Why should we respect people who have...
so little regard for the truth and who try to inflict their self imposed misery on everyone else by distorting the facts to try and get the law changed?
The Tories under David Cameron and the lying Christian Nadine Dorries will reduce the abortion limit on the pretext that scientific evidence suggests that 24 week foetuses are more viable than before - they are not. It is pretty clear that the Christian organisations that are funding her campaign and others, will not settle until abortion is completely illegal. Most people know that to return to the horrors of back-street abortions is a horrific thought. And what for? Nobody will benefit and millions will suffer. Parents will have children they didn't want or weren't ready for, many more children will be horrifically disabled, abused, neglected, mistreated, raised in poverty and pushed into crime in a country that the Tories regularly claim is overpopulated and overburdened by dependents. By their own logic, they should see that abortion is not just a moral and humane way of reducing overall suffering, it is an effective last resort option in reducing crime and overpopulation.
Yes, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place and the Netherlands shows that a confident feminist education coupled with the unashamed widespread and relentless promotion of contraception is the best way to do that (with the side benefit of also improving sexual health) - "In Latin America, where abortion is almost completely illegal, the rate is between 30 to 60 per 1,000. In the Netherlands, with Europe's most liberal abortion law, only five out of 1,000 women opt for abortion".
Religious people are more likely to be homophobic, sexist, racist and ignorant bigots, the last thing we need to do is respect them.
The Tories under David Cameron and the lying Christian Nadine Dorries will reduce the abortion limit on the pretext that scientific evidence suggests that 24 week foetuses are more viable than before - they are not. It is pretty clear that the Christian organisations that are funding her campaign and others, will not settle until abortion is completely illegal. Most people know that to return to the horrors of back-street abortions is a horrific thought. And what for? Nobody will benefit and millions will suffer. Parents will have children they didn't want or weren't ready for, many more children will be horrifically disabled, abused, neglected, mistreated, raised in poverty and pushed into crime in a country that the Tories regularly claim is overpopulated and overburdened by dependents. By their own logic, they should see that abortion is not just a moral and humane way of reducing overall suffering, it is an effective last resort option in reducing crime and overpopulation.
Yes, we need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place and the Netherlands shows that a confident feminist education coupled with the unashamed widespread and relentless promotion of contraception is the best way to do that (with the side benefit of also improving sexual health) - "In Latin America, where abortion is almost completely illegal, the rate is between 30 to 60 per 1,000. In the Netherlands, with Europe's most liberal abortion law, only five out of 1,000 women opt for abortion".
Religious people are more likely to be homophobic, sexist, racist and ignorant bigots, the last thing we need to do is respect them.
Excellent comment on all grounds.
ReplyDeleteThe "respect" (deference" shown to the baseless assertions & bigotry of the religious should be challenged.
I suggest ending all state funding for "faith" schools (some of which teach total obscenity), the disestablishment of the church and a statement of secularism. No more of fucking twats like Blair and Brown spouting shit about how religious they are, or of appeasing any self-styled "community leader" or similar shite when most Muslims want to be free and don't accept these scrotes' "authority".
I'm completely fucking aghast that religion has suddenly come back as an issue. I thought we'd got rid of it, but it looks like we're turning into America. I say "forward, not back". And unlike the last person who used that phrase, I'm not a lying bellend.
asquith: I forgot to mention why reducing the limit is both cruel and counter-productive. 20-24 week abortions make up just 1.5% of the total - these are generally the most vulnerable women - scared of peers, violent boyfriends and family, underage, socially repressed, deserted by their partners at the last minute or wracked by 'religious guilt' - or types who 'take time' to make this difficult decision - these are the ones the Tories and religious bigots want to punish - and for what benefit?
ReplyDeleteAs for disestablishing the church - I am ambivalent about that because (as the US shows) privatised religion can be even more pernicious.
Yes, we may disagree over how we want to achieve our end, but we both aim for a more secular society in which Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and similar cunts won't be able to spout their shit.
ReplyDeleteAs for reproductive choice, I totally agree with it. Have you read Ministry Of Truth on the subject?
"Religious people are more likely to be homophobic, sexist, racist and ignorant bigots, the last thing we need to do is respect them."
ReplyDeleteA sweeping statement. I guess you must have been pleased that John Smith died - what with him being a homophobic, racist, bigoted Christian.
"Abortion is not just a moral and humane way of reducing overall suffering, it is an effective last resort option in reducing crime and overpopulation."
Why not gas chambers? You can argue in favour of abortion on the individual right of a woman to choose, but you are advocating for abortion as euthanasia, an instrument of social engineering.
Asquith:
"we both aim for a more secular society in which Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and similar cunts won't be able to spout their shit."
Oh what a lovely free society that will be! Sad you don't see that you are one of the 'similar cunts' you refer to, wishing to impose your personal beliefs on other people.
Trooper Thompson,
ReplyDeleteI've never set up a school to indoctrinate defenceless children in total lies, tried to bring in laws preventing people from criticising my groundless assertions, or tried to ban a book, play or film. I've never run a filthy, dishonest campaign along the Dorries lines. I've never victimised homosexuals or tried to reduce women to second-class status.
I think I'm doing better than the believers.
Well done you for not setting up a school to indoctrinate defenseless children, such a constant temptation! No doubt most religious people could make the same boast.
ReplyDeleteBut you call for a society 'in which Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and similar cunts won't be able to spout their shit', which sounds like you are calling for laws banning people from expressing their own beliefs.
I think you may be right to attack state-funded religious schools, but if you think that secular state-run schools are not indoctrinating innocent children, you are much mistaken.
Perhaps I was slightly unclear. It seems that if I'd reworded my post, you'd probably at least partly agree with it. I didn't mean that anyone should be suppressed. What I mean is that the religious shouldn't automatically be given a platform to "spout" their views, which I consider to be "shit". They should be free to have and express their views, yes, and I should be free to say they are utter bollocks.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if we ever stop priviliging the religions and engage them in open debate, they will lose and atheism will win the say. I have a similar view about the BNP and other people whose views I disagree with. If the believers are so secure, let them put everything in the open and argue it out without privilige.
There is far too much deference in this country being shown towards baseless claims. If I came back from the pub on Friday and started making wild generalisations, people would call me out. But believers can say the most outrageous shite, and they are "respected". Myself & Neil Harding are against this.
Sorry, I've done it again. I'm completely against shit like No Platform, even if I did use the phrase "given a platform" in an ill-advised way a few seconds ago. I mean they shouldn't, for example, have laws against religious "hatred" to stop us questioning their claims, that they shouldn't simply go unquestioned as they seem to today. By "a platform" I mean a priviliged platform. Sorry for not making much sense, but I think you see what I'm getting at. I'm usually clearer than this, it's just the topic of religion angers me so much that I've lost it!
ReplyDeleteHere's irony for you Neil.
ReplyDeleteNo Abortion =more singles mothers =more child benefit payments, Which political party will be the first to complain about that i wonder.....
TT: I don't think it was a sweeping statement.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I have not found a survey to back me up, but out of a 1,000 atheists and 1,000 religious believers; which group would you bet on being MORE homophobic, sexist, racist etc? It's a no-brainer really isn't it?
TT: Legal abortion is the lesser of two evils and for that reason alone it is justifiable. But it also prevents millions of children being raised in dysfunctional families and consequently leading dysfunctional lives. Euthanasia? Why should someone in great pain who wants to die be denied that choice? We treat animals more humanely and it is religious indoctrination that gives us this immoral attitude.
ReplyDeleteasquith: MOT is very informative on this, I have read 'some' of his stuff but he writes so much, doesn't he? I think it is essential that people like us speak up if we are to ever end religious privilege. Well done.
ReplyDeleteHi, Asquith
ReplyDelete'Hundreds of people opposed to the Government's plans to make incitement to religious hatred illegal, gathered in London's Hyde Park on Saturday.
The event was organised by the Evangelical Alliance but other Christian and non-Christian organisations have been taking part.
They say the plans, which are part of anti-terror legislation, will stifle free speech.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4322652.stm
Looks like some of, at least, the 'Christian... fundamentalists and similar cunts' seem to think that you should be free to spout your shit? Nice of them to stand up for you.
I didn't say all believers were cunts. But I nevertheless have a critique to make of ALL believers, every last one of them.
ReplyDeleteThey accept baseless & unproven claims about our world. They create a culture in which this attitude is accepted & normal. And then they act surprised when someone takes the holy book seriously or literally and goes round murdering medical professionals, blowing up towers... or following the "moderate" route and "merely" trying to strangle secular liberal democracy.
The "moderates" are a trojan horse for the fundamentalists. Just like the fucking scum who read the Sun and the Daily Mail are a trojan horse for the BNP.
"Religious people are more likely to be homophobic, sexist, racist and ignorant bigots, the last thing we need to do is respect them."
ReplyDeleteI never realised the BNP were so religious!
Snafu,
ReplyDeletewell, they do like a rousing chorus of 'Sing Hosanna', albeit with slightly different lyrics. Maybe Neil's talking about muslims and Polish catholics.
Scunnered,
good point.
Asquith,
I'm not sure reasoned debate will win everyone over to atheism if you're doing the debating, as you'll probably lose your rag straight away and call the right reverend a cunt.
I would say the main reasons that religioun has suddenly come back as an issue' are twofold. Firstly the changing face of the nation due to immigration, and secondly that the state is ever more interfering in private matters. Two examples, public sector job applications now ask you what your sexuality is, prospective parents expected to declare their support for the state-sanctioned orthodoxy. This kind of thing would not have happened in the past:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020809/Christian-registrar-threatened-sack-refusing-conduct-gay-marriages.html
The claim that moderates are the trojan horse of fundamentalists may be true in some senses, but seems to stem from a desire from you for to condemn all religious people and be done with it. Peaceful protesters on a demonstration will provide cover for the hardcore anarchists up for a ruck with the coppers, and oftentimes it is the peaceful protesters that get it in the neck, and the authorities use the threat of the anarchists within their midst to muzzle peaceful protest.
As for the 'baseless & unproven claims about our world' that religious people accept, this is true of everyone who holds an opinion. Do you think Neil's brand of leftism can be scientifically proven? Or your own liberalism?
'prospective parents'
ReplyDeleteI meant prospective foster parents
Trooper Thompson
ReplyDeleteGood Points
Neil, it's funny how the lefties talk about The Netherlands and their great sex education and easily available contraception; but the right-wingers emphasise the fact that they are very Calvinistic in attitudes to sex and single mothers do not get any special benefits.
ReplyDeleteSo the reason that there are less abortions is because the girls are a damn' sight more careful about getting pregnant in the first place (or even having sex) - the risks are too great, as pregancy is not a route to a free council house and a life on benefits in The Netherlands.
Anyway, would you like to add anything to my list?