviours – which is balancing both people’s needs, interests and morals – applying an absolute rule would make genuine cooperation difficult.


a person who is moral, is moral with or without an audience

if you can’t determine morals on your own, then no amount of obeying social rules or laws are going to make you moral

Prolife and Prodeath Debate

I came across an interesting blog of Christian apologetics cartoons.

It was interesting because it was so unexpected – I was a little delighted to discover humour where I had never considered there could be any.

The cartoons are funny, sort of, even though I don’t share the sensibility they arise/derive from.

And, comments are open, so debate is encouraged.

Question of Life and Death

The reason why people cling to religion is often a fear of death, the more obsessed with death, the more religious a person is. Goth and Emo kids are mere morbid amateurs compared to fundamentalist religious believers who live their lives as if it’s a mere dress rehearsal for the afterlife that they hope death brings them or brings to them.

Death is part of life, necessary even, so what happens will be part of the natural universe, this being the case, no need to fear or attempt to anticipate or manipulated the process as religious believers attempt. There’s no reason to believe that death is any different for humans than it is for any other animal.

To the best of our knowledge, biochemical energy present in life converts to heat energy in death and our inert bodies become food for other animals on down to single cell organisms, depending on the circumstances of death. Energy isn’t lost, it’s recycled and composted.

Believers hope for some kind of continuous conscious existence after death and live their lives according to their chosen religion to achieve their preferred afterlife. Well, attempt to – more often than not, religion is a trial and error, providing an unattainable ideal, requiring either several lifetimes to get it right or requiring repentance for forgiveness.

Such forgiveness being in awfully short supply from those that expect it from their god for themselves, but are usually unwilling to extend such courtesy to other people, proffering gloating over “you’ll get yours when you die, atheist”; which puts a chill on the idea of heaven, since it clearly cannot exist without hell; and how can any truly morally person be pleased to be in heaven, knowing that hell is full of people just as deserving of forgiveness as those who are in heaven?

Non-believers don’t concern themselves with inevitable and uncontrollable things like death – so when believers ask non-believers to engage in Pascal’s Wager, it’s futile for more than the obvious reasons of picking one of tens of thousands of equally viable gods and that any deity worth worshiping would hardly be fooled by hedging one’s bets in halfhearted belief and worship.

The cost of living your life according to an arbitrary, contradictory and impoverished morality such as lowest common denominator frameworks that religions demand, is to waste your life being a morbid control freak overly concerns with trifles such as magical garments, time consuming group meetings, meaningless ritual, what or who to do with your genitals and worse, far too much concern with what other people may or may not be doing to or with their genitals.

People who claim to be pro-life attach themselves to preventing living women from terminating unwanted pregnancies or terminating life support of comatose people who have no likelihood of returning from a state of mere existence to a state of life. Preventing these beings that are merely existing and are not independent living beings in any meaningful understanding of life and living, from returning to the god that the pro-life purport to believe in, seems contrary to their faith and are in effect, an attempt to control the existence of other people.

These other people being those living pregnant women and family members who are seeking to end a mere existence and reduce suffering, their own and likely that of the comatose person, and to terminate an unwanted for whatever reason pregnancy, which is a special kind of suffering that no child should ever have to understand, being unwanted.

Strange then that these people should call themselves pro-life, when they support military troops – people of youth and prime breeding age more often than not – to be sent into war to be maimed, killed or psychologically harmed, resulting in impaired post-war living.

It would seem to me that to actually be pro-life, one’s mission should be focused on improving the lives of people currently living, not preventing the death of people merely existing post traumatic brain injury with little hope of or any meaningful recovery or the unborn potential person. Since the actual impact of pro-lifers is not the improvement of anyone’s life, but the merely meddling and intimidating in other people’s lives and life decisions, we should call them by what they are, rather than how they would like to be seen – and that is, pro-death.

An important aspect to understanding any group motivation is to review the characteristics of the group, and what’s most telling is that the majority of so called pro-lifers are publically Christian, heterosexual and largely Caucasian and upper to middle class. Poorer social classes tend to not have the leisure time to protest, so there’s a certain affluence required to be able to menace medical staff and clients at abortion clinics or families at hospitals discussing terminating life support during working hours.

What’s significant about the protestors being largely Caucasian, is that a large motivator is racism, often, people are only against abortions by women of their same group, as they are in fear of being outnumbered by other groups of people – thus there is often scathing remarks about cultures that live in multi-generational family units with pooled resources – something all people engaged in pre-industrial revolution and pre-middle class who started packing granny off to nursing homes post WWII.

The benefit of living in a secular democracy where personal freedoms are guaranteed are the ability to make life’s decisions for yourself, free from interference from the state, but more importantly, from the interference of other people.

This is the concept that is missed by religious pro-deathers. They are not able to understand that is it not their place to impose their choices and beliefs on other people. They do not accept that they are living in a secular society that has determined individuals the right to choose and they seek to insert their god and beliefs into government policy and assert control over your life and body. This is not acceptable and should be vigorously rebuffed, as they would rebuff any attempt to assert control over their lives.

What’s particularly interesting, is that the pro-deathers are unable to separate their beliefs from their person – and when the matter of gay rights comes up for a referendum in the US states and to a lesser extent, when gay marriage was debated in Canadian Parliament – the rally cry was that gay marriage not be forced upon their lives.

A truly bizarre argument, since no government has ever considered passing a law requiring people to marry anyone of the same gender as themselves – in fact, secular governments do not make laws requiring anyone to marry, they only confer certain rights and benefits to married people.

That gays form pair bonds and make lives together does not take away anything from straight couples who do the same. This idea that marriage becomes a lesser state, less desirable for straight people if gay people are also permitted to marry ties right back to that believers seems to only be able to enjoy the idea of heaven, so long as there is a hell for most other people.

It is a particularly childish and vile behaviour that their enjoyment of a thing is only pleasurable so long as others are denied the same. Which may make sense why they focus on making the lives of as many people as possible miserable by forcing them to full term an unwanted pregnancy and expect the baby to be offered for adoption for presumably more deserving and worthy people – as long as they are a straight couple of course, forcing people to bankrupt on medical bills on a hopeless and meaningless extension of existence and for the family of the comatose to experience prolonged suffering and grief, and to send perfectly healthy young men and women to fight for the continued profits of the rich in a religious crusade.

It is not the case that new atheists are particularly different from whoever the old atheists were, it is merely the case that atheists are no longer willing to coddle the sensibilities of religious believers who have consistently demonstrated no compassion or concern for anyone else, and who are now reaping the treatment and consideration that they have sown.

Who really benefits from abortion clinics?

While it may have once been important to make a public stand for women’s rights – there is little benefit from rights when you are blocked and intimidated to access them. It also doesn’t serve the women needing the service to have the service providers put at risk of their lives or have their family’s lives in jeopardy.

The stand has been made and it’s time to put abortion back in the hospital context of being just another medical procedure.

Stand alone abortion clinics serve the protesters more than the clients, because it gives a focal point for their rallies and allows them to victimize both the clients and the service providers. Terrorize, actually, given the number of clinics that have been bombed and the number of people who are unable to understand that it’s not their body, so keep weapon holding hands off and especially to not flick any of their god on someone else’s body.

Of course, the churlish reply is always, but who will speak for the unborn?

My response is that if they are really concerned about children, why not speak for the children who are living in homes where they are neglected and abused? There’s parents who need to have intervention, not a woman who is for whatever reason, choosing not to be a parent.

There is no requirement or need for women to act as brood mares either – there are enough children ready made and waiting for adoptive parents who are passing them over for babies. Perhaps prospective adoptive parents shouldn’t qualify to adopt babies until after they’ve adopted a child and are established as capable.

The violence around the abortion movement and the violent public debate could end if clinics were just another part of the hospital. Without an identified and freestanding clinic to target for protest and harassment, the anti-abortion movement would stall; because no one would tolerate their antics directed at a general hospital.

They would not know who to harass with their placards and plastic baby Jesuses; and no one would tolerate hospital clinics being bombed

Maybe then they’d have to go live the life they have, rather than try to control other people’s lives. But I doubt it.

It’s telling to me that the anti-abortion foes often use their christian religion to justify their abortion position – a religion that is founded on the rape of a virgin by an all powerful god.

A religion who’s commandments are about blind worship of predominately male authority and one who’s commandents say nothing about how to treat the less powerful – a religion who nostalgically looks back on when women were property and children were seen and not heard.

That the woman is denied abortion has less to do with the child, as, if you go by the actions of the anti-abortion movement, the sacred time of life is between conception and birth – and is only sacred again when it’s on life support.

And apparently, should be scared the time in between of accidentally using the free will given by the insecure and egotistical god who is loving condemning people to eternal hell for causing genocide (unless it’s clearly god’s will) and wearing poly-cotton blends alike, and a forgiving god who does not allow parole from hell despite any remorse or good behaviour.

So women, should mostly not be permitted abortions – and the anti-abortion movement doesn’t allow for threats to life or rape, not even incest,  exemptions – because they are to be punished to have the children for having sex.

Why should women be the ones punished? Because Eve shared the apple aka fruit of knowledge instead of eating it all. So woman to to be continually punished by men for getting smart and uppity.

What’s worse is that the anti-abortionists act like women are so lighthearted or even cavalier about having an abortion – which I think speaks volumes about how sacred life is to them that they would project this attitude onto another person.

By their stated beliefs, they aren’t supposed to judge people, but darn, could they at least not assume that everyone shares their low to poor standards?

Yet, there’s no equivalent condemnation towards the man who walks away from his responsibility towards the unborn kid.  What the anti-abortion crowd is really saying is that the woman deserves to be punished and the guy gets to get off twice.