Mnemonic Ntjeru

confrontingbabble-on:

3 Ways Conservative Christianity’s Obsessions Promote Abortions

One of the great ironies of American society is that most abortions in the U.S. are caused by conservative Christians. Read the statistics: Forty nine percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended, a rate that has been painfully stable for almost 30 years. Almost half of those pregnancies end in abortion.

Or, to turn it around, over 90% of U.S. abortions are the result of accidental pregnancy. U.S. rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion far exceed any other country with similar economic development.  So does our rate of religiosity.  The fact that we are outliers on both is not a coincidence.

Three aspects of conservative Christianity promote abortion:  pro-natalism, an obsession with sexual sin, and an emphasis on righteousness over compassion.  

1. Biblical Christianity is not pro life. It is not even pro human life. Steven Pinker recently estimated that the Old Testament alone describes 1.2 million deaths at the hand of Yahweh or his servants. It is, however, pro-birth. Be fruitful and multiply.(Genesis 1:28) Women will be saved through childbearing. (1 Timothy 2:15). Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant reformation, put it in his own words: “If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not.  Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it.” Christian competitive breeding, a strategy for increasing adherents, is at the heart of the Catholic anti-contraceptive stance and the Protestant Quiverfull movement. 

2. Mama’s baby, papa’s maybe. We all know what it means. By the time the Abrahamic religions emerged, the male desire to invest in only their own offspring had taken the form of men owning women. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. (Exodus 20:17) Women caught in adultery (or missing their hymens) were killed by the ancient Hebrews, just as they are by some conservative Muslims today. Christianity’s obsession with sexual sin or rather with female purity has produced the American virginity myth. In contrast to more secular, open societies, American teens typically don’t seek contraception for a year after becoming sexually active. Contraception would make them guilty of the sin of premeditated sex.

3. 38,000. That’s the number of Christian denominations. Ever wondered why? Traditional Christianity is about right belief, orthodoxy, rather than right living. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Acts 16:31 Contrast this with the central virtue of Buddhism, ahimsa, or non-harm. “Catholic” (meaning universal) and “Orthodox” (meaning right belief) are competing turf stakes from one of the first splits after Christianity beat out paganism. But schism and fracture are just one consequence of beliefism. Many believers would rather be right than in community. They’d rather be right than compassionate. They’d rather be right than solve problems. They would rather oppose abortion than prevent it.   

The numbers are in. The most effective way to reduce abortion is to de-stigmatize sexual education, de-mythologize virginity, and invest in broad access to the most effective contraceptives available. In the highly secular Netherlands, that formula has knocked abortion down to 7 per 1000 women annually, one third the U.S. rate.

So why does the Religious Right keep their focus on restrictive laws instead of contraceptive access? Why do they promote person-rights for zygotes, in contradiction to the very essence of personhood?  Why do they oppose medically accurate sex ed? Why do they pledge to defund Title X family planning?

Because abortion isn’t really what interests them. They want purity. They want righteousness. Some want designated breeders. Even those who don’t consciously promote more births are subject to the competitive strategies that were baked into the desert religions from the beginning.

The world is on the cusp of a contraceptive revolution. Compared to the best birth control available to your parents (the Pill), latest generation long-acting reversible contraceptives, also known as LARCs, drops accidental pregnancy by 10 to 50 fold. Each year one in twelve women on the Pill gets pregnant. Over a lifetime, that’s two or three extra pregnancies per woman – unsought children or abortions. With a hormonal IUD or implant, that drops to one in 500, because a LARC toggles the fertility default to “off.”  If that wasn’t enough, some LARC’s also get rid of that messy monthly uncleanness (Leviticus 15:19-24) brought on by Eve’s curse.

Someone who wanted to prevent abortions would advocate showcasing LARCs in every teen health class in the country. They would make sure that the most effective contraceptives available were available to all. They would be more focused on wise childbearing than on virginity. Those who say they are all about ending abortion, don’t—because they aren’t.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer

read in full at http://www.alternet.org/story/153869/3_ways_conservative_christianity%27s_obsessions_promote_abortions?paging=off

(via skepticalavenger)

(via umewomita)

uhohmarty:

creation of gaming

(via sei-kuroneko)

(via sei-kuroneko)

mrbankai:

Watching the stars by AnHellica

(via brittles--skittles)

skepticalavenger:

barreloforanges:

philosophyoffat:

skepticalavenger:

shakeitlikeanerfquake:

skepticalavenger:

christinsanity:

Now, let’s talk about circumcision. 

Owie.  Actually, when I think about circumcision, the owies are about equal.  O.o

There is nothing wrong with circumcision but removing of one of the testicles IS outrageous. And do not compare the two, stupid bastards.

Circumcision is pure, unnecessary mutilation that drastically and permanently removes feeling, causes scaring, and other malformations of the penis.  There are some rare circumstances where it is medically necessary, but for the most part it is a painful and totally useless procedure.  Do some research before you call other people stupid.

Lovely how someone can personally attack someone else and then proceed to bully them about ‘[doing] some research before [calling] other people stupid,” but not actually provide any reference to research in support of their own bold assertions. The idea that circumcision of the penis is mutilation and/or torture is an unfounded claim; there is no way to engage an infant to inquire about their first-hand experience with circumcision, because they simply do not possess the cognitive faculties to communicate such an experience. However, the absence of first-hand accounts does not permit adults to speculate about the morality of the medical procedure in question; it is not enough to simply assert torture/mutilation on the grounds that one finds the thought of circumcision unpleasant or disturbing personally. As for ‘doing some research,’ I have, extensively; to give you a little here, in context, I point to Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity, which explains that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by approximately 40%, because the inner lining of the foreskin is a haven for trapping various pathogens and allowing them to enter the body through microscopic abrasions in the dermal layer of the glans (head). The same is true of the relationship between the foreskin and other known Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs).

Works Cited: Carol, Janet L. Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. 2010. Print.

Oh good! Circumcision has health benefits. 

First of all, your works cited has been discredited, and even if it hadn’t, babies aren’t sexually active, so it would make logical sense to honour bodily autonomy until a child reaches the age where he is sexually active and can make informed decisions concerning his own sexuality.

Every purported health benefit of male circumcision has been discredited since Dr. Kellogg claimed it cured masturbation. Allow me to link you to the most comprehensive historical record of circumcision, so you can know 100 years ago, folks just like you were shouting at intactivists, telling them they were ignoring scientific proof that foreskin excision cured hip and bone disease. So that’s nice.

Even if circumcision had considerable health benefits, that could be achieved in no other way (for example, wearing a condom and practicing safe sex), a test it has always failed, it would still violate medical ethics by removing healthy tissue, absent of pathology, from a non-consenting patient, for future, yet unknown benefits. 

Now, I understand the cognitive dissonance about one’s own penis and circumcision status comes heavily into play. It’s ok to love your bald penis and still understand and agree that cutting babies is unethical, and ultimately immoral. It’s ok to love your parents, and think your penis is the world’s greatest penis ever, and still understand that circumcision of children, without immediate medical indication, is very wrong. 

I hope you can successfully achieve that cognitive dissociation, and leave all future male babies intact, the way their DNA intended them to be. 

Brilliant and comprehensive response.  :)

skepticalavenger:

To be fair

clementinevonradics:

The very act of breathing reminds you you’re not whole

(via feraldolce)

teachthemhowtothink:

confrontingbabble-on:

“god created us in his image”

“so, god must be a sexless, single celled organism”

“we evolved, but god never changes”

“so god must still be a single celled organism”

“with three personalities”

“and he must be able to replicate, because he personally became a male sperm cell to fertilized one of Mary’s eggs”

“but the son existed before he was born”

“then he impregnated his own mother, even though she was effectively married to another man”

“and even though god had said that the penalty for adultery must be stoning to death”

“Then, Jesus physically assended to heaven, after his resurection”

“and although one with god, sits on a throne at the Father’s right hand side”

“So Jesus is a middle-eastern man, in his 30’s, and his father is a single celled organism, and the Holy Spirit is a bird, and they are all one”

“and both Jesus and the Holy Spirit, although both god with the father, don’t know when Jesus is coming back to earth, only the father knows”

“even though they are all one”

“and even though they are everywhere, and technically already on earth right now”

“not with his physical body, Jesus must leave that somewhere else”

“except, some people say that they have seen it”

“but people can say anything they like. You can’t prove anyone’s fantasy wrong”

“That’s why there are over 30,000 varieties of Christianity”

“and it is true”

“which one”

“no one knows”

“at least god got people to write a book after Jesus left”

“there are no original documents”

“doesn’t matter. Almost no one reads it. It’s only used to deny rights from minorities”

“and those that read it, gloss over all the contradictions, absurdities, and immorality”

“a lot of it is allegorical”

“which parts”

“all the crazy parts”

“best to not think about it”

“sure makes sense, though”

“sure does”

OMG I can’t stop laughing.  High five, John.  High five.  ~JJ

(via skepticalavenger)