Disgusting
By Carl S ~
There's a lot in Nature people find disgusting: Bugs, phlegm, dogs eating their vomit, etc., etc. It's all part of life. Science is down in it, curiously investigating. When it comes to science, everything is fair game. Science regards nature as neither good nor evil. For that reason alone, religion rejects it. But a scientist is only the child investigating the world to find out how it is and works. Examples: Science researches the gut genome, extracts biological juices from ugly, reflex-gagging organisms, and experiments with fecal implants, which involves taking shit from one person's body and putting it into another person's! Yuck. Science doesn't forbid questioning or doubting. Religion has to. Religion claims all human life is sacred, often so rabidly as to forbid contraception! But you will never hear a clergyman protesting the execution of a man on the grounds that he won't be able to procreate in the future. To science, there is no “miracle” of birth, human or otherwise, and, though life is possible, it is not “sacred” just because it begins.
Unlike science, religion classifies everything as good or evil. Thus, whatever disgusts the spokesmen for God, Allah and the gods, they label as evil. At the least, we'd call them prudes, at most, sex-obsessed. Women have been declared as “unclean” after having a baby, (perhaps due to the sight of afterbirth). Men had been forbidden to have sex with women in their periods. Disgusting. Homosexual, and even heterosexual intercourse, they've declared sinful and repulsive, those men who regard those who abstain from sex as “pure.” If the sight or experience of a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is disgusting to a cleric, (and you), imagine how that person thinks about an abortion by choice. Some will label this choice as evil, equivalent to murder, but a potential human is not a sentient being. Abortion is just another disgusting part of living we need to adjust to.
Abortion. It's a “hot button issue” with Christians, atheists, ex-Christians, etc., all of whom are exploitable for religiously supported political gain. And it's one primary reason why prejudiced individuals are voted into office by them. A few years ago, our local newspaper editor, a strong supporter of free speech, wrote he would not publish any more letters on the subject, after so many of them came in responding to just one, an “anti.” That letter claimed, “God is pro-life.” My repose to this obvious Baptist was that, according to his bible, God drowned children, babies, and pregnant women in the Flood. And don't his gospels tell him that Jesus said of Judas, “It were better that man had not been born?” Perhaps someone mentioned “God” is the greatest abortionist, since many pregnancies end in miscarriages.
I often receive petitions from Catholic and Christian anti-Planned Parenthood organizations. Every single one of them lie. They lie to young people who they trained to trust them, for support; kids who are gullible enough to believe the unborn are “babies.” And I think it's because they hope no one will check up on their lies and will go with their emotions instead. Letters to the editor are good examples of how people respond to abortion arguments: instead of addressing the issue, they attack the writers personally. I have to wonder: If they had the power, would they kill pro-choice supporters just as they killed women as “witches” in bygone days? One woman said, “2,700 babies per day are killed in America.” Where did she get that from? She went on to quote Mother Teresa's, “The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” What about civil wars, starvation, terrorism, or racism? Oh saintly stupidity! And her concern is? That we are not adding 2,700 more children per day to our population?
Because such an issue is so emotionally explosive and heavily laden with ignorance, and so many good, educated, and caring people are being attacked because of it, those are reasons why it must be discussed. So, in the interests of rationality, Let's take a deep breath and settle in...
I'll start out in a totally non-threatening way, by talking about my family. My sister was born in 1926. When my mother became pregnant the following year, my father thought they couldn't afford another child, and after talking to his friends, came home one day to tell her they knew someone who could perform an abortion. My mother was vehemently opposed to such a suggestion. But my father respected her enough to leave the decision up to her, and that's the right thing to do. So my oldest brother was born. When he became an adult, she told him about that time, for which my father paid the penalty of hearing from him ever after in their arguments, “You wanted to have me aborted.” Over the past few years, I've thought about unwanted children raised in households by mothers who followed their faiths and had them in spite of their feelings. These children often lived with women without motherly instincts, and it shows. My oldest brother felt rejected by his father, all his life. And so, when I think of pro-choice or pro-life, I always have to ask, “What kind of life are we choosing for a potential human being?” Is it moral to have a child born to a couple who don't want it? Is it moral to force them to?
There was another son after him, then I came 11 years later, and I have no doubt I was unexpected, as well as my brother 5 years later. So, in the matter of abortions, I have to ask myself, “So what if I hadn't been born?” and, “Do I have any purpose, as I'm told I should have?” Well, I don't see any purpose for my existence any more than for my non-existence. Ninety-nine and ninety nine tenths of the population on Earth doesn't know I exist, so what's the point?
Human life [...], just because it is a product of nature, does not make it sacred." If I had not been born, so what? You wouldn't be reading this from me, but so what? Maybe you'd prefer to ignore me. There wouldn't be an “I” to ask questions; there would be no “I” to know the answers. Would my wife and friends, etc., be better or worse off if I never existed? Wouldn't they be just as happy, sad, or fulfilled?” It probably wouldn't make any difference. I don't think I'm that important. What about others, if they too were unborn? Well? Is society better, neutral, or worse off because Mozart, Beethoven or Bach came into existence? What about St. Paul, Mohammed, Ramses II, Columbus, Luther, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Assad? Serial killers? (I'm not impressed with the Duggars, either.) People who argue strongly against abortion use the first examples cited to justify their stance, and avoid all the others.
Abortion or not, it's a toss-up, a “to be or not to be,” and, like other choices, is never up to the fetus or “unborn.” I am 110% for human rights, fight for them, and support charities that make life better in every possible way for those who are here, living, after being born. It's good to free people from religions, to get them to laugh at religious absurdities, to lighten up and not be pinched into hatred, judgmental attitudes, and narrow interpretations of human nature. Human life as potential in itself, just because it is a product of nature, doesn't make it “sacred.” When you use a word like “sacred,” you're elevating it to an untouchable subject, one which I'm inclined to call fetal-worship. Having babies isn't “sacred;” almost anyone can make a baby. Although, raising a kid for the next 20 years takes what my mother called “the patience of a saint.”
The Catholic clergy had a policy, most likely still in effect: “If it comes to a choice between the baby and the mother, save the baby. She's lived her life. The child will have the opportunity to live its own.” How insensitive and disgusting. Are they thinking, “Another saint in the future?” What if the “baby” chooses to live a life of crime, or self-destructs with drugs? I say to them: ”Listen you sick bastards, she's my wife. Get the fuck out of the way! What about her right to live?” Maybe they believe women exist to be baby making factories, but I cherish them just for themselves. Their decisions and personal consciences count, period. As for the religions who won't accept this, let them look in their holy books for their God's take on abortion. The subject's so hot even he won't get involved. But he does command others to kill infants. That's their God's definitive answer to the “sanctity of life.” How disgusting.
Unlike science, religion classifies everything as good or evil. Thus, whatever disgusts the spokesmen for God, Allah and the gods, they label as evil. At the least, we'd call them prudes, at most, sex-obsessed. Women have been declared as “unclean” after having a baby, (perhaps due to the sight of afterbirth). Men had been forbidden to have sex with women in their periods. Disgusting. Homosexual, and even heterosexual intercourse, they've declared sinful and repulsive, those men who regard those who abstain from sex as “pure.” If the sight or experience of a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage is disgusting to a cleric, (and you), imagine how that person thinks about an abortion by choice. Some will label this choice as evil, equivalent to murder, but a potential human is not a sentient being. Abortion is just another disgusting part of living we need to adjust to.
Abortion. It's a “hot button issue” with Christians, atheists, ex-Christians, etc., all of whom are exploitable for religiously supported political gain. And it's one primary reason why prejudiced individuals are voted into office by them. A few years ago, our local newspaper editor, a strong supporter of free speech, wrote he would not publish any more letters on the subject, after so many of them came in responding to just one, an “anti.” That letter claimed, “God is pro-life.” My repose to this obvious Baptist was that, according to his bible, God drowned children, babies, and pregnant women in the Flood. And don't his gospels tell him that Jesus said of Judas, “It were better that man had not been born?” Perhaps someone mentioned “God” is the greatest abortionist, since many pregnancies end in miscarriages.
I often receive petitions from Catholic and Christian anti-Planned Parenthood organizations. Every single one of them lie. They lie to young people who they trained to trust them, for support; kids who are gullible enough to believe the unborn are “babies.” And I think it's because they hope no one will check up on their lies and will go with their emotions instead. Letters to the editor are good examples of how people respond to abortion arguments: instead of addressing the issue, they attack the writers personally. I have to wonder: If they had the power, would they kill pro-choice supporters just as they killed women as “witches” in bygone days? One woman said, “2,700 babies per day are killed in America.” Where did she get that from? She went on to quote Mother Teresa's, “The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” What about civil wars, starvation, terrorism, or racism? Oh saintly stupidity! And her concern is? That we are not adding 2,700 more children per day to our population?
Because such an issue is so emotionally explosive and heavily laden with ignorance, and so many good, educated, and caring people are being attacked because of it, those are reasons why it must be discussed. So, in the interests of rationality, Let's take a deep breath and settle in...
I'll start out in a totally non-threatening way, by talking about my family. My sister was born in 1926. When my mother became pregnant the following year, my father thought they couldn't afford another child, and after talking to his friends, came home one day to tell her they knew someone who could perform an abortion. My mother was vehemently opposed to such a suggestion. But my father respected her enough to leave the decision up to her, and that's the right thing to do. So my oldest brother was born. When he became an adult, she told him about that time, for which my father paid the penalty of hearing from him ever after in their arguments, “You wanted to have me aborted.” Over the past few years, I've thought about unwanted children raised in households by mothers who followed their faiths and had them in spite of their feelings. These children often lived with women without motherly instincts, and it shows. My oldest brother felt rejected by his father, all his life. And so, when I think of pro-choice or pro-life, I always have to ask, “What kind of life are we choosing for a potential human being?” Is it moral to have a child born to a couple who don't want it? Is it moral to force them to?
There was another son after him, then I came 11 years later, and I have no doubt I was unexpected, as well as my brother 5 years later. So, in the matter of abortions, I have to ask myself, “So what if I hadn't been born?” and, “Do I have any purpose, as I'm told I should have?” Well, I don't see any purpose for my existence any more than for my non-existence. Ninety-nine and ninety nine tenths of the population on Earth doesn't know I exist, so what's the point?
Human life [...], just because it is a product of nature, does not make it sacred." If I had not been born, so what? You wouldn't be reading this from me, but so what? Maybe you'd prefer to ignore me. There wouldn't be an “I” to ask questions; there would be no “I” to know the answers. Would my wife and friends, etc., be better or worse off if I never existed? Wouldn't they be just as happy, sad, or fulfilled?” It probably wouldn't make any difference. I don't think I'm that important. What about others, if they too were unborn? Well? Is society better, neutral, or worse off because Mozart, Beethoven or Bach came into existence? What about St. Paul, Mohammed, Ramses II, Columbus, Luther, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Assad? Serial killers? (I'm not impressed with the Duggars, either.) People who argue strongly against abortion use the first examples cited to justify their stance, and avoid all the others.
Abortion or not, it's a toss-up, a “to be or not to be,” and, like other choices, is never up to the fetus or “unborn.” I am 110% for human rights, fight for them, and support charities that make life better in every possible way for those who are here, living, after being born. It's good to free people from religions, to get them to laugh at religious absurdities, to lighten up and not be pinched into hatred, judgmental attitudes, and narrow interpretations of human nature. Human life as potential in itself, just because it is a product of nature, doesn't make it “sacred.” When you use a word like “sacred,” you're elevating it to an untouchable subject, one which I'm inclined to call fetal-worship. Having babies isn't “sacred;” almost anyone can make a baby. Although, raising a kid for the next 20 years takes what my mother called “the patience of a saint.”
The Catholic clergy had a policy, most likely still in effect: “If it comes to a choice between the baby and the mother, save the baby. She's lived her life. The child will have the opportunity to live its own.” How insensitive and disgusting. Are they thinking, “Another saint in the future?” What if the “baby” chooses to live a life of crime, or self-destructs with drugs? I say to them: ”Listen you sick bastards, she's my wife. Get the fuck out of the way! What about her right to live?” Maybe they believe women exist to be baby making factories, but I cherish them just for themselves. Their decisions and personal consciences count, period. As for the religions who won't accept this, let them look in their holy books for their God's take on abortion. The subject's so hot even he won't get involved. But he does command others to kill infants. That's their God's definitive answer to the “sanctity of life.” How disgusting.
Comments
Post a Comment