http://jezebel.com/super-cool-dad-defends-daughters-keep-jesus-out-of-my-817807752
Well, on face value I'm happy with the sign. But there are some deeper issues at hand also. The crazies who called her vulgar names acted inappropriately. The people who advocate for *no abortions* are largely motivated by, what is essentially in my view, conservative religion warping otherwise normal built in human morality. Their religion forces them to take their moral views to the extreme.
Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so religious views can be "natural." So, if it's possible to take a middle view on abortion, can we state that, yes, before viability, women should have a right to choose? Can we also say that abortion should be discouraged, but nevertheless available? Can we also say that post-viability it's ok to have it banned?
Everyone draws the line somewhere. Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger may well dray the line at, or even shortly after birth. I think their views are/were wacky and immoral, speaking as an atheist/humanist/naturalist & Enlightenment-advocate myself.
The zero-tolerance for abortion people who view all abortion as murder are also wrong.
It's also wrong to assume that all anti-abortion views just come from religion, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
So, I'm just saying there is a more middle & moderate & reasonable ground here which really isn't addressed by the media all that often.
Yes, in my view, a view I advocate for, women do have a right to choose before viability. Yes, abortion should be discouraged but available. Yes, we should value life.
Related post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
BBC is talking about it as well:
https://www.facebook.com/worldhaveyoursay
