In which I agree with Andrew 'Broken clock' Bolt

Yes, it does, on rare occasions, happen. It certainly doesn't excuse the filth he's written, but Andy does sometimes write worthy stuff.

Case in point:

Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) says the practice of "ritual nicks" could meet the cultural needs of some women and potentially save some people from drastic surgery.

The practice is said to be common among some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities but has been known to leave some young girls scarred for life when not carried out in proper clinical facilities.

Andrew writes:

Will police will instruct husbands on the “safe” beating of wives to avoid worse damage?

What’s at stake here is not just the abhorrent mutilation of girls, but an abhorrent presumption that these wicked things need to have their sexual appetites permanently and sugically controlled and drastically reduced. It’s that presumption that also suggests we will surrender our principles without actually convincing many to surrender their practices. I suspect the reality of the mutilation is desired more than the mere ritual.

His anti-multicultural rant notwithstanding, I agree entirely. If human rights and cultural views clash, there is no debate. Misogyny isn't acceptable in any way, shape or form, especially a form which has no use but to control a girl's sexuality. And to anybody who thinks there's a double standard between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, the difference is obvious: circumcision doesn't inhibit a boy's sexual pleasure. Genital mutilation does. The whole point is to prevent girls and women from enjoying sex.

Equally, I highly recommend this.

Why are they so afraid?

Excellent Battle of Wellington last Saturday*. General Debbie commanded an air assault of rhyming chants and speeches discussing womens' reproductive rights. One speaker, (it may have been the General, or somebody else) raised a point that us lefties, liberals and progressives rarely consider-why do the anti-choicers fear womens' rights so much? These same 'pro-lifers' (with, I concede, a few rare exceptions) support the war in Iraq which has killed untold thousands of children, and the bombing of Gaza by Israel, killing hundred of Palestinian children. These same pro-lifers view supporting women as a lesser priority to saving those sacks of stem stems-it's pretty clear 'pro-lifers' are only pro-life in the sense of restricting womens' reproductive health, and pro-death in every other case (or maybe they just want more white, potentially-convertible-to-Jesus babies. Those Muslims in Iraq and Palestine are a lost cause). So back to General Debbie's question: why do various fundies and ultraconservatives hate control over the uterus?

Personally, I see it as fear; fear of women gaining control over their bodies, which represents men losing the power that has been slipping from them since the Suffragette movement. Conservatives of each era have lost the fight against each successive wave of feminism. This began when conservatives lost the fight against suffrage. Ever since then, sex equality has been increasing since and some people see this as a threat to their establishment.

However, this fails to explain anti-feminist women. This is where the powerful role of religion comes into play. However, despite my resonable knowledge of psychology and sociology, I am at a loss as to why anybody would volunterily deprive themselves of rights. In this manner, feminism is unique; no other group has opposed civil rights for themselves.

I'll try doing a 'going down the rabbit hole' of antifeminism in the future-although probably not for at least a month, as I have flight training** for the next month

*Apologies for a lack of posts regarding BOWs and a lack of general posts of late. My Sopwith Camel (prepare to hear a lot about Camels in the future) has been playing up lately, forcing me into some unenthusiastic study of the schematics.

**Nursing placement.

Terrorism committed by...white people? IMPOSSIBLE!!1!

I've discussed this before, but the topic has come up again.

From CNN: "Trial set for anti-abortion activist in Kansas doctor's death"

An "activist" you say? I guess you could call him an "activist" but there's a much more accurate word used to describe killing a civilian to intimidate one's political enemies.

Could you imagine anybody-anybody-calling Hamas 'activists critical of Israel' or calling the KKK 'states' rights activists' or the real IRA 'pro-Ireland activists'? Activism is activity to advocate a certain political goal ideology. Terrorism is violence against innocent civilians to advocate political goal: there is a bloody difference. Of course, if any news organisations were to use 'terrorist' to describe the murderer, the outrage from Republicans and right to life organisations would would be spectacular. The sort of "How dare you equate this man protecting the unborn to al-Qaeda" style of outrage...well, at least Sarah Palin isn't in the White House.

Shamelessly stolen from Shakesville.

Analogies so brilliant they may cause my pants to explode.

Not that I'm a narcissist or anything.

Recently, Admiral Phoenix has commentated on two issues regarding womens' reproductive freedoms. The first is that American pharmacy workers must sell contraceptives, regardless of whether they personally oppose to selling such products due to religious beliefs.

The second issue regards the an Ohio Republican trying to prevent women from seeking abortion on the grounds of fathers' rights. Long story short: if the mother wants to terminate and the father doesn't, his beliefs override both her beliefs and her rights to privacy and autonomy.

Regarding the contraceptives, I wrote

If a cashier refused to scan meat products because they were a vegetarian, they'd be fired, then laughed from the building.

And concerning abortion, I wrote

How's this for an idea: all newborn boys undergo a vasectomy, and can only reverse it if they have the signed permission of his partner.

Could you imagine THAT getting through the legislature?

Yup, my pants just exploded.

There's a word for this, people.

(again, apologies for the lateness. I have other priorities)

From the Age:

A controversial provider of late-term abortions was shot dead yesterday as he walked into a service at his Kansas church, officials said.

And the White House's response:

US President Barack Obama has expressed outrage at the fatal shooting of a controversial Kansas doctor who performed late-term abortions, in a statement released by the White House.

"I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr George Tiller as he attended church services this morning," said Obama.

"However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence," the President said.

...

US Attorney General Eric Holder says federal authorities have offered protection to "appropriate people and facilities" across the country, after the shooting of a prominent abortion doctor in Kansas.

...

"The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring," Holder said.

He called Sunday's fatal shooting of abortion provider George Tiller "an abhorrent act of violence".

Once again, we see politicians refusing to call a spade a spade. Anti-abortion related violence has been called murder, arson and vandalism, yet it has never been called what it is-terrorism. George Tiller was killed so as to send a clear message to all doctors who perform abortions: that they are not safe. That these doctors can too be murdered.

People who commit hate crimes (and that's precisely what this is) are terrorists because they are deliberately installing fear into a particular group, just as Islamic terrorists do today. Terrorism is when the Ku Klux Klan lynched African-Americans to prevent other blacks from voting. Terrorism is what happened to Matthew Shepard. Terrorism is when Steven Rogers was killed here, in Melbourne.

Terrorism isn't just brown people who talk funny flying planes into buildings and blowing themselves up to grab six dozen virgins in jihad heaven. Although the definition is contested, I would say that terrorism is the use, or threatened use, of violence against civilians for a political or ideological purpose. That would cover all forms of terrorism-Islamic, Christian, extremist environmentalism, etc.

The sooner people accept the broader reality of terrorism, the better.

Election of Rudd now officially worth it

From the Age:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has set the Christian lobby, a key Labor powerbroker and a crucial balance-of-power Senator against him over Australia's move to scrap a 13-year-old ban on foreign aid being used to fund safer abortions for women in poor nations.

But the historic shift was lauded by a wide array of aid agencies, women's groups, family planning experts and many cross-party federal politicians, who said it would save the lives of thousands of women who would otherwise die in botched backyard operations.

All of a sudden, I'm almost liking Kevin.

The Prime Minister was targeted by his Christian base after revealing that he backed but did not personally support the decision by Foreign Minister Stephen Smith to axe the ban - two months after US President Barack Obama overturned a similar ban in his country.

Mr Rudd told a meeting of Labor MPs he had "long-standing conservative views" on the issue, but said a clear majority of Labor MPs backed a change.

The Australian Christian Lobby, which gave him a platform to reach 100,000 Christians by TV before the last election, threatened to campaign against him at the next election.

...

And Family First senator Steve Fielding, whose vote is crucial for Labor on key parts of its agenda, lashed out personally at Mr Rudd for being "rolled" by his party. "When it comes to the crunch on values issues, the Prime Minister wimps out," he said.

It seems to me that preventing women from dying from backward abortions isn't so much a 'values' issues then it is a 'compassion and humanity' value.

The ban was imposed by the former Howard Government in 1996 to appease former Tasmanian independent senator Brian Harradine, who held a pivotal Senate vote.

Mr Smith said the focus of Australia's foreign aid would remain on avoiding abortions by providing better family planning education, as he pledged to boost funds for preventing maternal deaths by $15 million over four years. He said it was a tragedy that an estimated 68,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions - leaving 220,000 children without mothers.

A wide coalition of groups has been campaigning for years for the ban to be lifted, led by cross-party politicians including Liberal MPs Sharman Stone and Mal Washer, former Democrats leader Lyn Allison and Labor Senator Claire Moore.

...

But prominent anti-abortion senators, including National Ron Boswell, Liberal Guy Barnett and Labor's Mark Bishop, were outraged.

Australian Reproductive Health Alliance chief Jane Singleton said the "humane and enlightened" change would save thousands of women's lives.

But Australian Christian Lobby head Jim Wallace said Christian voters had been betrayed - and pledged to campaign on the issue.

The Catholic Church branded the move "a cause for great sadness" and "very bad news for women and unborn children in the developing world". It urged Mr Rudd to reverse the decision.

The Vatican and the ACL see women not dying from slashed uteri as "a cause for great sadness." Figures.

There is a level of political bravery from Rudd. No-one expected him to overturn the ban (certainly not me). Indeed, it would have been much easier to simply do nothing and keep the die hard sexist fundie conservative Christian lobby/bloc on his side.

I won't be voting Labor in 2010, but I would like to humbly thank Rudd for not being totally Howard-lite.

And on a final note (again): if God is anti-abortion, why do at least 25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage-a natural abortion? Riddle me that, you misogynic turds with nothing better to be outraged about then improved reproductive rights.

When you die, say hi to the horned one for me.

If anything else is needed to prove the fundamental vileness of the Vatican, it's this.

A CATHOLIC archbishop has sparked controversy in Brazil by saying the mother of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion on Wednesday following a rape is automatically excommunicated for allowing the procedure to go ahead.

Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife also declared that according to canon law the doctor who performed the abortion is considered excommunicated, along with anyone else involved.

The child was raped by her stepfather, who has since admitted abusing her over the last three years. Abortion is generally illegal in Brazil but allowed in cases of rape or when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life.

The child entered hospital in the northeastern city of Recife on Tuesday night, where she was given medication to interrupt the pregnancy, which doctors said was terminated by early Wednesday morning. She was pregnant with twins.

The archbishop’s statements have drawn condemnation from Brazilian politicians and caused disquiet among some theologians concerned by the difficulties raised by the case.

But Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho has denied media reports that he personally ordered the excommunications. “I simply recalled what is in church canon law. Excommunication is automatic for those who participate in an abortion. I did not excommunicate anyone, just remembered the church’s law which says they are automatically excommunicated,” he said.

Before the abortion was carried out the archdiocese’s lawyers threatened to charge the mother with homicide, citing the Brazilian constitution’s guarantee to the right to life.

The doctor who carried out the procedure has defended his actions. “If the pregnancy had continued, the damage would have been worse, being a high risk pregnancy. The risk would have been of death or at the very least that she would never have been able to become pregnant again,” Dr Olímpio Moraes told O Globo newspaper.

“There are two legal justifications for abortion envisioned by the law, which are rape and risk to life. She [the girl] falls within the two and, as a doctor, I could not let a girl of nine years be submitted to this suffering and even pay with her own life.”

But Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho has dismissed the fact that the abortion was legal under Brazilian law as irrelevant to the question of excommunication. “God’s law is above whatever human law. So when a human law is contrary to God’s law, this human law has no value,” he said.

The archbishop made clear that the excommunication did not extend to the young girl at the centre of the case. Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho is a leading member of the Brazilian Catholic Church’s conservative wing and a firm opponent of abortion which he calls a “silent holocaust”.

And some more from the SMH:

The operation - carried out on Wednesday because of doctors' fears the slender girl might die if she carried the foetuses to term - was a crime in the eyes of the church, he said.

"God's law is above any human law. So when a human law ... is contrary to God's law, this human law has no value," Cardoso told the news television network Globo.

"The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion, will be excommunicated," said the archbishop for the Recife region.

[my emphasis]

Cardoso, I know that this is just a little girl we're talking about-because, hey, you really aren't all for equal gender rights-but she is 9 years old and pregnant. I don't know about you, but a 9/10 year old girl giving birth probably won't do a lot of good for her emotional health. Not only that, but if she gives birth, she'll almost certainly die, which kinda goes against your 'pro-life' mantra. Not that you'd care, given that the Vatican is totally opposed to anything more progressive them a Middle Ages approach to reproductive health.

You're supposed represent love and compassion-where the fuck have you shown that? Where's the compassion and mercy for a little girl has been raped for years on end, whose emotional trauma would rival that of a Holocaust survivor? You talk about reproductive health measures denying the littlest children the right to life-how exactly does that stand with a child risking death from pregnancy? Is a clump of stem cells more important then a human being that can think, feel and be hurt? Hell, how does that work with celibacy?! Just how many littlest children have you denied life to?

I'll bet you're all so glad you changed those theological abortion laws (how does that work anyway? Does it mean that past Popes were wrong on the issue? If so, doesn't it mean that this Pope could be wrong?) to further oppress women. What Else Would Jesus Do?

I also note that you've excommunicated the doctors and the mother, but neither the girl nor the step-father. I assume that as far as you're concerned, the girl is being forced to have abortion against her will*. Hey, have you even for a moment considered what the girl wants? Did you ever consider-even for a second-that she might want to simply try piece her life back together, with even a hint of normality? Given that she will otherwise die, I'm willing to bet my internal organs that she wouldn't want to be giving birth at 10. Of course, in your reality, a pair of fetuses that can cannot think or feel or do anthing take priority over a girl who can feel, be traumatised, have aspirations, feel for others and in general be more of a human then you and the rest of you twisted sycophantic rapist-coddlers could ever hope to be. (hell, a fucking zygote is more human then you)
And the step-father, you haven't even mentioned him in your list of excommunications. Why not? Doesn't child-rape count as a sin as well? (actually...don't answer that. I don't wanna hear it)

And then the Vatican has the utter gall to claim so much as a hint of moral superiority in the world.

I'll add this to the list.

On a final note: Cardoso rants on about God's law being all important; what I can't understand is that if abortion is so morally wrong, why do at least 25% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage? I'd love to see a Bishop answer that with a straight face.

*Which, if it were true, would be equally horrific. If it were true.

UPDATE @ 1250 8/3/09: Darn, forgot to show cross postings here and here.

Also here and here.

Oh, joy! I'm gonna check this out for myself!

Yet another Battle of Wellington today. The Battalion of Radical Women, lead by General Debbie, defended by Fertility Control Clinic, armed with nothing more then rhyming chants and a microphone hooked to a loudspeaker. On the other side of the road no-man's land, 60ish fundies quietly prayed to save those little sacks of stem cells, rather then working to save actual children from poverty (which Jesus seemed to spend a lot more time talking about).

However, talking to the General, she stated that the fundies were nowhere near as civil as they appeared to be on our protesting Saturdays. Rather, during weekdays, the fundies would become a little more...overt in their protesting. This and this come to mind in their tactics. Hence, this lowly Private has made plans to return to the Clinic under cover with a camera and and see if these fundies are as crazy as he thinks they are.

Wish me luck, comprades.

Civil Liberty and LSF have interesting articles here and here.

Stuff we should read.

Alas, fellow culture soldiers, but I have been terribly busy at the moment. Rather then fight alongside my fellows in the front trenches, I have been spirited away to the home front, to nurse elder statesmen and women in their final years.*

Unable to properly contribute my ideas to the blogosphere, I will (for today at least) direct readers (if only Reuben and Luli) to miscellaneous articles of interest.

- Ongoing racism against young Sudanese-Australians. Take a bow, Mr. Andrews.
- A scientist calls for ethics guidelines to be developed in relation to the use of robots. Good idea.
- The National Geographic examines intelligence in everyday animals, whilst Iceland debates whether to use its rivers for power, or to keep them as they are. (My opinion: keep them natural. We have other resources.)
- TIME magazine looks at Nelson Mandela, American Libertarianism, Obama's rise, global warming, capitalism, Somalia, the case for climate change, the abortion war in America, European multiculturalism, and Fiji.

That oughta keep the soldiers occupied.

*Working at a nursing home.

Abortion debate settled!

The long-awaited conclusion to this epic trilogy (parts one and two here and here) has arrived.

One problem of the abortion debate is neither conservatives nor liberals state whether they are debating opposition/support against/or abortion or abortion rights. On the surface, the two may be the same, but they are in fact two different subjects entirely. An abortion is a deliberate termination of a pregnancy, resulting in the destruction of a fetus. Abortion rights is the right for a woman to have legal access to having an abortion. Hence, someone might be personally opposed to abortion, but may still recognise and accept abortion rights. For this argument, I will focus on abortion rights.

But what is the argument against abortion rights? Namely:

Abortion is murder and therefore should be illegal. The reasons being that:

- fetus have souls and therefore are human.
- fetuses have human DNA, therefore killing them is murder.

However, each reason is fallacious. The soul argument is the easiest to debunk: namely, there is no evidence for their existence. Therefore, we can assume that until some observable evidence does develop, then souls don't exist, discounting the entire argument. Another problem is that the soul argument is theocratic and not democratic. It is theocratic because outlawing abortion based on the soul argument is to base the opposition of abortion rights on religion. If this country were Iran or Saudi Arabia, that argument might stand up. However, this Australia, a democratic country-we don't base laws on religion.

The 'human DNA' argument is also wrong, because more then DNA is required to make a human a human. Yes, the genetic code helps define us as humans and not other mammals. But if DNA were all that's needed, then my body is composed of billions of little people because my body is composed of billions of cells. A cell is not a human because billions of them are required to create a human-it's like saying that a tree is in fact a forest.

OK, we have established that killing a zygote or an early-stage foetus isn't murder (under a secular, legal perspective). However, the lines start to blur as the foetus develops into a baby, in which it is effectively a human. So at what stage can you call the flesh-sack a baby and therefore a human? Personally, I'd say that when the foetus no longer requires the mother to live, then it's a baby. It can breath, digest and perform all physiological functions on its own without any external aid (no electronics or machinery either), which is pretty much what it can do outside the womb. According to In the Womb, the foetus can live outside the mother at 26 weeks. Therefore, we can say that at 26 weeks (from a scientific point of view), the foetus has become a human and, with exceptions (such as the threat of physical or mental deformities, or birth being a threat to either the mother's or child's health), abortions post-26 weeks should be illegal.

But above all else, the reason for abortion rights is because illegalising abortion does nothing to stop it. Rather, it forces abortion underground. It happened with prohibition, it happens with illegal drugs, and every time a country illegalises abortion, they are committing genocide against women.

Bay of Fundie does a better job here.

I can has victory?

Shocking weather for the latest battle today. The weather would randomly alternate between light drizzle, no rain and epic downpour, the latter preventing General Debbie from using the microphone. However, nothing boosts morale like a rhyming slogan about abortion being decriminalised. Even better, I was able to sell plenty of charity chocolate Fredos-both on the train there and back, and at the rally. Only a few people can sell 50 chocolates within a day. I'm one of the few.

Pro-death by coathanger rammed up uterus movement shows what it really thinks.

The pro-illegal abortion movement (ironically calling themselves 'pro-life') have officially shown where they stand in the reproductive rights and health culture war.

From the Washington Post:

Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.

Reread those final two lines. Then reread the whole paragraph. The religious right is now trying to support women though economic assistance as a last resort. These people haven't seen supporting women as a priority. All they've been trying to do is ban abortion, rather then actually helping women.

The new effort is causing a fissure in the antiabortion movement, with traditional groups viewing the activists as traitors to their cause.

Totally. What were those libruls thinking-actually supporting pregnant women? What ever happened to good ol' demonisation and ostracism?

"It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned," said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. "We don't think it's really genuine. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions."

So Scheidler opposes abortion. But he also opposes programs to support pregnant women and therefore cut down on abortion. Does anybody else see some doublethink at work?

"We are not compromising our values, but at the same time we are finding a way we can all accomplish our agenda, or at least a piece of our agenda, together," said Hunter, pastor of Northland in Longwood, Fla., one of the nation's largest churches, and a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals. "There's got to be a way we can take some of these hot-button issues and cooperate, rather than simply keep fighting and becoming gridlocked in this hostility of the culture wars."

Given that you guys oppose abortion but also oppose contraception and sex education, I can't see any cooperation occuring any time soon.

A study sponsored by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good cited recent research that found that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty line is more than four times that of women above 300 percent of the poverty level. The authors of the study found that social and economic supports, such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families, have contributed significantly to reducing abortions in the United States over the past two decades.

"Clearly, poverty impacts the abortion rate," said Alexia Kelley, the group's executive director.

Well, obviously. Poor women are unable to support any children. Therefore, they destroy the few cells in the womb before those few cells become a malnourished, poorly supported child. But naturally, supporting women rather then turning them into criminals really pisses off the true Jesus-freaks.

But established abortion opponents dispute that approach. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said last week during a meeting of the conference that social-service spending is no substitute for legal protections for the unborn. He also questioned research showing that improvements in areas such as employment and health care can reduce the likelihood that a woman will want to end her pregnancy. "It's still to be proven what the connection is between poverty and abortion," he said.

Asides from what's already been proven, of course.

Those bills are largely opposed by antiabortion groups. "You don't work to limit the murder of innocent victims," said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League. "You work to stop it."

You wanna tell me what that silver bullet to stop all abortions is? There is, obviously, no such thing. No matter what happens, no what civilisation we build, abortions will always occur. However, what our society can do is reduce them and improve their safety. The only way to make an abortion safe is to legalise it; otherwise...well, we all know how much of a roaring success prohibition was. But this time, we're not playing with alcohol. We're playing with women's lives here-lives that will be cut very short if they have a failed illegal abortion (given that the alternative is prison).
The ways to reduce the needs for abortions are, to your eternal horror, sex education and contraception. Which you would never allow.

If I were as ideologically as twisted as you were, I'd wish that you'd have to suffer an illegal abortion and nearly die before being imprisoned for the crime. Thankfully for you, I'm one of the peacemakers.

Cross-posted here and here.

44th President currently meeting humble GrodsSoldier's to-do list

It seems that President-elect Obama (it's gonna be a while before I get tired of hearing that) has heeded my suggestions and has made ending the global gag rule a high priority.

From the Feministe:

I think that most of us were hoping for this already, but like Jessica I just really want to give the fact that Barack Obama is expected to swiftly overturn the Global Gag Rule its own post.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

“We have been communicating with his transition staff” almost daily, Richards said. “We expect to see a real change.”

The Global Gag Rule literally kills thousands and thousands of women every year by putting already over-stretched clinics in an impossible position. They must generally choose between either having no money to provide life-saving care, or providing care while breaking doctor-patient trust and actively doing harm by deceit. What the hell do you choose?

Different organizations have different answers, but the fact is that it shouldn’t be a question. Doctors should be able to answer their patients’ inquiries honestly. Abortion should be treated as the routine and sometimes life-saving medical procedure that it is. And women deserve quality reproductive health care, whatever their needs. No woman should die because “pro-life” organizations on another continent have a superiority complex and think their tax dollars should only go to providing care for women they deem worthy enough.

Repealing the Global Gag Rule is only a start, but it’s a huge first step towards a real culture of life — one that respects and cares for the lives of women. And it’s absolutely at the very top of my list of things President Obama can do quickly and decisvely to make the world a better place within his first hours in the Oval Office. If he intends to live up to his campaign promises to protect women’s health and show the world that we’re more than a bunch of self-absorbed ideological assholes, he absolutely must do it. And I eagerly look forward to the moment when he does, because it will not come a moment too soon.

How the Republicans can be pro-capital punishment, pro-war, pro-illegal abortions and pro-global gag rule whilst claiming any semblance of being 'pro-life' is totally beyond me.

Ultracon logic gets even worse.

Isn't it weird when you spontaneously realise something without even trying? Maybe it's just me.

Anyway, one thing I can't figure out is the idea of no sex before marriage. Specifically, how does marriage sanctify sex? Think about these contrasting examples:

1. A guy (in no relationship) goes to Vegas, gets drunk, and ends up marrying an equally drunk waitress. They have sex. In the morning, after getting over their hangovers, they divorce and go their separate ways. According to the NSBM ideal, the sex is fine because it's within marriage.
2. A youngish couple have been together for several years, and eventually decide to engage in some horizontal dancing. According to the NSBM ideal, this sex is wrong because, despite the couple's intimacy, they aren't married.
   

Somebody please tell me, how is the sex from no. 2 less 'pure' then the sex from one?* I found this, but it explain none of my above questioning (although I did drop out after the first paragraph).

Come on fundies and ultracons alike, get over it. There is nothing about marriage that makes sex more or less pure or sanctive-it's just a transparently thin cover for you lot to try and make women* guilty for experiencing sexual pleasure. And in turn this simply is a means for controlling those sex organs which you are so petrified of.

*Get ready for an EPIC rant against purity balls.

If a transluscent sack of cells in the womb dies, Jesus will cry.

Dear God. It's bad enough that the banning of aid occurs in the US-but Australia too?

Seems so:

THE Labor chairwoman of a parliamentary group on population hopes the Government will act by the end of the year to lift its ban on foreign aid being used for abortion advice and services.

Senator Claire Moore said it was important this issue be clarified before an international conference on maternal and child welfare was held early next year. "This seems to be an appropriate pressure point on the Government," she said.

Senator Moore said only Australia and the United States banned aid being used in this way in countries where abortion was legal.

Liberal MP Mal Washer, former chairman of the committee, said he suspected the Government had gone cold on removing the ban because it feared offending Family First's Steve Fielding who, as a cross-bench senator, was crucial to the Government on many occasions.

...

Dr Washer said the Government's situation with Senator Fielding appeared "very similar to the Harradine problem we had". He urged the Government to have some "sensible discussion" with Senator Fielding. A spokeswoman for Senator Fielding said the senator supported the restriction, and had spoken to Mr Smith on the issue a few months ago.

and:

Kevin Rudd should overturn the policy championed by former senator Brian Harradine of not providing foreign aid for abortion advice.

BRIAN HARRADINE, former independent senator from Tasmania, was a thorn in Labor's side for decades. Gough Whitlam in the late 1960s actually put his leadership on the line, on Harradine's side, in a party dispute involving him. Several years later, Harradine was finally expelled from the ALP, only to win a Senate spot as an independent.

...

The Howard government, in recognition of how much it would need him, agreed to a ban on Australian aid funding advice on abortion.

Now, Harradine is retired from the Senate but this legacy is causing all sorts of trouble for the Rudd Government. There is strong pressure to scrap the ban, following a recommendation to that effect from a cross-party group last year. But there's also a big push back, especially from the Catholic right in the ALP, to stop any change.

...

"Unsafe abortion is responsible for 13per cent of all maternal deaths globally - many in our region. These restrictions deny women the same access to reproductive health choices, education and services we give ourselves, even in countries when it is legal to do so. Currently if a woman is dying or injured from accessing unsafe abortion only then can she be treated or given information ... this is cruel and illogical".

Of course, that's not how the Catholic-ultracons see it.

We need human sacrifices! Preferably from Africa!

And as for Fielding...

Putting Aryan Christian Families First!

Cross-posted at An Onymous Lefty.

Latest BOW update

For better or for worse, a solid, if somewhat uneventful Battle of Wellington today. We rallied under General Debbie of the Battalion of Radical Women, firing several a few dozen rounds of rhyming slogans against the fundies in the opposing trenches (read: sidewalk across the road).

However, what was interesting was an anti-abortion poster I saw on my way to the rally. It was called 'Voices 4 voiceless' or something similar. When I saw the title, I could feel my irony meter pounding against the inside of my skull. That's probably because
Fetuses don't have voices because they have neither voiceboxes, lungs, identifiable mouth structures, brains, brain activity or anything else that makes them an actual human being and not a translucent sack of stem cells.
Thank-you anti-choice movement for giving yourselves a name that entirely proves the point of your opposing ideology.

Sorry. I needed to get that out of my system.

Women shouldn't be held hostage to a clump of stem cells.

From the Radical Women: the next Battle of Wellington at the Fertility Control Clinic, and then a pro-abortion rights protest on October 4.

Please distribute widely

The government bill to decriminalise abortion limits a woman’s right to decide to the first 24 weeks. For a post 24-week pregnancy, the decision would be in the hands of two doctors. Yet over 80% of the population wants full, unlimited abortion rights. The bill goes to the upper house on October 7. If we leave it to parliamentarians to decide -- without pressure from those they are supposed to represent -- we won’t win this. Now, more than ever, this voice has to be heard! In this critical lead-up to the final stage of parliamentary debate, here are two important actions to support. This is our one chance to get it right.

Come out to the following actions, and bring others with you!

Defend the Fertility Control Clinic

Saturday, 27 September, 10.00 am

118 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne

Rally for UNRESTRICTED access to free, safe & legal abortions

Saturday, 4 October, 1.00 pm

State Library (LaTrobe & Swanston Streets)

March to Parliament

For information about both, contact Radical Women: radicalwomen@optusnet.com.au

or Solidarity Salon: 9388 0062

Contraception debate settled!

As promised, here is the sequel to the fictionally successful Part 1 of the RH trilogy.

What are the arguments against contraception? I googled those last three words. Unfortunately, very little other then fundies' arguments came up. One in particular was hilarious, as the fundie babbles on about how beautiful life is, and god's plan for life and contraception is evil and is anti baby. I still wonder why, if God is so pro-baby, why does he allow 25% of all pregnancies to end in a miscarriage (and that's an extremely conservative estimate; the actual figure is most likely higher)?

In fact, I really can't find any non "JEEEEEEEBUUUUUUUUSSSSSS" arguments against contraception*. Which is problematic because I was hoping to find some secular arguments to counter. I tried searching AWH and various ultraconservative blogs for some arguments, but to no avail (although that may have been because I glanced at a few posts before leaving. Trawling around in an ideological sewer system is not my idea of fun). As an agnostic, I don't believe in an magical witch creature who could heal the blind before being killed then returning as a zombie before travelling up to his meet his dad in the sky. Thankfully, I've found a couple of arguments that are reasonably secular (even if they are use by fundies).

Argument 1: That contraception is disrespectful to women
The argument is that birth-control demeans women as it helps turn into, as this poster puts so eloquantly, a 'cum dumpster.' Because women are able to have sex more often without consequences (including no threat of STDs if a condom is used), they will have sex more often. As a result, men will lose respect for women, seeing them as sex objects.
As in the Washington Post:

"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.

This argument, however, is seriously flawed.
- Why are feminist groups so supportive of contraception?
- How does fulfilling your sexuality degrade it?
- How does preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs whilst still having sex inhibit "health and happiness"?
These folk have a lot to answer for. As James Joyner writes:

The ability to enjoy a healthy sex life while minimizing the risk of an unwanted pregnancy is anything but “adverse to human health and happiness;” indeed, it contributes tremendously to both. If you want to see a society that’s degrading and disrespectful to women, randomly pick one that bans or ostracizes the use of contraceptives. Women there are usually, quite literally, barefoot and pregnant, from roughly the onset of puberty until menopause. They are also virtually without power economically, legally, or politically.

The taboo against contraception remains from an culture wherein girls were married off at age 12 or 13 and had their first of a dozen or so babies (presuming they survived childbirth) a year or so later. These days, advances in health care and nutrition have sped up the onset of puberty while the move away from an agrarian economy has postponed marriage and child rearing ten, fifteen, or twenty years. In this context, the idea that people should wait until they’re married to have sex–and then only if they are trying to get pregnant–is indeed crazy.

Argument 2: It's 'anti-child.'**
In a way, this one is a bit more difficult to counter, because it's so ludicrous. How does preventing a child from being born into a family that isn't financially or emotionally capable of supporting the child being 'anti-child'? If anything, it's being 'pro-child'. These couples are only planning on raising children when they know they are capable of doing so. If they already have kids, the parents are able to place more focus on the already existing children and give them a healthy upbringing. If the parents want more children, then they know what to expect in terms of responsibilities.

Sadly, these have been more moderate arguments I've been able to find. Updates will come if I find anything new.

*If any conservatives wish to give me some secular arguments (I'm looking at you, Iain), feel free to do so.

**I'll try to find a link to this argument.

Sex education debate settled!

Here is the first post of 3 that, logically, would settle the RH debates of sex ed, contraception and abortion for all eternity. Of course, ultraconservatives have never been known for their rationality, so I think I'll spell it out to them. The series will work in the order of preventing unwanted pregnancies: first sex ed, then contraception, and finally a part me, part guest post from Bay of Fundie on abortion.

First-the debate. In in the Right* corner, there is the conservative, abstinence-only ed, which is the idea that people should remain virgins until they're married, and only then should they have sex. In the Left corner, there is comprehensive sex ed, which is just that-comprehensive. It features the ins and outs of sex, (lame pun intended) the biology, STDs, and various ways of 'safe sex' to prevent pregnancies.

Now: what are the arguments against comprehensive sex education (CSE)?

1. It will cause more young teens to experiment sexually.
- The premise for this is simple: if we teach kids (ie young teens, say early secondary school) about sex-especially if we tell them that, under the right circumstances, it's perfectly alright-then logically these kids will want to have sex. Therefore, we have more kids having sex, which will increasing STDs, increase unwanted pregnancies, etc etc.

However, this argument suffers from the fact that it is scientifically wrong. On page 8, Collins, Alagiri anf Summers write

The weight of the evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals clearly shows that some comprehensive sex education programs can reduce behavior that puts young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy, and that these programs do not promote earlier onset of sexual activity or an increased number of sexual partners among adolescents. By contrast, little if any credible research exists to substantiate the claims that abstinence-only programming leads to positive behavior change among youth.

...

Abstinence-only programming runs the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated.

Wikipedia also has information. But there you have it: CSE is more effective then then AOE at preventing pregnancies. So round 1 to the the Left.

3. It's morally degrading.
- I first saw this on Fundie Watch, where Rebecca, a spokewoman for the CWN, writes that teaching sex ed is the equivalent of saying to young people (who, more often then not ar experiencing a drop in self-esteem) “You have no self-control, and we don’t expect you to. We know you’re going to ‘do it,’ so just make sure you’re ‘safe’ when you do.”
Naturally, saying just that would probably be demoralising. Ironically, however, that's that the Right is saying: that teens have no self-control. Think about it: the whole point of abstinance education is that if you touch a guy/girl between the legs, you'll become a raging sex addict doing the nasty 20 times a day.
CSE is the opposite; it recognises that, teens, with the right knowledge, teenagers can be emotionally mature about sex and do it knowing what will happen. Besides, I still can't figure out what's so 'moral' about chasity in the first place (aside from successfully suppressing a 500 million year old instinct, which would be great if hard-Righties could also suppress that more recent instinct of hating minority groups).

So far, that's all the arguments against CSE. Certainly, there are those "IT'SAGAINSTHEBIBLE!!1!" arguments, they're so ludicrously full of sh*t and easy to counter** I don't consider them proper arguments, at least not when compared to the above ones.

Next up: the contraception debate settled!

*Yes it is inaccurate to refer to opinions on social issues as Left vs. Right when Left vs. Right is in fact about economic issues. However, most Righties and Lefties are conservatives and progressives, and Right corner and Left corner has a better ring to it.

**EG: Australia isn't a theocracy. Laws aren't made based on a book written by people who thought the

The tide is turning-and not in our favour

We had the 3rd Battle of Wellington today. For the uninitiated, each Battle features two protests; one campaigning to close the Fertility Control Clinic, (called the Helpers of God's Precious Infants, aka HOGPI) and the counter protest, led by the Radical Women. The first protest that I attended features several soldiers and officers from the GrodsMilitary, and there were dozens at the least.

Sadly, such a high turn out did not prevail for subsequent battles. During my 2nd Battle, only 11-12 people turned up, and today we were a mere 6. This wouldn't be so irritating if the anti-life/abortion protesters' numbers were also dwindling, but sadly that isn't the case:

Them:

Us:
Guess which group looks like it has popular support,and which looks like the crazed nutters?

So, to everybody reading this (I have the suspicion however that I'm the only one), here are the details:

When: Every last Saturday of the month, 10-11/12 in the morning (usually just 10-11)
Where: 118 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne
Bring: yourself, maybe a sign, and a voice box that can shout slogans for an hour.