"Nothing About Abortion in the Bible"

Okay, I was going to devote writing time to a neglected wannabe book, but slow-boil anger is revising that plan.

 

I'm convinced the religious right's crusade against "woman power" is part of an effort to bring back an ancient teaching that women are inferior to men. (I know; you can stop laughing now.)  They seem determined to return women, as possessions, to the ownership of men.  To put us in  our place, as they see it, under the collective male thumb.  I'll bet that's at the core of the anti-choice laws coming out of conservative "think" tanks and Republican legislatures.   Laws to limit women's reproductive options are multiplying like rabbits on a full moon.  All over the country.  Never mind that they're unconstitutional.  The assorted architects of all this legislation are not conservative; they're radical male supremacists.  And the women who go along with them, who vote with them—?  Apparently the power of fear in religious mythology (or maybe the promise of a fluffier cloud to perch on in the afterlife) is persuasive enough for some women to take a pass on rational thinking.  Who can say with certainty?  Maybe they just don't mind being considered inferior— being property, like a boat or a shotgun.

 

Here's an Alternet post you'll want to see:   http://www.alternet.org/belief/theres-nothing-about-abortion-bible-so-how-do-right-wing-christians-justify-their-crusade

 

Some of these bills are being sneaked through on the coattails of unrelated legislation.  Bizarre, sure, but it happens a lot.  Other bills portend to be "saving lives" after a certain number of weeks.  Mostly I've seen the twenty-week cutoff (1% which are crisis pregnancies, as I understand it).  In reality that's only part of the story.  In Texas, the new law is causing the vast majority of women's clinics to shut down, leaving many women with zero to dangerous options.  But that's really the point, isn't it?

 

There's an excellent piece in Mother Jones on the four worst new anti-abortion laws, posted July 11 by Kate Sheppard and Dana Liebelson.   Check it out.  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/abortion-texas-ohio-wisconsin-north-carolina

 

Here's where I'll repeat something I often say on this subject.  We're all pro life.  Even those of us who believe our bodies belong to us and we have the right to govern them—not some pot-bellied bubbas in state legislatures, Congress, or any damned where else for that matter.  We are so pro life that many of us oppose the death penalty and have been known to march against wars and work for gun safety reforms. Why do so many self-declared "pro life" advocates carry concealed weapons?  Do guns protect life?  If a person carries a gun, it's a declaration that they're willing and prepared to take another person's life.  Mercy.

 

The people writing and passing these restrictive laws don't care about "life"once an actual baby is born into this hardscrabble world.   The people who claim to be "pro life" should be called "pro-fetus."  They habitually vote against programs and policies designed to help infants and children of indigent parents make it in this country.  If they can't vote against starting a program to benefit children living in poverty, they cut existing programs to the marrow without so much as a twinge of conscience—then sit self-satisfied in church, praising Jesus and putting money in the collection plate on Sunday.  Jesus might never stop throwing up if he knew all the things being done, or not done, in his name.

 

And if the determined "pro-life" people truly cared about eliminating the need to terminate pregnancies, why do they oppose measures to limit pregnancies?  Why do they reject science-based sex education in schools?  Why are so many against birth control and family planning?  The Emperor who is the religious right has been told he's wearing no clothes; he just doesn't care. The religious right seems not in the least embarrassed when called out on inconsistencies, misinformation or outright lies.  They just keep on pushing, repeating the same talking points over and over.  How should a rational, intelligent opposition deal with those whose blatantly irrational behaviors make reasonable discourse impossible?  Seriously, I'm asking.  Leave your suggestion in a comment.