New / Atheism, in the PT? starts here .

Archive for 'Abortion'

FAQ: "Whether God exists or not, the church is good for the world, right?"

Monday, February 22, 2010

Unfortunately, the facts suggest otherwise.

First, regarding the "church", I include here not only the Catholic church, but the Protestant churches in general (very influential in the U.S.), and the Muslim theocracies.

Second, it is important to distinguish the crimes made ​​by religion / church, or because of, or on behalf of, crimes simply made ​​by religious (or even members of these churches). In other words, do not blame Christianity for the Holocaust while Hitler was Catholic, not blame the religion or the church itself directly by pedophile Catholic priests - that there is anything in the sacred books or in the "statutes" of the church that leads to committing such crimes. But blame the church in question to give more importance to their reputation than the innocence and lives of innocent children, the law protecting pedophile priests and preventing them to be punished for their crimes, and moving them from parish to parish when their acts are discovered locally. And yes, I blame the Catholic church for having supported on various aspects of the Nazi regime.

Third, I will not include here limited to the past crimes, such as the Inquisition or the Crusades. I note only that the Catholic Church ceased to commit these atrocities has lost only when the absolute power he had, and not to have come to the conclusion that it was wrong and immoral. I think that says a lot.

Fourth, recognize that not all bad - the various churches / religions have done and are effectively acts of charity, no doubt laudable, both small and large scale. Qualify this, however, the fact that it is often more than one way to spread the faith than charity "disinterested" and, anyway, religion is far from being required to commit acts of human kindness.

Anyway, I think the balance is completely negative.

What, in human terms, the problem with religion / church today? These, to get started:

  • sexism: from the Muslim theocracies in extreme cases, where women have no access (on pain of death) to any school education, are themselves condemned if violated (often nothing happens to the rapist), are demonized as being " sexual "who" try "men (innocent, poor things) and so are subjected to the horror that is the forced genital mutilation (the idea is that if you lose completely the ability to have sexual pleasure, no longer will "seduce" men ...), and outside of Islam, all have a Western culture that says the conservative role of women is to have children and obey their husbands ... exactly as it says in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
  • opposition to condom use - including through lies, such as "increase the risk of AIDS" - causing suffering and death of millions in Africa, for example, as in many areas there is no source of information than the missionaries. Whether for religious reasons ("God hates contraceptives and / or sex for pleasure"), or by more mundane matters (to maximize the number of believers), this act of genocide is almost an unpardonable crime.
  • opposition (not limited to not do themselves, but where possible taking other rights) to abortion, gay rights (seen as a "moral evil") and euthanasia
  • opposition to sex education - paradoxically, the best way to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.
  • view of sex (perfectly natural and healthy part of what is to be human) something like "pig" and "immoral."
  • opposition - for reasons that are nothing more than superstition - the promising branches of medicine such as stem cell research , cloning of organs, etc. ..
  • wars and hatred of religious origin - not everyone in the Middle East (see Ireland, for example)
  • protection of pedophile priests, who often are simply moved from one parish to another when their actions become known, showing a total lack of concern for their victims.
  • censorship of opposition to religion, even by non-believers just because the idea that religion is above criticism (eg part of a conviction for Christians (!) and even atheists (!) the publication of cartoons Mohammed, when the only sentence should have been the Muslims who practiced violence and intimidation).
  • children traumatized by ultra-detailed descriptions of hell.
  • attitude anti-intellectualism, anti-education and anti-science (for example, the idea that faith and reason conflict, one should prefer the faith that human reason is unreliable, and so on).
  • cancellation of human curiosity, as they say / think that you have all the answers (not that they are simply "was God").
  • mentality of "living death", which says that life is suffering, not only is "the real thing," that our time in this world is just a test to determine whether or not the salvation of our "soul", that life begins in earnest after we die, causing people to accept their condition and do not try to improve the world they live.
  • violence and terror - especially in Muslim theocracies, in which the "blasphemy" ("a victimless crime," as already described) and apostasy are punishable by death, but also in countries like the U.S., where Christian terrorists blow up abortion clinics, murdering doctors who work in them, and beyond.
  • mutilation of the concept of morality to come to mean simply "obey the whims of a being" - as if this being, if it existed, was above morality.
  • non-payment of taxes, in the case of some of the richest organizations in the world and the world economy being as it is.

American and military service: "Gays and lesbians yes, not gay."

Friday, February 12, 2010

If you're thinking that the title does not make sense to give a sweet boy. :)

Gays and lesbians rather, homosexuals are not

However, this is what can be inferred from responses to a recent survey (seen here ): if the question mentions "gay and lesbian" instead of "homosexual", the acceptance rate is 44% to 58%.

The comments in the link above are also interesting. One suggests an explanation:

"Homosexuals" has the word "fri" in it. Josh, fri is bad. Unless you're married, then it's tolerable (as long as birth control is not Involved).

And another says something I've said here for more words (emphasis mine):

My comment just reminded me of something my friend said about the anti-abortion crowd. He said to me That he thought the debate was about abortion Entire Punishing people (Specifically young women) is HAVING fri. Which Explains why the focus is on outlawing abortion and not finding Ways to Reduce unwanted pregnancy.

I think it's The Same When You get into the gay marriage / don 't ask do not tell debate. Some Americans want to punish people for fri HAVING They do not understand.

Anti-Sex Education: after all, what these people want?

Monday, March 16, 2009

It condemned today the attitude, objectives and "morality" of what might be called pseudo-groups pro-life (GPPVs for short), the "pseudo" comes from the fact that they apparently only worry about life until delivery and do not have any problems with human suffering, not with the idea of ​​a "living death".

But I have an irritating tendency to always want to understand everything, including the positions of the "enemy", what causes them, and what they really want. In this case, for example, an outsider would think GPPVs because they are totally anti-abortion, would be the biggest supporters of the introduction of sex education compulsory for children! After all, this is (not the "abstinence", which is not and never was realistic), undoubtedly the most effective way as to minimize the number of abortions, by virtually eliminate the possible reasons for these. If young people know what they are doing, know how to get pregnant, and know how to avoid having sex in a really safe, no more unwanted pregnancies. Indeed, one might argue that if you can turn sex into something beautiful and healthy, instead of "nut" and a big deal, it could decrease the number of violations, driving down further the number of abortions. As I said, this must be what they want ... no?

But no. Not at all. Continue to oppose any method of contraception, including condoms as convenient; continue to say that sex has to be only within marriage and only for reproductive purposes, never for pleasure. There are even groups to oppose the use of condoms within marriage, even though one of the partners HIV positive. If this does not shock you, do not know what will hatch.

Why do they act in a seemingly contradictory to its "Stated goal"? Why is the idea of ​​people having sex for pleasure, this being seen as something healthy and natural, instead of a big deal, scares them so much? Here could set me on a psychologist say that it is cheap and by themselves have no sex life (due to the repression that had education and lack of natural charisma :) ), And certainly wanted to reduce the world to his level. That may be a factor in some cases, but I would say the main reasons are the ones I mentioned at the end of my last post , control, and creating a hell on earth.

In "The Name of the Rose", the villain opposed the release of a book of Aristotle on comedy because it legitimacy, and laugh away the fear. Without fear, he said, people do not need God (and I add: ... do not need religion or the Church). It was therefore important to keep people in fear, and if it meant to stifle the truth in order to maintain ignorance, or even cause the death of innocent people (as he does), so be it. Here is something similar. Happy people have found themselves less for religion than unhappy people, hence the three monotheisms oppose both the pleasure and psychologically healthy ways of living. This is not in their interest. The frustration, that is. The suffering. The repression of our natural instincts. The lack of hope for life on Earth, transferring all this hope for a supposed life after death. The fear. The ignorance.

And of course there is the issue of control. Much of the control of religion has on people's control - through, in large part to the demonization - of sexuality. It already has thousands of years, after all, why is the God of the Bible seems to be so obsessed with our genitals ? Because, to turn something that is naturally part of the human being in a "sin" horrible, dirty and ugly, it creates guilt and fear in people, and nothing makes a person control as malleable as guilt and fear.

The stupidity and immorality of the "pro-life"

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Cectic - "Loaded Guns" Source: Cectic

Via Passion , this article on Public able to induce vomiting by irrationality and, yes, immorality of the group described. Because what is immoral is not sex education, not sex itself, but the attempt to perpetuate ignorance and have no problems with the suffering caused.

For example:

The Catholic movement Portugal Pro-Life lessons do not want mandatory sex education in Portuguese schools, said President Luiz Botelho Ribeiro. "The obligation of the students attend classes in sex education is anti-democratic and very dangerous for the Portuguese society," said the same source.

And also:

Against abortion, the movement takes on a new "struggle" against the existence of sex education in schools and against the mandatory frequency.

But even worse,

"The ideas and teachings that will be transmitted to students will make, in a few years, we have a generation of Portuguese for whom nothing is forbidden neither moral nor ethical", said Luís Botelho Ribeiro.

And of course,

"In sex education manuals that already we have seen only talk about sex."

Sorry if I offend anyone (although those who resent it well deserves it), but this is disgusting. On the one hand are absolutely against abortion, but on the other hand are also against all the alternatives to it: contraception, responsible sex, or even know yourself what you are doing. And of course, continue to equate to a puritanical morality retrograde, anti-pleasure and anti-life (since "life" is not only a heart to pump blood). It is not clear what is really the aim of these people, though, if I tried to guess, which is mainly control. Or, maybe, do not you think that Hell is fictional they believe enough, and want to recreate it on Earth.

Abortion: Revenge Part II

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

(Hey, I've seen worse titles!)

Note: The following is adapted and expanded a little comment I made ​​in a blog of Mario Lopez . Much of what follows has been said in other posts recently here, but not exactly in these words ... and not everything is repeated.

Also, try to answer finally the question of Samuel: "What is a human being? When does a fetus become a human being? ", Although the post-comment-turned, in general, was not written to answer this question, but that the post of Mario Lopez. Hence it is expanded, and not copied. :)

Without Further ado ...

(More ...)

More abortion ... now, other opinions

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

For my part, I do not think I will add more to the issue. I've been insulted to have my opinion, to have thought of it, and be sure of it, when today is considered "arrogant" to have an OPINION based on strong thought; only accepts a strong opinion based on emotions. Or authority, or religion, or ... Bah.

Anyway, if anyone wants to comment on my previous posts, and for a change, want to respond to what I wrote (instead of just saying "I am very aggressive") as will be appreciated.

In this post, I will just mention what others have said (outside this blog) on ​​this issue.

First, post a girlfriend named The voluntary interruption of pregnancy ... . It's a bit more detailed than mine, and I think it shows well the two sides of the issue. Go, read and comment. :) Includes arguments like this:

For those unaware, until 10 weeks many women do not have a confirmed pregnancy and have a miscarriage without knowing they were pregnant. The body itself is in charge of "cast" fetuses with severe problems, is part of "natural selection" Darwin, the non-survival of the weak, unviable.

Thus, according to the morality of "no's" (which confuse a human with a cluster of cells is a potential human being), almost all women with sexual life are "mass murderers" and not know it ...

Then I want to show a post I think is totally ridiculous. It comes from an American party, "America First Party" which is basically more Republican than the Republicans. The post is called ... wait for it ... Abortion Leads to Nuclear War . Yes, it seems that Mother Teresa (which may have been many things, but it was not, of course, an intelligent person or culture - or so it was very deceitful, for surely great nonsense saying) said something like that, and the fanatics from around the world take it. So, you know - do not want to see huge mushrooms on the horizon, do not abort. Oh, and ...

It is abhorrent That abortion supporters choose to hide behind the term 'choice' to mask Destroying Their goal of unborn children and immoral behavior without Promoting Responsibility

Destroying children! What a horror! What kind of cruel and inhuman monster would want to ever do such a heinous act? : Shock:

Of course, things are not so. I suggest you leave this alternative ... to be irrational and distorted a cluster of emotions, and be human: think a little. Like this post in response to the earlier statement, he says,

Nuclear bombs have Been used once in war, and I seriously doubt the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki HAD to anything with the abortion, Considering It Was not legally in the U.S. in 1945.

And in response to the idiocy of "destroying children" quoted above,

Let me tell you right now, no one Wants to destroy children. It's Just That Sometimes an abortion is the only option to have the mother keep May from ruining her life or the lives of her future children. Life is not always simple or fair. That's the way it is. I Wish We Could all live in a dream world of magic, but we do not, and Trying to legislate it into reality will not make it so.

It would not have said it better.


Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal
This work by Dehumanizer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Portugal .