Is Rape God's Plan?
I was reading about Pataki vetoing a bill to make RU486 available behind the counter without a perscription, (his rationale was that such a drug should not be available to minors without parental consent.) The allegation being made by the pro-choice people is that Pataki, historically very pro-choice, just vetoed this to start his presidential bid rolling by catering to the religious right.
So, the question becomes, why is the religious right, or at least certain sects of protestant christianity in America, absolutist pro-life? Their rationale is that god creates every life, therefore it is not our place to interfere. Taking this logic to its extreme, absolutist anti-abortion christains, and by extension, foes of RU486, are taking the stance that rape is part of god's plan. But what about systematic rape where the goal is to destroy a sect or race such as in the wars of Darfur, former Yugoslavia, and the Congo? Is that part of god's plan?
And by logical extension, should man be interfering in the spread of disease. If it's god's plan for meningitis to kill hundreds of school children aren't we working against god in distributing anti-biotics? Should they be banned?
But if we can interfere in disease, and prolong life(Schiavo) to alter god's plan, then why the logical disconnect on abortion? What is the psychology of this argument on an individual level? Is it some manifestation of a fear of dying? Is it something to do with heaven/hell? I'm not a religious person at all, so I have no real framework to analyze this.
Separately, but related, why are there no significant non-religious/a-religious anti-abortion groups? I'm not talking about the scientific arguments that these religious group use, I'm talking about the lack of any substantial non-religious organized opposition to abortion. Seemingly all opposition, all this pressure to upend Roe v. Wade, and ban RU486, and the whole lot is coming solely from a relatively small section of the religious/non-religious spectrum. It's just curious.
Now, I don't want to get into the science, I know the science and that's not what this is about. I'm just trying to explore the arguments.
I would appreciate comments on this one, because I really don't get it. To comment, just click on the light blue comments at the bottom of this entry. The blogger comment only allows a short space, so feel free to post an answer over several entries, they are displayed chronologically, so it should read fine. And if you know someone who doesn't read this who can help me out, please email this entry to them, either with the little envelope or just cut and paste this into an email, so they can respond.
I just don't get it, and I'm looking for help.
So, the question becomes, why is the religious right, or at least certain sects of protestant christianity in America, absolutist pro-life? Their rationale is that god creates every life, therefore it is not our place to interfere. Taking this logic to its extreme, absolutist anti-abortion christains, and by extension, foes of RU486, are taking the stance that rape is part of god's plan. But what about systematic rape where the goal is to destroy a sect or race such as in the wars of Darfur, former Yugoslavia, and the Congo? Is that part of god's plan?
And by logical extension, should man be interfering in the spread of disease. If it's god's plan for meningitis to kill hundreds of school children aren't we working against god in distributing anti-biotics? Should they be banned?
But if we can interfere in disease, and prolong life(Schiavo) to alter god's plan, then why the logical disconnect on abortion? What is the psychology of this argument on an individual level? Is it some manifestation of a fear of dying? Is it something to do with heaven/hell? I'm not a religious person at all, so I have no real framework to analyze this.
Separately, but related, why are there no significant non-religious/a-religious anti-abortion groups? I'm not talking about the scientific arguments that these religious group use, I'm talking about the lack of any substantial non-religious organized opposition to abortion. Seemingly all opposition, all this pressure to upend Roe v. Wade, and ban RU486, and the whole lot is coming solely from a relatively small section of the religious/non-religious spectrum. It's just curious.
Now, I don't want to get into the science, I know the science and that's not what this is about. I'm just trying to explore the arguments.
I would appreciate comments on this one, because I really don't get it. To comment, just click on the light blue comments at the bottom of this entry. The blogger comment only allows a short space, so feel free to post an answer over several entries, they are displayed chronologically, so it should read fine. And if you know someone who doesn't read this who can help me out, please email this entry to them, either with the little envelope or just cut and paste this into an email, so they can respond.
I just don't get it, and I'm looking for help.
posted by mikevotes at
10:12 AM
1 Comments:
If you adhere to the view that humanity developed religion to help cope with what, historically, were terrible times of rampant disease, short life expectancy, brutal infant mortality rates, etc., then the answer is easy. Religion's original purpose, therefore, was/is to serve and comfort us. If this is true, why would those who "believe" not bend it to comfort themselves in whatever ways they choose? Logic is immaterial, and personal, close-to-home relevance (i.e. vs. what happens in Africa) always takes precedence in matters of comfort. Many pro-lifers suddenly change their situational view on pregnancy termination when their own daughter is raped. Again, personal comfort. As to pro-choice -- there was great organization (i.e. N.O.W.). People are less likely to perceive a threat than a reality. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, organization will return. Just like we failed to "organize" against terrorism until after 9/11.
Wild Bill
By
Anonymous, at 6:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home