Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

The Christian Right's Fear of Pleasure is Our Greatest Threat to Choice

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted May 19, 2007.


The war against abortion has nothing to do with the protection of life. It is a war against an open society -- a cover for assaults against sexual pleasure and personal choice.
05192007story
05192007story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Jeniece Learned stood amid a crowd of earnest-looking men and women, many with small gold crosses in their lapels or around their necks, in a hotel lobby in Valley Forge, Pa. She had an easy smile and a thick mane of black, shoulder-length hair. She was carrying a booklet called "Ringing In a Culture of Life," which was the schedule of the two-day event she was attending, organized by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation.

The event was "dedicated to the 46 million children who have died from legal abortions since 1973 and the mothers and fathers who mourn their loss."

Learned, who had driven five hours from a town outside Youngstown, Ohio, was raised Jewish. She wore a gold Star of David around her neck with a Christian cross inset in the middle of the design. She stood up in one of the morning sessions, attended by about 300 people, most of them women.

The speaker, Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., had asked if there were any "post-abortive" women present. The most fervent activists in the pro-life movement have usually had abortions, with large numbers admitting to multiple abortions.

Learned runs a small pregnancy counseling clinic called Pregnancy Services of Western Pennsylvania, in Sharon, where she tries to talk young girls and women, most of them poor, out of having abortions. She speaks in local public schools, promoting sexual abstinence as the only acceptable form of contraception. And she has found in the fight against abortion, and in her conversion, a structure, purpose and meaning that previously eluded her.

The relentless drive against abortion by the Christian right -- the first salvo having been fired with the 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision last month to uphold the federal ban on the procedure known as "partial birth abortion" -- has nothing to do with the protection of life. It is, rather, a cover for a wider and more pernicious assault against the ability of women to control their own bodies, the use of contraception and sexual pleasure.

The movement openly conflates contraceptives with devices or substances that cause abortion. It holds up as heroes of "conscience" those pharmacists who refuse to sell contraceptives. It works to block over-the-counter sales of Plan B emergency contraceptive pills. It peddles, with hundreds of millions in tax dollars handed to the movement by the Bush administration, abstinence-only sex-ed curricula and opposes a vaccine against the HPV virus, the major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity.

The denial of contraception, as is well documented, increases the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. And abortion is never going to go away. If it again becomes illegal, the rich, as in the past, will find ways to provide abortions for their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, and the poor will die in unhygienic back rooms.

But since this is a war with a wider agenda, abortion statistics and facts do not count. The Christian right fears pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, which it sees as degrading, corrupting and tainted. For many, their own experiences with sex -- coupled with their descent into addictions and often sexual and domestic abuse before they found Christ -- have led them to build a movement that creates an external rigidity to cope with the chaos of human existence, a chaos that overwhelmed them. They do not trust their own urges, their capacity for self-restraint or judgment. The Christian right permits its followers to project evil outward, a convenient escape for people unable to face the darkness and the psychological torments within them.

The leaders of this movement understand that the only emotion that cannot be subsumed into communal life, which they seek to dominate and control, is love. They fear the power of love, especially when magnified and expressed through tender, sexual relationships, which remove couples from their control. Sex, when not a utilitarian form of procreation, is dangerous.

They seek to fashion a world where good and evil are clearly defined and upheld by the nation's judicial system. The battle against abortion is a battle to build a society where pleasure and freedom, where the capacity of the individual and especially women to make choices, and indeed even love itself, are banished. And this is why pro-life groups oppose contraception -- even for those who are married. The fight against abortion is the facade for a wider fight against the right of an individual in a democracy.

Army of God, a pro-life organization that holds up as Christian "heroes" those who murder abortion providers, defines birth control as another form of abortion, as do many other pro-life groups. In the "Birth Control Is Evil" section of their website it reads: "Birth control is evil and a sin. Birth control is anti-baby and anti-child. ...Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?"

Learned's life, before she was saved, was typically chaotic and painful. Her childhood was stolen from her. She was sexually abused by a close family member. Her mother periodically woke Learned and her younger sister and two younger brothers in the middle of the night to flee landlords who wanted back rent. The children were bundled into the car and driven in darkness to a strange apartment in another town. Her mother worked nights and weekends as a bartender. Learned, the oldest, often had to run the home. She got pregnant in high school and had an abortion.

"There was a lot of fighting," she said. "I remember my dad hitting my mom one time and him going to jail. I don't have a lot of memories, mind you, before eighth grade because of the sexual abuse. When he divorced my mom, he divorced us, too."

"My grandfather committed suicide, my mom and my dad both tried suicide, my brothers tried suicide," she said. "In my family, there was no hope. The only way to solve problems when they got bad was to end your life."

She eventually married, had a born-again experience and began taking classes at Pacific Christian College in Orange County in California. During a chapel service an anti-abortion group, Living Alternative, showed a film called "The Silent Scream."

"You see in this movie this baby backing up trying to get away from this suction tube," she said. "And, its mouth is open and it is like this baby is screaming. I flipped out. It was at that moment that God just took this veil that I had over my eyes for the last eight years. I couldn't breathe. I was hyperventilating. I ran outside. One of the girls followed me from Living Alternative. And she said, 'Did you commit your life to Christ?' And I said, 'I did.' And she said, 'Did you ask for your forgiveness of sins?' And I said, 'I did.' And she goes, 'Does that mean all your sins, or does that mean some of them?' And I said, 'I guess it means all of them.' So she said, 'Basically, you are thinking God hasn't forgiven you for your abortion because that is a worse sin than any of your other sins that you have done.' "

The film ushered her into the fight to make abortion illegal. Her activism, like that of many women in the movement, became atonement for her own abortion.

She struggled with severe depression after she gave birth to her daughter Rachel. When she came home from the hospital she was unable to care for her infant. She thought she saw an 8-year-old boy standing next to her bed. It was, she is sure, the image of the son she had "murdered."

"I started crying and asking God over and over again to forgive me," she remembered. "I had murdered his child. I asked him to forgive me over and over again. It was just incredible. I was possessed. On the fourth day I remember hearing God's voice. 'I have your baby, now get up!' It was the most incredibly freeing and peaceful moment. I got up and I showered and I ate. I just knew it was God's voice."

The fight against abortion is a battle against a culture she and those in the movement despise. It is a culture they believe betrayed them. The rigidity of the new belief system, the sanctification of hatred toward those who would "murder" the unborn or contaminate America with the godless creed of "secular humanism," fosters feelings of righteousness and virtue. But it also means destroying all competing communities. The sense of entitlement and inclusiveness, brought on by the certitude of belief, is matched by the power of destructive fury.

Learned lives in the nation's Rust Belt. The flight of manufacturing jobs has turned most of the old steel mill towns around her into wastelands of poverty and urban decay. The days when steel workers could make middle-class salaries are a distant and cherished memory. She lives amid America's vast and growing class of dispossessed, those tens of millions of working poor, 30 million of whom make less than $8.70 an hour, the official poverty level for a family of four.

Most economists contend that it takes at least twice this amount to provide basic necessities to a family of four. These low-wage jobs, which come without benefits or job security, have meant billions in profits for corporations that no longer feel the pressure or the need to take care of their workers. But this new American landscape has also bred a profound despair and hopelessness, as well as physical destruction of community that fuels the Christian right.

The war to "protect life," to crush "the culture of death," is a war against the open society. It is a war to push back the gains in women's rights, in personal choice, in the power of the individual to form his or her own life. It is a war that seeks to refashion America into a place where external forms of repression, imposed by the government, are used in a bid to contain the brokenness, desperation and emotional turmoil of those Americans whom we, as a society, betrayed.

It is, in short, a war of revenge. And until we re-enfranchise these Americans into society, until we give them hope and alleviate the economic and social blights that have plunged them into the arms of demagogues and charlatans who promise a mythical, unachievable Christian paradise and utopia, we will have to face a growing assault on our personal liberties and freedoms.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, christian right, right wing

Chris Hedges, who graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, is the author of "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
My Favorite Right-Wing Twisted Logic Regards Birth Control...
Posted by: yellow on May 19, 2007 2:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and opposes it with the question, "Why would you want to stop your own baby from being born?" I would ask, "What baby?" Your stopping a baby from being born all the time you abstain from sex. I'm doing it now!! What crazy logic!!

I suppose that ultra-rightist religious fanatics believe that the only reason to have sex is to consumate one's marriage vows once again in the eyes of the Lord. Sex for pure pleasure is considered "fornication" and a horrible sin. And so one must leave it to the Almighty as to whether pregnancy results from a sex act or not.

Just more anti-enlightenment, anti-science, anti-human control of human affairs, anti-free choice from the clerico-fascists in the US today. Fite dem bock!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pleasure-schmeasure
Posted by: JCrowe on May 19, 2007 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Christian right fears women who are not doormats.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Gypsi
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: willymack
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Blue Heron
» RE: Pleasure-schmeasure Posted by: Roverton
Women don't want equality when it is inconvenient to them.
Posted by: White middleclass male on May 19, 2007 2:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw an add the other day for “the morning after” pill. It had a women on it and said “ I choose a condom but it broke. This is my plan B”.

They should have one for men that say “I wore a condom but it broke. Now I'm fucked”

What about a man who wants to “abort” his responsibility to a child the same way women do with abortion?

Until I see that a man has the right to not make 216 payments on an unwanted child, I do not care about gender inequalities that concern women. Remember the Mother's day article about female care givers living in poverty at higher rates than men? Maybe that is because the man does the bare minimum required by law, but nothing else because he never wanted the little bastard in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Taxation without representation Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: DO THEM first.... Posted by: Scott
» KEEP IT ZIPPED, DUDE..... Posted by: Mewsician
I heard Learned's story before...
Posted by: adp3d on May 19, 2007 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...probably on Alternet in a previous Hitchens post. As I'm reading her story of when she got pregnant and had an abortion, it ocurred to me that that action served to break a cycle of abuse and dispair because that child would probably have fallen into the same type of situation that she was in. I am personally pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time. I wouldn't presume to press my feelings and beliefs onto another and its just none of my damn business. A anti-choice co-worker once asked me how I would feel if my son got his girlfriend pregnant and wanted and had an abortion. I responded to the effect that "the choice is hers to make". I would probably council her if asked and would feel sad if she went through with it but I would only be supportive of her for whatever she decided.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is the evidence?
Posted by: Jim on May 19, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where is the evidence to support Hedge's thesis that fear of pleasure drives the anti-abortion movement? The story he told shows that guilt may be a motivating factor to some. As a radical Christian who differs with the Christian right in many areas, I haven't met any who talked as if a fear of pleasure was their motivation. A majority of anti-abortion folks are against birth control.

I found a Harris poll that showed
2. Birth control/contraception is supported by 93 percent of all adults, including 90 percent of Catholics and 88 percent of born-again Christians, the "very religious" and Evangelicals.
11. Abortion rights (which were not defined) are supported by 63 percent of the public, including 56 percent of Catholics, but by only 30 percent of born-again Christians, 39 percent of the "very religious" and 28 percent of Evangelicals.

Most anti-abortion people talk similarly to animal rights people, feeling pity for the poor victims. There is a growing concern for women, with more and more people caring that most abortions in the US are not "choice" but coerced. I do not hear this addressed by pro-"choice" people.

Hedge's psychoanalyizing of groups of people he obviously knows very little of is not helpful. However, his conclusion that we should work to "alleviate the economic and social blights" is one I share. Wage inequality is certainly a grave injustice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Abortion is NOT a form of homicide Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» Life Isn't Perfect Posted by: edith
» RE: Where is the evidence? Posted by: oregoncharles
» Is the left "Godless"!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Is the left "Godless"!!! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Is the left "Godless"!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Is the left "Godless"!!! Posted by: oregoncharles
» It's Hitchens BTW Posted by: Veronique
» You are right - it's Hedges Posted by: Veronique
» RE: Where is the evidence? Posted by: AmIsraelChai
» Where is the evidence? Good question. Posted by: Philip Newton
Why is Alternet so in love with Hedges?
Posted by: kenhymes on May 19, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does Alternet keep publishing this drivel? It's as bad as David Brooks, just from a different angle. Amateur sociology now merges with amateur psychology. I disagree with almost every aspect of the agenda of what is loosely called the Christian Right, but haven't noticed much Footloose-ian fear of pleasure among those I know. Hedges has his target confused with some earlier version of American Christianity. If the fundies are afraid of something connected to abortion, it is female power. And I have to say that there are just as many feminists (male and female) afraid of pleasure as Christians - since Hedges doesn't have to provide evidence, I'll just assert that anecdotally for the heck of it :o).

One more time: American Christianity is as complex and multi-faceted as American leftism, or American intellectualism, or American sports. It is both unreasonable and counterproductive to keep insisting that religion is the source of all our problems, as Alternet seems determined to do.

Furthermore, how long will it take the Internet-left to get that the ONLY times the left has been successful in the US has been when it was in alliance with religious progressives? Do you want to win, or do you want to be right about the beginning and end of the universe? Every time you lash out at people who believe in invisible things, singing the praises of bullies like Hitchens and Harris and Dawkins, you drive a wedge between seculars and believers that is the precise inverse of the bond the GOP has formed between business and fundamentalists. In other words, we lose because theory has been more important than practice.

Anyway, it's just such a boring and tiresome way of living, isn't it? Arguing like college sophomores about God and science, when the people who actually know something about God or science are not anywhere in sight? How about focusing on the ONE WINNING SET OF ARGUMENTS THE LEFT ACTUALLY HAS? I mean the stuff about economic justice, remember? You're not going to settle the culture wars, but if you deliver real benefits for working people, maybe they'll be interested in listening about these other issues, and maybe in the process the left will have learned something about the actual culture that exists in the United States, instead of preaching - yes preaching - at it with little or no street level information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religionist paternalism upholds male dominance
Posted by: mgloraine on May 19, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be terribly inconvenient if women began owning their own bodies and having some control over their own destinies. That would stand as a challenge to the absolute domination of all finance and culture by males of European descent, which is of course, ordained by God (I'm sure it says so in the Bible somewhere...).
Unfortunately, it seems pretty evident that the wealthy and powerful of this world have always used religionist fantasies to placate the have-nots: "Don't worry! In the next world, everything will be beautiful!" Right, you keep planning for the next world while we secure exclusive rights to your life and property in this one.
The most vocal and adamant scripture thumpers are those with political axes to grind. Their gum-flapping about the "sanctity of human life" has no credibility, since these are the same people who support the death penalty, the slaughter in Iraq, the slaughter in Palestine, the slaughter in Afghanistan, Panama, El Salvador, East Timor, Cambodia, Viet Nam, etc. In fact, the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life is one of the most striking characteristics of religionists in general, and anti-abortionists in particular (remember the killing of health care professionals and bombing of clinics by some of these compassionate, God-fearing citizens).
"The Silent Scream" was debunked as an actual "silent scream" almost immediately upon its release, but that hasn't diminished its popularity at anti-choice meetings since, kind of like "Birth Of A Nation" at KKK rallies I guess. I would not attempt to diminish the personal anguish experienced by the woman in the story upon viewing this film, but if one goes to horror shows, one should expect to be horrified.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hedges Theory is Interesting-Here's Mine
Posted by: drricklippin on May 19, 2007 5:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether it is fear of pleasure of sexuality or other factors like even love I'm certain that for the anti-abortion zealots it's about control of others because they DO fear an open society that upsets their rigid beliefs and throws them into virtual panic when those beliefs are challenged.

One of my psychodynamic takes on why the anti-abortion zealots are so energized by this issue is that on some unconcscious level they view themselves as "fetuses" who are about to be destroyed by a secular society.

To them, destroying their fundamentalist christian beliefs is tantamount to a real or metaphorical death for them which demonstrates how very sick they really are.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hmmm Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Hmmm- says Philip Newton Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: Hmmm Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Hmmm Posted by: davewuxi
Control or choice, fear or love , terror or freedom, hate or honor
Posted by: maryelizmc on May 19, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The violence of abuse, assault and abandonment in early childhood forced me to abort every egg in my two ovaries. My ability to be human, to give birth to another, was stolen from me.

The suffering of fear of me, of others, of my thoughts, of my body was the path of my life. My body, mind and spirit were laced with self killing pain that seeped into every thought and cell of my being. Unfortunately the religious, family, medical and educational cultures surrounding my life kept me imprisoned but somehow a spark refused to go out. Many, many years I battled to ignite that spark. The bringing of that spark to know the beauty of my life of love is moving to be fully open this morning. Chris Hedges’ words of hating and fearing the pleasure of being human, the hating of the power of creating and pushed me one more step into the light of love and respect.

My around the clock work for the past twenty one years has been to dig myself out of the hell of hatred, the only protection I knew. My needs were stifled, all that mattered was their needs, initially my parents and family, then my world.

Chris’s words highlight the terror of fundamentalism in our country which is just as powerful as the terror of the Middle East fundamentalists. My life was founded on fear and total control. In 1984 one of the first intuitive steps I took to break this deadly life path was found in a small hand puppet I named Timothy. In my late 50’s it was not the in-thing to speak through a grey, furry rabbit hand puppet. The name I gave my small friend was foreign to me. I believe it was inspired intuitively as a light into the truth of my natural self. The foundation of my religious life was the Baltimore Catechism, not the old or new testaments. Later as Timothy became an important aspect of my life, I learned in the first chapter of Paul’s second letter to Timothy are words to the effect: I did not give you a spirit of fear; I gave you a spirit of love. I gave you a good mind to manage your life, your being, your body, all of who you are naturally, to choose.

As I internalize my natural spirit of love of me and others, the final battle is the conflict of the power of thought with feeling, or my mind with sexuality or the battle of pain versus pleasure, the battle of control or choice, the battle of the spirit of fear or pleasure. To use my intellect to let go of their pain, not my pain and embrace the pleasure of my feminine nature is my choice of my will freely made.

The terror of fundamental Christianity moves me forward to talk, write and shout out how the power of being a victor enabled me to overcome the violence of the power of being a victim. Their way of imprisonment is the suffering Christ on the Cross that they celebrate by perpetuating victim hood. I celebrate the victory of the resurrection revealing the wonder of the honor of being human, our original gifts. I invite you to watch for my words in THE THREE Vs.

Thank you Chris Hedges for your words helping me focus more clearly on how powerful is our home based terror battling to snuff out the love of life of the people of our great country, yours and mine included. I believe God’s love is right out there one by one capturing the minds and hearts of the people. My gratitude is for the perseverance to know the power of choice is free and love is alive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It starts out ok, but...
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 19, 2007 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like how it gets to the psychological themes of the Christian Right mentality. Projection of evil, sanctification of hatred...good stuff.

Towards the end of the article, it wanders in a bad direction. Does a difficult upbringing or economic circumstances excuse that kind of thinking and behavior? What about all the other people who have been through economic and personal difficulties but haven't become fanatics?

If someone hates gays or bombs abortion clinics, it may be everybody's problem, but it's that person's sin. The rest of us are not obligated to lure them out with economic security or community hugs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Crucial difference Posted by: oregoncharles
Born again as panacea
Posted by: liberalibrarian on May 19, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have found several things that the born again people who come across my life have in common. Before I attempt to list them, I have to say that progressive religion is and has been a good motivator in this country. Progressive religion includes Unitarian-Universalism which is what I am. I have had born again relatives harangue me each and every time we talk (some for the last time) about my poor soul in jeopardy and they have the answer. This burns my cookies (to put it mildly). When they can't give it a rest, I have had to cut off the relationship. That is unfortunate.

It seems that many of them have used the born again thing to compensate for excesses in their past--as if simply getting control over whatever they were doing by oneself or through some other kind of therapy weren't good enough. They seem to believe in a kind of micromanaging Santa kind of god (one cousin thinks that he met his current born again wife immediately after praying about it--how convenient--never mind they were at a convention) They are utterly intolerant of any one else's path to the Divine.

And yes, they are intolerant of pleasure--I think because they fear they cannot behave moderately-many of them come from dysfunctional families (my extended one sure does) and have that fear that they "won't be ablle to stop"..

Hey I'm all for the handpuppet idea. As David Sedakis mentions in one of his books, "we were one of those families that should have communicated with handpuppets long ago."

I value my freedom of religion. I value theirs.They cannot reciprocate. Simple. They are therefore a threat to our religious pluralistic democracy.. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Born again as panacea Posted by: wolfdaughter
» RE: Born again as panacea Posted by: astudent
» RE: Born again as panacea Posted by: mombot
» RE: Born again as panacea Posted by: robmikejas
» RE: Born again as panacea Posted by: herdless
Like in Australia - deep down under
Posted by: talkville on May 19, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's Nature, there's Human Nature -- in the middle there's the Human. Nature and Culture collide; have for the longest of times. Ask Descartes or Hobbes or Aristotle or Plato. Ask Hindus or Christians or Muslims or Jews. We're in no better or worse position these days to answer - despite the cult of Technology and the "Free Market" we currently are experiencing (and have experienced before in many forms). The flesh, the real flesh, the Body each one of us is (or if you are of other persuasions "has") is problematic -- downright hateful to some; they want you to join them by hook or by crook. Depends on their position -- rich or poor? entrepreneur or worker? merchant or aristocrat? noble or peasant? When ALL existing, living, breathing, flesh and blood and bones humans can live in dignity, in peace and in justice everywhere -- THEN let's begin to talk about Life and Living, Body and Soul (or Mind, or what-ever). Kings have had their day, and they have failed. The Bourgeois are in charge now and their clothes have disappeared. We are human, and a better world is possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take the Plank Out of Your Own Eye First
Posted by: Gravitas on May 19, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree that the Christian right hates pleasure and doesn't trust their own interest, the left has the same Puritanical restrictions around eating and food. Sociologist believe societies need deviance. When we relaxed sexual mores we tightened up gastronomic ones. That is why the left buys into this antiobesity hysteria even though so much of it is coming from BigPharma/diet. The right tells you you will go to hell if you have sex, the left warns you about an early grave. Both relentless nag as a way of controling a population even though at some point it should be left up the the choice of the individual.
Height = 5"7"
Weight = 220
Respect for those trying to force me to diminish = 0%

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grim
Posted by: mommy64 on May 19, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No offense.
"Poet Dana Gioia mocks the simple, fill-in-the-blank feel of the structure in 'My Confessional Sestina.' Poetry workshops thrive, much to the chagrin of some recognized poets, protecting their turf, much like...free traders, our way.
"When will it end? This grim cycle of workshops
churning out poems for little magazines
no one honestly finds to their taste?...
The Guardian provides a superb poetry workshop, including poets who criticize the effort. Imagine, however, that many would treasure a major in poetry from prestigious universities. Much like the citizen journalist wrote: "We would all like to be Republicans," not, however, recognizing that the newspaper editor who wrote: "This is not a Democracy; it's a Republic," meant "Empire in the works."

You can be a Wal-Mart customer
but don't compete.
You can read Gioia,
but don't write poetry.

Then wreaths that greet guests on holiday nights,
with streetlights aglow and snow covered roads,
where trellised bushes, filling quiet fields,
yield berries for wreaths on frosty front doors..."

Empire, not Republic, "the rest is commentary."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Grim Posted by: talkville
» RE: Grim Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Grim Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Grim Posted by: talkville
» RE: Grim Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Grim Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Grim Posted by: mommy64
» RE: Grim Posted by: talkville
Hedging his "P" words ...
Posted by: Kaatje on May 19, 2007 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges has written and said many things with which I agree about the silliness and peril of religion. However, as with the instant discussion of the fear of pleasure as a motivating factor for the anti-abortion mob, I suggest that he is hedging an otherwise convincing argument, one that involves another "P" word, i.e., patriarchy.

Patriarchy is the stinking elephant (political parties aside) in the room that few are willing to see, ever. It's as though to utter the very word is to cast aspersions upon one's father or grandfather, so little do people understand the meaning of the word, and so infrequently is it expressed by others who purport to know all manner of fraught verbiage. Patriarchy is simply a male-oriented social structure that demands total male dominance and control; anything that threatens this hierarchical orientation, dominance and control is considered heresy. So much, then, for abortion, gay marriage (or, just being gay or gender-different), women who speak up, and anyone or anything else that might be seen as beyond the control of the least capable, knuckle-dragging specimen of male virility, a creature who can always rest easy in the knowledge that there's inevitably someone lower than himself on the cultural eat-or-be eaten food chain.

In any event, I have no doubt that Chris Hedges is well acquainted with the definition of patriarchy, but wonder why he doesn't more directly discuss its relevance to religion, politics, war, our predatory marketing-driven culture, etc. It is not a fear of pleasure that informs the anti-abortionists, but rather a deeper fear of what pleasure represents, a fear of running afoul of the patriarchal pecking order, of not only losing personal control, but more importantly of an invisible hand (pa, grand-daddy, God?) ready to smite the miscreant for daring to be uncontrollable.

Sadly, women have bought into patriarchy as much as men, perhaps even more so. It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large as original sin.

For more insight into patriarchy, I highly recommend The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, by Alan Johnson. It's an eye-opener. Unfortunately, the author provides few solutions to eliminating elephant stink, other than to suggest becoming a Ghandian mahoot, but at least he helps the reader recognize the foul, pervasive odor of patriarchal poop.

Finally, I admit to not yet having read Hitchen's newest tome about the un-greatness of God, which is on its way as I write. Perhaps he addresses patriarchy therein. Regardless, I must thank him for voicing what I've long believed about the appellation of "atheist." I never felt the word made any sense insofar as it's used to describe the truly incredulous among us, myself included; it's a weasel word only slightly stronger than "agnostic." I agree with Hitchens that the more appropriate word is "anti-theist." The sooner humanity banishes religion to the dust bin of history, the better, but it'll never happen until we first do something about that miserable, stinking elephant that requires groveling droves, some might say goon squads, of excrement-shoveling minions. Admitting that it even exists would be a good start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hedging his "P" words ... Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Hedging his "P" words ... Posted by: Philip Newton
Let's get real
Posted by: gdonald on May 19, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The liberals, leftists, or what ever you want to label them are a group of people with more phobia's then you can dare name. This article on abortion and the right of women is really about not wanting to suffer consequences of bad judgment.

This article is more about wanting to have all the pleasures of sex but no responsibilty for the consequences that can arise from it. This writer has a severe phobia of christians when she accuses the christian right as those who don't enjoy sexual pleasures in order to try and justify abortion. I have to laugh at the way this writer twists the facts. This writer has no clue to reality.

Real life is always about making decisions. The decisions we make will either work for us or against us. The liberals want to be able to make any decision and suffer no bad consequences and when they do blame it on christians.

I tried the road of liberality in hopes to understand it but quite frankly, the liberal mentality is so far from reality and so full of hate mongers that I'd rather be a conservative and proud of it. I'm no neo-con because they are just as bad as liberals.

Let's get real. Life isn't fair and poor judgments and bad decisions do have consequences like unwanted pregnancies. So if you want to live it up and enjoy sexual pleasures but don't want to deal with pregnancy, then get surgically fixed. End of problem, no more unwanted pregnancies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let's get real Posted by: talkville
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: gdonald
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: talkville
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: AmIsraelChai
» AmIsraelChai Posted by: gdonald
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: gdonald
» Good Points Posted by: gdonald
» RE: Good Points Posted by: lessbread
» lessbread Posted by: gdonald
» RE: lessbread Posted by: lessbread
» RE: Let's get real Posted by: robmikejas
» robmikejas Posted by: gdonald
» Screw anything with feet! Posted by: Philip Newton
Whatever Happened To Privacy & Informed Consent?
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 19, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I'll grant that abortion is a poor method of birth control and one I see as repulsive in most instances, it is legal and should be a personal and private matter. My concerns about abortion as practiced in the US have more to do with how the services are available and how they are rendered.

First, I have seen and heard more than enough to be concerned that some clinics are being less than complete when describing the risks and complications associated with medical abortion. Informed consent is a given in all procedural medicine, yet that seems to be lacking at many abortion clinics.

Second, the clinics themselves do not seem to be well enough regulated. Having seen the complications that can happen after the woman leaves the clinic, many times at some great distance from the clinic, I wonder if regulations should require abortions to be performed in hospital settings. It's certainly something that should be carefully looked at by peer-reviewed medical scientists.

As to the religious connections I have a couple of things to say. Whatever your faith- good for you. Now shut up and get on with your life. You have no right to make the lives of other people miserable and difficult- especially those pursuing a legal activity.

As a Christian I have no use for the fear-mongering that goes on among some (many) who claim to be followers of Christ. I have even less use for ministers and laity who seek to use the church for narrow political agendas. The Christian faith is predicated upon the concept that we are free moral agents and forcing your private faith upon people who do not agree is an abomination and opposite the whole concept of the Good News.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NeoLotus Posted by: gdonald
» aussidawg Posted by: gdonald
» dangerouslysane Posted by: gdonald
Susan B. Anthony was Anti-Choice
Posted by: kwms on May 19, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This doesnt show that the premise of taking a human life is wrong because a large group of vindictive people are also against it.

And it doest show that the pro-life stance is engineered to hold women down-- although this same group (radical fundamentalists) believes in the subservience of women.

There are in fact feminists who believe in the sanctity of life from conception. And anti-war proponents, and people of many religious persuasions. They dont make as much noise about it as the sign-wavers, but I believe they hold the conviction sincerely.

Hedges and others-- many of whom publish on Alternet-- count these persons out to make their points. And this audience largely is open to such generalizations.

Kathleen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Susan B. Anthony was Anti-Choice Posted by: dangerouslysane
If God had not wanted us to have fun...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 19, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he would never have given us a clitoris.

The clitoris (ie: the fact that sex feels good) is probably one of the few reasons that women over the whole of human history have had babies, despite the fact that having babies made you blow up like a balloon, made you sick for months and the birth may have killed you anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» God Is Quite A Clown Posted by: edith
» RE: God Is Quite A Clown Posted by: Aussie Kim
» I read that... Posted by: Philip Newton
This is why they hate gay Americans.......
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on May 19, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chris Hedges has hit the nail on the head.

It is precisely because of the hatred that Christian fascists have of sex for its own sake that they continue to spearhead opposition to every legislative attempt to protect gay Americans from discrimination and abuse. Gay people, by definition, engage in sex for the purpose of mutual pleasure and / or the expression of love. Gay Americans have, therefore, been abused by Christian fascists ever since these individuals ceded control of their lives over to strict Biblical interpretations of right and wrong.

Up until the US Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), it remained illegal for gay people to have sex in 14 states. This number was higher when the US Supreme Court disgraced itself 17 years prior to Lawrence by ruling that the states could punish gay Americans for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes (see Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)). Fortunately, a more enlightened Court overruled Bowers in Lawrence, using blunt and forceful language. Christian fascists were outraged by the Court’s decision in Lawrence; some of them even expressed a desire to amend the US Constitution to permit states to criminalize gay sex.

Opposition to the over-the-counter sale of Plan B is yet another reflection of the hatred that Christian fascists have for sex for pleasure. This highly efficient means of contraception has come under fire precisely because it makes it even easier for unmarried couples to have sex. Hence such inane questions as: “Why would you stop your own child from being conceived or born? What kind of human being are you?"

The answer to the latter question is: a responsible human being. There are already far too many people in this world, and some of us consider it to be an act of gross irresponsibility to bring additional mouths into this world. However, those of us who do not wish to bring children into this word do not attempt to force other people to do the opposite. Being a secular humanist is all about responsibility. Secular humanism is not easy – it places considerable demands on the resources of those who accept its premises and follow its rationale. The secular humanist does not accept predigested pabulum about right and wrong – the secular humanist understands that every decision that he or she makes has consequences, and that those consequences are entirely upon the shoulders of that person.

Thinking for one’s self is not easy when a cheap, comfortable alternative exists.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hit the nail on what head? Posted by: Philip Newton
Somehow, he doesn't quite get it
Posted by: dzen on May 19, 2007 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning" was a landmark work, I can't think of a more important book of the last ten years. So Chris Hedges' mediocre work about fundamentalism is especially disappointing. As an "only once born" member of a large (huge) family of fundamentalists, his observations about the religious right just don't ring true. One example is the old liberal truism that the reason for the appeal of fundamentalism is economic powerlessness. I've seen no studies, but my personal experience leads me to believe that this is an oversimplification at best, and it's probably just not true. I worked at an office where there was massive conversion among the upper management just after a born-again plant manager was hired, what a miracle! The most hard-core fundies I've known in the last couple years have been business owners I worked for. This is only one criticism I have of Hedges' work. In his defense, truly insightful writing about the movement is almost nonexistent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Red Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on May 19, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This abortion debate goes on and on because we fail to get a higher perspective on it. I think Kaatje above does that by seeing it in terms of patriarchy. Patriarchy destroyed a woman's world, and is still doing so. Until we acknowledge that lost world, nothing will be resolved, which is just what patriarchy intends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tyranny
Posted by: Doubtom on May 19, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No government has any right to intrude on a woman's choice of what to do with her body or life! No government has the right to arbitrarilly decide that certain plants are illegal (hemp). We've allowed government intrusion into our lives largely due to the influence of religious wackos into our politics. These ignoramuses should be confined to their churches where they can preach their brand of insanity to the willing and stay the hell out of society's face or give up their tax-free status!
I hope Fatass Falwell's demise is just the first of many more to crawl off and die. There is no greater wrong than to perpetuate ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tyranny Posted by: gdonald
fear is the heath of the religious state
Posted by: wleming on May 19, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As we have seen with Goodling at the Justice Dept. these people are the
enemies of democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What this is REALLY about
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 19, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women now have the technology to have only girl babies.

Just lately-the technology as arrived that we can even impregnate ourselves- with our own blood.

Who will fight the wars?
Who will keep our mafia -military-industrial-corporation system going?
Who will play football and drive sports cars?
Who will beat the women into submission?

This scares the HELL out of men.

Think about it --child bearing age women-----

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What this is REALLY about Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: What this is REALLY about Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: What this is REALLY about Posted by: talkville
Christans are not afarid of sex!
Posted by: eric555 on May 19, 2007 9:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whatever Christ Hedges paid to the Harvard Divinity School, he should get back because he didn't learn a thing.

He has no understanding of Christianity nor does he really understand the Christian Right.

I have yet to meet any real Christians that are afraid of sex. I haven't met anyone involved in the Christian Right who is afraid of sex. I mention Christian and Christian Right separately because I do not necessarily considerer the Christian Right to be populated by true Christians. Some are, but sadly I think most of them are caught up in some vary dangerous apostasy. Just to be clear the apostasy is not that they believe there is only one way to salvation or that any homosexual act or any sexual act outside the bounds of marriage (between a man and a woman) is a sin. The apostasy isn’t that they believe that abortion is a sin or that they actually believe in absolute truth. Any real Christian believes all that. The apostasy is in how they react to sin. They seem to be busy trying to insure the salvation of others by controlling what they think and do. They should instead be living a Christian life as an example to those around them. You can’t expect people to accept the idea of Salvation by Faith when your actions teach Salvation by works.

Abortion is a sin. (We are not talking about cases of rape, insist or medical danger to the mother, those are different topics).

If that offends you, tough, I’m not here to make friends.

Birth control, prior to conception is not a sin, despite what the Catholic Church wants you to believe. Abortion is not birth control. Abortion is the ducking of responsibility. If you are not married to the person you are in bed with, then quite frankly you have no business in that bed. Sex is not just about pleasure. It is also about love, commitment and responsibility.

If that offends you, tough, I’m not here to make friends.

Now I am not going to try to pass a law that keeps you from sleeping with whoever you want to. Go, have a ball. Gods gave us all free will, have fun. However don’t expect me to care one wit if Roe V. Wade gets overturned (doubtful) or to wring my hands if the Supreme Court upholds a ban on partial birth abortions. And I certainly don’t want to hear anyone whining about child support payments for a child they never wanted in the first place.

I will instead gently (or as gently as I am capable) remind you that these things are sins. I will offer you a way to be forgiven of those sins. I will then be pushed aside by people like Chris Hedges, who will tell you that I most have had a horrible childhood, or I am trapped on a cycle of poverty or I have a need to control what others think and do. None of that is true. The truth instead, is that I believe in right and wrong and in a God that loves us and has provided us with a way to be forgiven.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A Question on "Free Will." Posted by: aussidawg
» Are you also a creationist? Posted by: doctorsquared
» RE: Christans are not afarid of sex! Posted by: Philip Newton
» What's all this talk Posted by: slydad
It's about keeping women dependent, Chris
Posted by: janvdb on May 19, 2007 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason for the fixation on birth control and abortion by the fundies is their desire to keep women in old-fashioned roles, wherein they can be controlled and dominated by men. Women without birth control and abortion cannot run their lives. They have so many children that they are unable to establish independence; they can't afford to leave their husbands; they are forced to endure abuse, domination and humiliation in order to provide for their children -- just as women have been doing for thousands of years.

Birth control and abortion end the enslavement of women to the inevitable arrival of extra children whose needs force women to turn to these domineering men for help.

This is why the religious right, which is uniformly opposed to modern, independent roles for women, oppose birth control and abortion.

They wish to INCREASE poverty in order to create female dependence.

If the least-well-advised third of new births in America had, instead, been contracepted or, if necessary, aborted, our birth rate would approximate European/Asian rates, our crime rates would fall, our prisons would empty, poverty would fall, the environment would not be despoiled . . . and women would be free to leave millions of domineering, demanding, demeaning husbands.

Which is why the right doesn't want to see this happen.

A woman with a high school education can afford to raise, independently, about ONE child. This is simple arithmetic. Add up rent, food, childcare, car, utils and subtract from $10/hr x 40 hrs/week and you'll see the reality of what I say.

If she has free childcare from family, she can raise two.

A woman with a high school education has three kids, and she is either begging from a man or on welfare. There are a few exceptions, but I am talking 90% of such women here.

As for the idea that alleviating poverty would reduce the allure of fundamentalism, it is true that all control-freaks, from Charles Manson to Jim Jones to Jim Haggerty recruit from the ranks of the out-of-control, screwed-up, addicted, and abused. So do most pimps, gangs and mafias.

However, few government programs are going to be able to deliver sufficient improvement in the lives of one of messed-up individuals to replace the life-changing, total-control services offered by religious conversion, cult membership or attachment to a controlling male.

I do agree with Hedges with regard to services for abused wives. There, the government can make a huge difference and has, in fact, done so. Emergency shelter, TANF, foodstamps, Section 8 rent, etc have made a huge difference in allowing women to get out of abusive relationships. These programs work.

Ditto for addiction treatment. Government programs could work here.

Increasing the minimum wage isn't going to do much. The effect is too diffuse.

Mostly, we need to work hard to prevent these mind-control freaks who prey on misery and economic non-viability from changing our laws to create MORE of this dysfunction for their own benefit. The primary example is the anti-abortion and anti-birth control efforts, which are designed to cause women to go out-of-control. These must be stopped.

It is clear that these sects, men, gangs and so on feed off misery, addiction, dependency and lack-of-control. The lack of birth control and abortion are the primary feeds creating these states in women. That is why these control-oriented individuals and sects oppose birth control and abortion and also why they must be stopped -- for the good of our society.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Polemic defeats Meaning
Posted by: bimasta on May 19, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The war against abortion has nothing to do with the protection of life."

So begins Hedges' polemic, right at the top. Is he serious? NOTHING to do with protecting life? Nothing WHATSOEVER? Not a single person who is concerned about abortion really cares about life? It's all just a cover for their "real" agenda: to stop other people from having pleasure?

A rather sweeping, shallow and judgemental generalization, Mr. Hedges. Have you any evidence to support your villification of the motives and deeply-felt convictions of hundreds of millions of people around the world, other than the fact that you personally disagree with them?

This kind of writing does a grave disservice to progressive causes, all of which have greater individual freedom as their goal, because it sabotages sober, rational examination of complex issues. Hedges' use of language is just as blinkered and intolerant as the reactionaries he demonizes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for a clear-eyed assessment Posted by: Philip Newton
violence good, pleasure bad
Posted by: windoe on May 19, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of stupid humans create a culture where pleasurable sex and experiences are shameful while fear, cruelty, rudeness and predatory behavior seem to be actually encouraged?
Humans need enough pleasure to make this life worth it, and enough structure for us to remain safe, fed and healthy. We cannot have one without the other.
Religious fanatics have stolen the innocence of people by convincing them they are born gulity. This conjob has created hell on Earth as far as I am concerned.
Down with religious extremism!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: violence good, pleasure bad Posted by: Philip Newton
The ultimate born-again assault on pro-choice Americans
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 19, 2007 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I predict the day will come when Bible-pounding anti-abortionists will declare human sperm as living beings.

Think about it. Sperm unleashed in the vaginal canal propel themselves with tails and clearly have brains -- albeit nano-sized ones that tell them to smash into the big egg ahead.

Yep, I have no doubt about it. The day will come when males who masturbate will be accused of mass genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Funny post! But... Posted by: Philip Newton
Tired of the Lunatic Fringe
Posted by: ahowe on May 19, 2007 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Evangelican Christian who doesn't have a problem with birth control, doesn't support the war, believes in justice, wasn't a fan of Jerry Falwell--and doesn't have a lot of problems with sex and pleasure in committed relationships, I have to say I'm pretty tired of all the focus on my right-wing extremist brothers and sisters. Yes, many of their views are scary and, I believe, not based on the words and mission of Jesus, but they are by no means the only views out there. There is a growing movement of us who consider themselves Evangelicals and, because of their faith, progressives--and we've been out on the streets fighting for justice, too.
There seems to be a mixture of glee and paranoia at unearthing over-the-top conservative groups on this site. But there are plenty of wacko non-Christian and anti-religion groups lurking out there, too. Perhaps, because Christians claim that their faith is based on divine revelation in Jesus, we deserve extra scrutiny and, it's certainly true that we don't always live up to the Gospel.
But we're not all right-wing fundamentalists. While there have been one or two articles on this site that have admitted this, the vast majority of articles dealing with the Christian right seem to make no effort to distinguish the extremists from those of us who aren't. How about some balance, folks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Truth Seeker Posted by: gdonald
» RE: Tired of the Lunatic Fringe Posted by: talkville
Christians are hypocrites; not crazy
Posted by: vasumurti on May 19, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion is not merely a "religious" issue, it is also a secular human rights issue. My problem really isn't with Christians not being able to follow Jesus or Paul, but with the hypocrisy of going around saying "I believe", and then ignoring what their religion dictates when it suits them.

With regard to Christians, the apostle Paul taught his followers to bless their persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), to care for their enemies by providing them with food and drink (12:20), and to pay their taxes and obey all earthly governments (13:1-7). He mentioned giving all his belongings to feed the hungry (I Corinthians 13:3), and taught giving to the person in need (Ephesians 4:23). He told his followers it was wrong to take their conflicts before non-Christian courts rather than before the saints. (I Corinthians 6:1)

Paul taught that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman," i.e., it is best to be celibate, but because of prevailing immoralities, marriage is acceptable. Divorce, however, is not permissible, except in the case of an unbeliever demanding separation. (I Corinthians 7) Paul repeatedly attacked sexual immorality. "This is God's will--your sanctification, that you keep yourselves from sexual immorality, that each of you learn how to take his own wife in purity and honor, not in lustful passion like the gentiles who have no knowledge of God." (I Thessalonians 4:3-5)

(See also I Corinthians 6:15,18.) Paul told his followers not to associate with sexually immoral people (I Corinthians 5:9-12). He condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:24-27) and incest (I Corinthians 5:1). He taught that fornicators, idolaters, adulterers and robbers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Paul condemned wickedness, immorality, depravity, greed, envy, murder, quarreling, deceit, malignity, gossip, slander, insolence, pride (Romans 1:29-30), drunkenness, carousing, debauchery, jealousy (Romans 13:13), sensuality, magic arts, animosities, bad temper, selfishness, dissensions, envy (Galatians 5:19-21; greediness (Ephesians 4:19; Colossians 3:5), foul speech, anger, clamor, abusive language, malice (Ephesians 4:29-32), dishonesty (Colossians 3:13), materialism (I Timothy 6:6-11), conceit, avarice, boasting and treachery. (II Timothy 3:2-4)

Paul told the gentiles to train themselves for godliness, to practice self-control and lead upright, godly lives (Galatians 5:23; I Timothy 4:7; II Timothy 1:7; Titus 2:11-12). He instructed them to ALWAYS pray constantly. (I Thessalonians 5:17)

Paul praised love, joy, peace, kindness, generosity, fidelity and gentleness (Galatians 5:22-23). He told his followers to conduct themselves with humility and gentleness (Ephesians 4:2), to speak to one another in psalms and hymns; to sing heartily and make music to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)

Paul wrote further that women should cover their heads while worshipping, and that long hair on males is dishonorable. (I Corinthians 11:5-14) According to Paul, Christian women are to dress modestly and prudently, and are not to be adorned with braided hair, gold or pearls or expensive clothes. (I Timothy 2:9)

If Christians actually followed these teachings, they would resemble Krishna devotees!

Again, my problem really isn't with Christians not being able to follow Jesus or Paul, but with the hypocrisy of going around saying "I believe," and then ignoring what their religion dictates when it suits them. Why not just be secular, like everyone else? It would certainly make things easier for those of us in the vegetarian and animal rights movements.

It's my contention that all of us (Christians included) really live in a secular society; one in which people merely pay lip service to religious ideals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks, lessbread. Posted by: TheTruthSeeker
» From a Christian: Posted by: Philip Newton
manonfyre
Posted by: manonfyre on May 19, 2007 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something about the "urge-to-merge" or "plant-thy-seed" imperative that roils especially in the loins of men . . . Superceding any of the exquisite, bond-building, "real" magic that inheres, potentially, in our sexuality, it's just "my guts compel me to wrestle with you and your guts -- and deliver the package." And our "be fruitful/bust a nut" guts are cause for soooooo much untolled mischief, mayhem, and heartache -- personal, inter-personal, and social -- "damn those exquisite bonds!."

"If I don't get to squidge my jizz . . ."

"C'mon, sweetheart, let's resolve to just put it on a schedule, okay? -- just once a week, baby, just once a week!"

We're reading this on the internet, right? How much internet traffic is devoted, let's be honest, to just this "gotta bust a nut" imperative? Can't we talk about this a bit more openly and honestly.

Maybe this imperative served humankind well, once upon a time. But now, it is in many ways, an affliction -- even a scourge. Seriously! Human male sexual behavior, seen altogether, has pandemic written all over it.

I am not anti-sex, or anti-pleasure. On the contrary. But, c'mon fellas! Get a grip. Practise some "d*ck management." It doesn't have to be so often brute, base, unbridled. Look even at all the "fine, upstanding men," bent by their own biology.

Maybe some David Deida. In highschools! Oh yeah!

There is some "truth" in all sides of these discussions. Together with Mr. Hedges (gosh, what a bright guy!), it is a subject we need to address a bit more directly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Biological Imperative Posted by: Jo1028
Anti-choice women with abortion guilt need new friends
Posted by: Callibrarian on May 19, 2007 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I discovered something that was later affirmed in the book "One Nation Under Therapy"---talking repeatedly about your probelm with people who had the same problem doesn't solve your problem. Instead it makes things worst. It's kind of like birth stories---we don't brag "My labor was easier than yours." No, we drag out the horror stories of giving birth in the back of a Kia while our toddler spoke with 911 for instructions. So you get these women together, they get riled up, and then they start playing a game of pretend in which they had given birth to healthy children which caused all their other problems to melt away. It's incidious, because in their imaginations everything is perfect and they forget about why they made the decisions they did. And being apart of an organization that identifies with feeling shame and guilt does not help because those feelings are not very condusive to moving on with your life. So women who are having trouble coming to terms with their abortions don't need to join groups whose membership criteria is guilt for doing something legal to their own bodies and not to someone else's. They need to stop pretending they had an abortion only because it was legal because plenty of women have them when they are illegal, too. They need to sit down and ask themselves a series of questions---What was going on in my life at the time? Was my family supportive? Was the father supportive? Was I healthy? What would have really happened if I had had a baby at that time? Then they need to admit to themselves and to those who would have them feel shame, because shame is what keeps people in bondage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pleasure and guilt play a role, but isn't that true of anything we do?
Posted by: Sojourner on May 19, 2007 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ending of human life, whether or own or another's, has always been a religious issue. Religion's message, across the parochial differences, is to choose life, not death. Applying that in specific instances is seldom clear. And it's getting more difficult as the human control of nature, including human nature, develops.

I am no more in favor of using the abortion dilemma as an opportunity to trivialize it by journalists such as the writer of this piece than I am with anti-abortionists claiming God on their side.

We cannot agree on a single answer. But that's always been the case with a whole host of issues. Yes, life and death do up the ante. We still don't agree on the meanings, respectively, of killing and murdering.

Kervorkian is still in prison. Only Oregon so far allows physician-assisted suicide. Those issues are of a piece with abortion and don't have much to do with pleasure but maybe they do with guilt.

We are not helped by pedantry pointing its finger making you more guilty than I am. We're all in this together. Can't we just get along?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"She got pregnant in high school . . . "
Posted by: scot on May 19, 2007 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And how did that happen? *Please* don't tell me it was just the power of "love."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

apples and oranges
Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand on May 19, 2007 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The health benefits of lowering your weight are documented facts. The benefits of becoming born again are are not, since we don't really know if there is an afterlife. Don't confuse the two.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oops - thought I was replying elswhere Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
NO ABORTIONS!!!
Posted by: Landbaron on May 19, 2007 4:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until a man can order a woman to have an abortion, unless either one releases all parental responsibilities from the other. If you wanna fuck that bad go fuck yourself!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I disagree
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 19, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'd have to be pretty inhuman not to feel queasy after looking at pictures of the aftermath of mid to late term abortion.

They look like dead babies to me, brutally cut to pieces.

It's not just an issue to the Christian Right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I disagree Posted by: Blade
» Stupid=inside? Posted by: edith
» RE: Stupid=inside? Posted by: Blade
» RE: Stupid=inside? Posted by: Blade
» Correct Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Correct Posted by: Logic's Edge
» Pro-war/pro-life? Posted by: Philip Newton
Hedges' Challenge
Posted by: lessbread on May 19, 2007 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is, in short, a war of revenge. And until we re-enfranchise these Americans into society, until we give them hope and alleviate the economic and social blights that have plunged them into the arms of demagogues and charlatans who promise a mythical, unachievable Christian paradise and utopia, we will have to face a growing assault on our personal liberties and freedoms.

This last paragraph from the article is the challenge to think about. How do we go about re-enfranchising the dis-enfranchised? How do we disentangle the hopeless from the demagogues and charlatans that prey upon them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a story of Schizophrenia.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 19, 2007 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Jeniece Learned "Saw an 8-year-old boy standing
next to her bed." she was having a visual hallucination.
When Jeniece Learned heard "God's" voice say "I have
your baby, now get up!" she was having an auditory
hallucination.
Schizophrenia is a severe mental disease. The symptom
of schizophrenia is hallucination. Hallucinations can cause
people to do very strange things, including religion, suicide,
murder and other crimes. You should look for symptoms
such as hearing the voice of "god" in stories of this type
because schizophrenia is one of perhaps half a dozen mental
illnesses that cause religion. Schizophrenia is treatable with
medication, but it may be difficult to get the patient to go to
a psychiatrist or to take the medicine. Purely "social"
treatments will not work. It may be that other members of
Jeniece Learned's family had similar problems.
Schizophrenia: Schizo = split; phrenum = brain
Schiszophrenia is a defect of the component that connects
the left half of the brain with the right half of the brain.
That component is called the "Corpus Callosum."
References:
1. The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice
Roger A. MacKinnon, M.D. & Robert Michels, M.D.
W. B. Saunders Co. 1971
"Religiosity is a common symptom [of] schizophrenic patients"
"If the symptom is religiosity, the diagnosis is "Schizophrenia"."
2. "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bi-Cameral Mind"
Julian Jaynes Professor, Harvard University 1976
"Religious people are just like schizophrenic patients"
3. Origins of the Modern Mind
Merlin Donald 1991
"So what did you expect from a brain that is based on the
Chimpanzee brain? Furthermore, the 4 Million years it
took to go from chimp brain to "human" brain is much too
short for Nature to get the bugs worked out."
Indeed, schizophrenia is a sign that our species needs a
few million more years of evolution before it can be called
"human". The point of this exercise is to prevent the
patients from running the funny farm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"provided"?
Posted by: kp68 on May 19, 2007 7:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"And abortion is never going to go away. If it again becomes illegal, the rich, as in the past, will find ways to provide abortions for their wives, mistresses and girlfriends, and the poor will die in unhygienic back rooms."

The author's assumption that as women, we need things to be "provided" for us stopped me cold. Too bad. The rest of the article may have been worthwhile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "provided"? Posted by: fork
» Nope Posted by: Philip Newton
Why do some people accuse others of their own sin
Posted by: 60's survivor on May 19, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just love the fact that on abortion, leftists accuse christians of interfering with women's right to have an abortion but have no problem whatsoever with interfering with people smoking, ar wearing fur or eating fatty foods or having guns or any of a number of other private activities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nah
Posted by: Kelly on May 19, 2007 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We'll stick to building solar units and electrolyzers. Mixed-use development, too. I can swing a sledgehammer, buddy, and I've spread my share of mortar. Maybe I'll die from the silicate or the asbestos, but that shiny new kitchen was worth it. Nice try, though. Find another reason that you aren't a waste of breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This was a reply to You Know Who Posted by: dangerouslysane
Who lives and who dies
Posted by: Kelly on May 19, 2007 11:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the essential question every society grapples with. The list of those it is legal to kill in America is as follows:

1. those who are inhabiting the bodies of others and unable to survive on their own (i.e. fetuses, parasitic twins).
2. Those who are members of a populace we have declared war on.
3. Those who are posing an immanent threat to life, safety, or property, or the life, safety, or property of another.
4. Those who are on life support and have left a will stating that they wish to be removed from it.
5. Those who have been sentanced to death, live in a state allowing execution, and have exhausted their appeals.
6. It is legal to kill oneself in the state of Oregon, after meeting certain conditions.
7. Those lacking health insurance and having a life threatening illness (death by neglect).
8. Those earning less than enough to provide food and shelter (death by omission).
9. via accident (which may still result in charges of manslaughter or reckless endangerment, or wrongfull death suits).

Death is the most pressing topic of any society, when and how to administer it, how and when to prevent it. Abortion is the taking of a life, and there is no denying that. However, from looking at this list, one can see that there are many instances when it is considered acceptable to take life in this society. What those who oppose others' right to abort must provide is the burden of proof that it is fundamentally different to take life during an abortion than in these other instances. I do not believe I have ever heard an anti-choice person do that.

For the record, I've had an abortion. And yes, it was a painful ordeal. I respect that people who call themselves pro-life think babies are cute, but they favor policies that are cruel to children and their parents. I also love my children. But I'm really not sure that I would love them as much if there were 15 of them and caring for them cost me an education and reduced our standard of living down to Victorian slum levels. Judging from the rates of child neglect and abuse in this country, people are having a lot of children that they don't want and can't care for. If anti-choice people want me to believe that they are pro-life, then they had better do something to make life better for those children in need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who lives and who dies Posted by: Ocean tides
otto
Posted by: otto on May 20, 2007 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author makes some valid points and shows a real weakness in the "Pro life" movement; but he paints with too wide a brush, smearing all people in pro-life with generalizations that he accuses them of. I also think he equates love with sex and this can lead to a lot of problems and misconceptions....sort of "Being in love means never having to say 'I'm sorry'"!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Extreme right/extreme left
Posted by: sausage on May 20, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The extreme right doesn't have a monopoly on Puritanism in this country. There are plenty of bluenoses on the left too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So very true.
Posted by: Waterrat on May 20, 2007 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing is that if you control a person's reproduction,you control the person..(I forget who originally said this) .And that's what the rr is really all about...Controlling people and bending them to their will. They are determined to make this country into a theocracy where they can discriminate against gays and women to their heart's content and no one can stop them.(Just like the Muslims do now) ..And don't think they will stop with those groups, cause they won't.
The anti-abortion films are actually about deceiving the masses that "saving babies" is what they care about. I've always felt this was bunk,cause once they are born,the rr appears to wash their hands of them. They seem more concerned about the unborn than those already born.
Sex for pleasure to these folks is wrong,cause they can't control it. If they can outlaw abortion and birth control they hope to force the masses to have sex only the way they want us to,for reproduction only.
And we are thrown back to the repressive 1950's. Do you really want that,people?
I feel this is also the real reason they hate gays so much. It has diddly squat to do with what the bible has to say and has everything to do with sex...Cause ALL gay sex is for pleasure...A very,very bad thing in their eyes....Cause they can't control what gays do sexually.
I feel this article is right on the mark

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oldbat
Posted by: ninethreeone on May 20, 2007 6:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ahem. Any explanation of the rationale for the photo chosen to accompany this essay?
Are we to make the connection that although abortion only happens to women, it's white males who really control access to it, and to contraception in general?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are they crazy?
Posted by: Scott on May 20, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"and opposes a vaccine against the HPV virus, the major cause of cervical cancer, claiming it would promote promiscuity"

What will these people say to a teenage or adult daughter when SHE comes down with this cancer and learns or knows that HER parents could have prevented it by giving er the shot when she was in her early teen years AND THAT the reason they did not was that IT (the shot) would cause their daughter to go out and have sex as a teenager! AS IF that knowledge in a young girl's head IS the REASON they decide to have sex!! This is so crazy! THEY (right wing religious believers) must all be totally crazy or they all have a deep seated mental illness in regards to sexual practices!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: are they crazy? Posted by: Philip Newton
Alternet's Own War On Pleasure
Posted by: lamar on May 20, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War on pleasure? Alternet's Rory O'Connor has his own war on pleasure: Rory hates shock jocks

Let's at least be consistent. "Live and let live" doesn't mean pass laws or even organize a boycott to try and sink something you find offensive. It's wrong on the right and it's wrong on the left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOD burns his own children!
Posted by: scott balogh on May 20, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you do not accept Jesus as your personal savior, you go to hell. What a concept. According the bible and the accompanying dogma, GOD created the universe, the world and everything in it. He created us humans to glorify and worship him. Again, what a concept. The sticking point folks, is that GOD created the choices that we make, both the pleasing to GOD choices and the displeasing ones. If you make the wrong decisions GOD will set you on fire and you will burn in agony for eternity. If you abort a pregnancy, the aborted one might go straight to heaven. I see that as a favor to the unborn. Just think, the sperm guy penetrates the egg gal, you start to grow, someone aborts you directly from the womb to paradise. Thank you. Or maybe you have to go back to the beginning and try again. I passed a rescue mission the other day where a sign read, "help feed Gods children". My thought was, if he can't feed them himself he should not be having children.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Paradise, Limbo Posted by: Ahimsa
» RE: Not Paradise, Limbo Posted by: LeeAnnG
ATTENTION AlterNet users who want to poke fun at Billary in public.
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 20, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go to Stop-Hillary.com and follow its suggestions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John H
Posted by: Upset on May 20, 2007 10:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is sick! If he wants to be consistent then why is he so upset with choices these people freely make? Why is it his business to interfer in the freely made decisions of huge numbers of Americans who are against abortion? Is it not part of democratic process that we advocate our causes? What makes his pro-abortion cause any more right or just than the pro-life cause?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John H Posted by: Upset
Why is "Abortion" the left's "rights-based" battle cry?
Posted by: elfinito on May 20, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I do disagree with laws against abortion...

Howvever to think abortion should be illegal...to me just is not that irrational of a position. When it comes to the rleigiouis rights views, they have so many taht can be attcked, and have no rationality what so ever.

But to say that you honestly believe a fetus is a life, and thus killing it is murder....seems rational...I jsut disagree.

the inly time it is irrational...is when the ban does not include Woman's health, known severe disabilities and rape as factors...that's a whole differnt stop, failing or rational review.


Lastly, why is it such a "woman's" right issue...again barring the 3 exceptions above (which are women's issues), why is the choice not the parent's choice? The responsibility and burden of child is both parents' and the large majoroty of that responsibility extends well beyoidn teh 9 months.

A father should have to be informed (obviopusly not in rape). If teh only reason is the "burden" of teh kid, the father, with the exceptance of FULL responsibility after birth, should have the right to stop teh abortion. I'm sorry woman I lknow its your body...but the denial of father to have any say seems irrational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet: The world's cheapest and most entertaining shooting gallery.
Posted by: HughScott on May 20, 2007 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Game rules:

1. Post a facts-based progressive commentary.
2. Wait for the lefties and stealth Bush lovers to crawl out from under their rocks and make rebuttals.
3. Shoot down their responses with counter arguments (easier than swatting flies).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hedges hates anything which limits his human desires
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 20, 2007 4:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the time the Bible was written, women were not considered human. They were chattel. They often weren't even counted in censuses. Christ's ministry was to women, as well as men, and he offered freedom from the slavery of the world in which they lived.

Paul's texts, while seeming quaint, antiquated or even regressive 2000 years later, nonetheless forbade abuse of women, instructed couples to provide for each others' sexual needs, spoke reverently of such female leaders as Priscilla, and described the marriage bed as "holy." No, he didn't sanction screwing anything with feet, as this writer seems to advocate. There are limits placed on human appetites in Scripture because, without limits, human appetite is limitless, destructive, selfish and ultimately deadly.

All great faiths teach this. Consider the milieu from which they sprang and apply these truths now, in my opinion. Don't distort them, or worse, ignore them.

Christian faith engendered abolition, feminism and the civil rights movement. This was no accident: freedom and equality are the messages of any clear-eyed reading of the New Testament.

If this ignorant and bigoted writer wants to continue his baseless slurs, let him. But his lies will be answered with truth.

I suggest we go to the source and see for ourselves what is really said in the Bible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WRONG Posted by: scryberwitch
Another Hedges Fabrication
Posted by: faultroy on May 20, 2007 7:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot believe that Alternet allows this author to make some of these wide casting ridiculous statements he does in this article.
Who the hell is the Christian Right?--specifically-- let's tally the numbers! To bring these fringe aggressive, fundamental abortion rights groups into the mainstream of the Christian Right is to say that all Republicans identify with the John Birch Society and the Neo Nazi Party!
Hedges is just baiting Alternet readers for purposes that no one really knows--except perhaps to Alternet's management that lets these outrageous unsubstantiated literally wildly biased and bigoted statements be printed.
Let me be perfectly clear: No reputable newspaper would print such stupid crap that any reasonable human being knows to be totally untrue and totally distorted.
As most of us now know, the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with by far the majority of abortions per se, but it did deal specifically with partial birth abortions. The issue was does one cut up a child as currently practiced, or does one allow the child to be born to see whether it will live or die while outside the uterus.
It also had clear conditions to allow a medical doctor to make a determination to do whatever necessary including the standard procedure in the event a mother's life was in danger.
For Christians or any other demographic group to limit or remove abortion is a matter of the ballot box. This is the way it is done in our democracy. There is no constitutional guarantee for the right to have an abortion just like there is no constitutional guarantee to end your own life ( this is a Felony) nor is there a constitutional right to take illegal drugs even though you are not hurting anyone but yourself (and yeah in case you don't know, it is also a Felony!) So why is it unrealistic for any demographic group to consider the pros and cons of a pregnant women terminating her pregnancy which involves another life in addition to her own? If a woman should have a right to choose, why don't I have a right to choose when to end my own life? Why don't I have a right to choose whether I want to reduce the quality of my own life by taking cocaine, heroin, smack, crack or any of the other designer drugs out there? And what about the father? Why is she the only one on earth to be allowed to choose both for herself and another life?
Why does Hedges not just state the facts? Why does he have to villify any demographic group? If he disagrees just let him say so, but quit lying, quit misrepresenting and quit taking fringe groups and presenting them as "The Christian Right"?
It is critical for all Americans to be given the straight facts without this constant misrepresentation and obfuscation. Alternet readers--regardless of their position on abortion--deserve better than a bunch of silly emotion inflated inaccurate and purposefully misleading articles of Hedges' ilk. We certainly can do better and I am asking all readers to ask Alternet editors to not allow these inflamatory and inaccurate articles to continue. I plan on filing a complaint with Alternet Management to not allow Hedges to continue to publish these articles. If you contribute to Alternet, tell them that you will refuse to donate any money until they require published authors to become more journalistically responsible. By the way, I don't care if it is a conservative article or a liberal article, it is critical to obtain factually based articles even if they are advocacy oriented. To make the ridiculous claim that Christians are not against abortion but against any pleasure is moronic and should not be tolerated.
Would anyone accept an article that stated Blacks are the spawn of Satan or Homosexuals should be gassed? C'mon, let's keep the debate focused and germane to the issues--we can do better than this!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another Hedges Fabrication Posted by: Philip Newton
It must be stressful to be angry at your own genitalia.
Posted by: fanny666 on May 20, 2007 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wing politics 101 is to control people's sexuality. It works in Saudi Arabia, it works here. Gays were the first ones that Hitler want after.

Hedges tends to get heavy on the rhetoric, and I think that the Left spends WAAAY too much time trying to psychoanalyze those with whom we disagree, instead of dismantling the institutional structure that led to those personalities assuming power. But he makes good points.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No, actually, he makes shitty points Posted by: Philip Newton
» Broad brush Posted by: Philip Newton
Religious asceticism is nothing new
Posted by: David_Mulholland on May 20, 2007 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it is a marker for fanaticism. The Christian right’s shunning of sexual pleasure is as old as Paul’s epistles. In I Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul says, "Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
That creates a clear negative view of sexual pleasure.
That instinct to shun pleasure has had good side effects, such as moderation in drinking and eating.
On the down side, the fanaticism allows the believers to commit the most heinous acts in the name of their faith, combining the joys of righteousness with cruelty. Abortion is one of those examples where the frequently self-flagellating Christians have a chance to feel like they are fighting for God while really doing no more than causing women more suffering.
The thing that I find interesting in this are the parallels between the Christian right in the US and fanatical Islam in the Middle East. If you are interested in that, take a look at http://theyankabroad.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired of the inaccurate term, "Christian Right"...
Posted by: Carl Street on May 21, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are neither Christian, nor right. Rather, they are heretics and traitors that in more enlightened times would have been burned at the stake -- after a suitable term on the rack, of course... :)

Calling oneself a "Christian" no more makes one a "Christian" than calling oneself a Chevrolet makes one a car. REAL Christians are morally and ethically bound to help others when and where they can and otherwise LEAVE others the hell ALONE under pain of DAMNATION as a consequence.

Jesus Christ did NOT form any political party; NOR did HE raise funds for any lobbyists; NOR did HE join the military or police to force others to his point of view. In fact, HE specifically SPURNED the powerful and wealthy of HIS era -- going so far as to state, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to go to heaven" -- pretty much says it all!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bible is Just a Book...
Posted by: mstenger on May 21, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Period. Not the word of a god. Not the truth, the light, or anything else. It is JUST A BOOK! If you want to base your life on a book, go right ahead. What I do with mine is my business and mine alone. As a woman, I will have an abortion, or not, anytime I want. Read your damn book and leave me and my body the hell alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Bible is Just a Book... Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: The Bible is Just a Book... Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» Bodies Posted by: openhouse
Faux science
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 21, 2007 4:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>>>>"Philip- I think there is ample emperical evidence that zealots who blow up or murder those who perform abortions are sick AND they of course are breaking the law."

Absolutely. And they represent but a fraction of an increment of a fragment of the lunatic fringe. For Hedges to smear the entire evangelical movement — as he does — and for others to slap on conservative Christians some faux "diagnosis" — as you do — is mere hate speech. Groundless, untroubled by facts or research, loaded with personal bias and lacking anything like responsible empirical scientific inquiry.

It's ignorant and hateful. Just like those people you say you don't like.

>>>>"No, Philip, I cannt prove my hypothesis that these sick people view themselves as "proxy-fetuses"


No. You can't.


>>>>"Maybe someday someone will fund and research my theory?"

I doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Faux science Posted by: factbased
» RE: Faux science Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Faux science Posted by: factbased
» RE: Faux science Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Faux science Posted by: factbased
» Amen Posted by: Philip Newton
b4upoo
Posted by: glorybe on May 22, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a third side to this strife between the right wing and more normal Christians. First it is no Christians job to act as a judge or moral policeman on others. Life is complex enough to keep us looking at out own faults rather than looking at others.
Instead of worrying about whether something that someone else is doing is a sin look at the deeper issue. To a real Christian the only thing of any importance at all is salvation. Families, jobs, babies and all of that are all trivia. In order to repent and do as God asks us it is simply not possible to worry about worldly issues or spend much time in the pursuit of any kind of happiness. Trying to get people into a sober and focused state of mind concentrating upon salvation leaves no room for worrying about abortions and the like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am a Christian and CH is absolutely wrong
Posted by: pg on May 22, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to be pro-choice. My pro life stance is not from my fear of sex. I think sex is one of the greatest gifts God gave people.

I became pro life after a doctor INSISTED on murdering our unborn daughter. My wife was three months pregenant and hemmorging. A doctor did a sonogram and we saw a live baby, heartbeat, fingers,toes, and she was sucking her thumb in my wifes womb. The doctor said the baby looked ok but he would defer to the head OBGYN. She came in the room and without even examining my wife insisted she would not carry the baby to term and that the baby should be aborted immediately.

I protested and told her I just saw a live baby sucking it's thumb in the womb! She said I could get a second opinion and walked out. My wife was laid on a bed and some towels were stuffed between her legs to soak up the blood. She laid there for two hours waiting for another doctor. When the other doctor came the bleeding had stopped.

We are now the proud parents of a beautiful 13 (yikes) year old girl.

So CH it was not my fear of sex but it was the cold murderous indifference of a doctor who cared nothing for the
life my wife was carrying in her womb that changed my view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cannot help but feel that this article fails to convince
Posted by: Ahimsa on May 22, 2007 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a daily reader of Alternet.
I am pro-Choice, although I understand certain types of abortion as murder. This discusion is not about semantics, but about whether or not our government should have jurisdiction over what happens inside a woman's body during gestation. It is also about selective government funding for public health programs.
The arguments presented are weak and solipsistic, like those of a fundamentalist; the attacks on the religious groups are condescending and generalizing. Should we not be using reason and reliable information as our standards?
The posting does not do much to help the Pro-Choice agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More on the Religious Right
Posted by: alicelillie on May 23, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
_How the Bush Administration is Destroying our Country and Damaging the Christian Church_ shows a lot of the things that are wrong with Bush and the Christian Right.

http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Abortion or Life?
Posted by: brenniewinters on May 23, 2007 10:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I asked my brother who is a pharmacist if he wished his son was never born since the child support payments were several hundred dollars every month for many years. He said he did not mind and would rather have his son. If I had never been born,since I am unique as is everyone I know-I believe my purpose here would have left a vaccum if I had not been born. I enjoy living-I do not know about how others really feel about their lives. I have been a domestic abuse victim-by one husband who is currently an emergency room physician-and G_d sees all. I do believe in forgiveness for all who had experienced abortion-ask them if they have forgiven themselves for what might have been. If it does not matter-then the conscience is of no use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Amazing AmeriKa
Posted by: fly in the ointment on May 24, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I've read some really good stuff here and seems like us as a free country should really think about how the long arm of the governing affects us. We should hold our women in the highest of regards for they are the mothers of the earth. For anyone to come between them and their own bodies is complete fascism and we should strive to rise above such an evil empire. The government shouldn't be able to tell any of us how we live or die or what to do with our bodies. If I want to shoot PCP under my eyelids until my head pops off then it should be my right. This is our country and it's still free (for the moment)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» own bodies Posted by: openhouse
Abortion or Life?
Posted by: brennie on May 24, 2007 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I asked my brother, a pharmacist, who has one grown son-if he regretted paying so much in child support payments over many years. And I said would it had been beter if he were never born? He said he would rather have his son. I am a retired Nurse after 30 years. I am unique as are all of the people I know. If I had not been born, my purpose would not have been fulfilled. Ask the parents who have experienced abortion if they regret it. A conscious is a powerful thing. I believe in forgiveness as a former victin of domestic violence and I enjoy living. I cannot speak for others in these matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual Attitude Continuum
Posted by: Jo1028 on May 25, 2007 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's an interesting continuum of attitudes regarding sexual pleasure in the comments to this article. They range from

*Sex and sexual pleasure is evil and the sin that evicted Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden; celibacy is preferable. (guess who)

*Sex is acceptable in the context of marriage where persons can be responsible for the consequences of performing the sinful act. Men need it and women have to endure it (Victorian view-lie back and think of England)

*Sex is acceptable in the context of marriage as the pleasure is the basis of bonding and keeping the couple together in order to raise children. (socio-biological basis-or why God invented the clitoris-most evangelical Christians and Maribelle Morgan)

*Sex is acceptable in a equitable relationship as the pleasure is a means of connecting, expressing affection and developing intimacy. (common new age-secular view)

*Sexual pleasure is a natural male (and more recently female) right and function to be obtained when the need is felt and a responsible person protects themselves from the consequence. (hedonist view -if it feels good, do it)

Most of the trouble comes when the partners are at different stages of the continuum in their beliefs and attitudes, and never talk about it since our culture has unwritten taboos on serious communications about sexuality. Wrong assumptions about the partner's attitudes causes the most heartbreak. Most young people are not educated in any substantive way about sexuality and reproduction or in any way that helps them to develop understanding, values and communication skills for managing their sexuality. It's a shameful, major failing of this culture and we use abortion, STD treatment, and divorce to solve it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Friend of all..because of Christ
Posted by: RDVSR on May 26, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I won't argue the theology of religion, nor take on the various contentious subjects that are blamed on "the religious right".
Thisl I know that I was reared in a home without Christian moorings, and saw divorce, fighting, abuse, alcholholish, selfishness in that home.
When I decided to read the teachings of Christ, and commit myself to an attempt to follow them, the results were a good home with 5 well educated, seemingly well adjusted children, and a 54 years marriage.
People on these boards say that people will live "good" lives without any committment to any God. I surely didn't see that being done, and still do not. Of course "good" is subjective, and the standards that I consider "good" are those that Jesus espoused. Love, God, and Love your neighbor, as best you can.
I see problems with overzealous Christians, and with overzealous "anit-Christians". "So live that when thy summons come to join that innumerable caravan" You will not be ashamed of your life.
By their works you shall know them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uh huh
Posted by: Musk on May 28, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are "pro-birth" not "pro-life." There's a huge difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this article is a load of lies
Posted by: ann2430 on May 28, 2007 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The battle against abortion is a battle to build a society where pleasure and freedom, where the capacity of the individual and especially women to make choices, and indeed even love itself, are banished"

This is ridiculous and completely false. The majority of Christians are opposed to abortions because it is really no different from murder. An abortion is denying an unborn child the chance at a long, happy life. Most importantly, it is destroying the creation which God has made. Pro-life people are not against pleasure, freedom, and certainly not love. The very basis of Christianity itself is love. Is it really loving to kill an unborn child?? I think not . . .
Christians are not against pleasure. We believe that a married couple can have all the sexual pleasure they want. Whoever writes articles like these and actually believes this stuff truly has no idea what love and pleasure are all about.

Besides, every woman does have free choice even without abortions. She has the choice of whether or not to have unprotected sex. If she chooses to have unprotected sex and gets pregnant, she should live with the consequences. Every decision in life has consequences, and this is no different. In the unfortunate case of rape, there is always the option of adoption after the baby is born.
No, the battle against abortion is not about denying people their freedoms or pleasure. It is about maintaining a just society that is free from cruelty and murder. It is about encouraging people to make responsible decisions, and not to have sex if they aren't in a position to take care of a baby. Think about what abortion really is and the fact that so many woman who have had abortions suffer from negative feelings and regret. Abortion is not good for anyone, not the unborn fetus nor the woman who chooses an abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement