Super Cool Dad Defends Daughter's ‘Keep Jesus Out of My Vagina’ Poster
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