Tag Archives: abortion

Are There “Leftist” Ideas That Are Worthwhile?

I find a lot of weird things over on Minds.  First, I found an article that was criticizing the ideas they found in a YouTube video, made by a friend as I understand it, so I read the article and watched the video and hey, might as well take this on.  The original video was entitled “Which ideas from the left are worth taking on board?”  I’ll link to the video below.  So as I said, I watched it and disagreed with a lot of what was said, but I also disagreed with some of the things that the Minds article writer said, so as usual, I’ll just piss everyone off.  So let’s look at the four points and see where I stand on all of them.

1. Ideology.

This one is questionable because I really don’t agree that “ideology” is valuable in any meaningful way.  Your ideology is only important to me insofar as it corresponds to objectively demonstrable reality.  If it doesn’t, your ideology, like your religion, is idiotic and I couldn’t care less about it.  And this is really where we have problems on both the political left and the political right because I’ve found that the farther you go to the extremes, the less realistic these viewpoints are, the more emotionally-biased and irrationally-dogmatic they tend to be.  When your beliefs become irrational, your position becomes untenable as far as I’m concerned.  I don’t care how you feel, I care what you can prove.  And here, I agree with the article writer who defines ideologies as “an intellectual system of ideas or rigid abstract formulas mixed with scientific jargon and some empirical facts that claims knowledge about reaching perfection in the temporal order.”  I think a lot of that goes too far, as most ideologies I see are just emotional positions, based on wishful thinking, and accepted over demonstrable fact.  That’s where so many ideologies simply go wrong.  Always have, always will.

2. Gender Identity is a Social Construct

Now here, I think the video-maker is an idiot.  Gender identity is not a social construct, any more than species-identity is. Some furries might disagree with me but I think they’re emotional imbeciles too.  You cannot change reality because reality makes you feel bad.  It doesn’t work that way.  You are born male or female, or on extremely rare instances, both.  The last category is most often surgically corrected just after birth.  But your genes determine what you are.  They might not determine how you feel, but fuck how you feel.  Your emotions don’t determine reality.  I couldn’t care less about your emotional state.  Come to grips with reality and stop pretending that deciding to be male on odd-number days and female on even-number days is even an option.  It is not.  Time for a lot of people to grow the hell up.



3.  Homosexuality is fine and so is gay marriage

That’s two things I completely agree with.  First off, whether homosexuality is “fine” or not is irrelevant.  Homosexuals exist.  Welcome to the real world. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if  you like that gay people exist, they still exist, they have always existed and will always exist.  Time to grow up and deal with the real world.  Because they exist, what difference does it make if we let them voluntarily engage in legal marriage?  How does it demonstrably harm anyone if they do?  And no, I don’t mean your emotional discomfort which come from your delusional beliefs, I mean where is the objectively verifiable evidence that gay people being married produces any harm to anyone?  Because if such evidence exists, I certainly haven’t seen it and nobody on the anti-gay side has even tried to produce it.  I must therefore assume it simply doesn’t exist.  But our article-writer insists that somehow, being gay is wrong, again with no evidence and that equality across the board is somehow wrong, with nothing to back it up.  And honestly, I don’t  care if we can prove the existence of a gay gene or not.  What difference does it make?  People who identify as gay, whether they can prove it or not, have the same rights as everyone else, right?  So if a non-gay person can choose to marry some of the opposite gender, why can a gay person not choose to marry someone of the same gender?  Where is the demonstrable harm?  It isn’t like they’re trying to force the religiously delusional to marry them, I would oppose that, even though I think the religiously delusional are idiots.  But we’re talking about secular marriage.  I guess some people just want to feel special.  I think they’re idiots.

4. Abortion is fine

This is one I don’t get at all and recently, I’ve been asking a lot of right-wingers why this is a problem.  Give me one non-religious, non-emotional reason why abortion is a problem.  Go ahead.  But none of them can produce anything.  It’s always an emotional answer because they have nothing else.  Now I’d personally prefer, as a conservative, if people didn’t choose abortion, if they were responsible before pregnancy and thereafter dealt with the consequences of their actions.  That would be the way to go in a perfect world, but we all know this isn’t a perfect world and people are, unfortunately, irresponsible.  To be perfectly honest, most of the people who would have an abortion are probably not people who I would want to be parents in the first place.  We’re better off without having the irrational and irresponsible breed.  Therefore, I’m fine with abortion because I don’t think humans are magical or special or anything like that.  But the guy who wrote the article sure seems to.  He thinks humanity is sacred.  I think he’s nuts.  And before anyone suggests adoption, we have thousands and thousands of kids just in the U.S. alone that will never be adopted.  The idea of throwing hundreds of thousands of unwanted children into the mix is not only insane but utterly reprehensible.  I’d much rather have them never exist at all than exist in a life of suffering and unhappiness.  But then again, I don’t think human life is special.  I’m not religiously or emotionally delusional.  Some people unfortunately seem to be.

In the end, I think all of these ideas are neutral, it only matters how you define things and how those things correspond with reality.  As I said, the farther to the extremes you get, the less anything they hold to be true can be defended intellectually or objectively.  They get more and more delusional and less and less able to recognize the inherent delusions in their midst.  Are there good “leftist” ideas?  I don’t know.  Most of the positions that I agree with that are typically on the left, I agree with them for entirely conservative reasons.  No emotion required.  It’s every bit as important to have good reasons to support an idea than it is to have an idea to support in the first place.  I find that I emphatically disagree with the reasons most liberals hold their positions, even if their positions are defensible in other ways.  But I feel the same way about the far right because their ideals aren’t held rationally either, even if they can be defended intellectually.  So people like me, we’re just screwed in the end. Everyone hates us because we reject the emotional and expect people to be intelligent.  Too bad that so rarely happens.

Is a Fetus Human?

I usually don’t engage in abortion debates because I find them to be horribly overly-emotional affairs, with people on both sides wailing and gnashing their teeth and nothing ever getting intellectually resolved.  Debating abortion with theists is usually about as pointless as debating religion because they are psychologically incapable of changing their minds, or even considering any arguments presented. Unfortunately, the same is often true of the opposing side, who hold what can only be described as a quasi-religious belief in the sanctity of the mother and her right to do whatever the hell she wants with her body.  Again, you can’t win, so there’s no reason to even fight.

But this question comes up time and time again, like it’s some kind of magic bullet from the anti-abortion side.  The fetus is genetically human, thus somehow special!

Okay, the fetus is genetically human.  So the hell what?  Your fingernails are genetically human, does that mean you can’t cut them?  Your appendix is genetically human, does that mean we can’t remove it?  Being genetically human isn’t special.  It doesn’t magically confer rights, nor should it.  It doesn’t even make any sense to say “because you have this particular genetic makeup, you’re better than things that don’t.”

Besides, that’s not how rights work.  Rights are granted by society.  Now you’re welcome to think that something ought to have rights, that’s certainly your prerogative, but unless the society in which you live has actually decided that a particular right exists, it doesn’t exist and no amount of philosophizing can make that right spring into existence.  In America, you’d have to convince the majority of Americans to grant said rights and guess what?  That’s not what a majority of Americans want.  I mean, we don’t even apply that standard to living humans.  Those in a persistent vegetative state can be taken off of life support by their families, we don’t declare “but they’re human!” and force their bodies to go on and on indefinitely, do we?

I still find it funny that the very same people who whine about abortion are the same people who don’t want to actually help those fetuses once they’re born.  They don’t want to fund programs that would help the poor, the people actually having the majority of abortions, to pay for these children.  But these anti-abortion nuts don’t even want to talk about the poor, they want to talk about some boogieman that has abortions for fun, or because being pregnant is inconvenient.  While those cases certainly happen, it’s a tiny minority, and I’ll be honest, those are people I simply do not want being parents to begin with. They are too irresponsible to ever be trusted to care for children and raise them to be productive members of society.

Ultimately, these are not rational arguments but emotional ones, proposed by people who have never bothered to logically think through the potential consequences of their desires.  They want what they want and don’t care what they have to say or do to get it.  They are unwilling to acknowledge that society has taken a contrary view, or even recognize that society has the right to do so.  It doesn’t matter if a fetus is human.  It matters if it is a protected human and currently, that isn’t the case.  Anti-abortionists are welcome to campaign for society to change, but until it does, and certainly it doesn’t look like that will be the case any time soon, they have to accept that they are on the losing side.  I know they won’t because they can’t, but that’s how rational, intellectual human beings would act.  Too bad there aren’t very many of them on that side.

I Hate Debating Abortion

This is one of those subjects that I mostly gave up talking about online a long time ago, mostly because you’re never going to convince anyone of anything because everyone, on every side, has a wholly emotional take on the subject matter.  You have the people on the right who can’t discuss abortion without bringing up God 147 times a minute and condemning people to hell and you have the people on the left who can’t enter the discussion without calling their detractors misogynists and rape apologists. It quickly turns into a giant clusterfuck because no one can step back and talk about the issue rationally.  In that, it’s very much like talking about creationism.  The religious are emotionally invested in their position and whether or not their position is reasonable or true, they’re going to fight to the bitter end.

But recently, I got involved in a discussion, more by accident than by design, with an atheist who believed that society would come to reject abortion for undefined moral reasons.  I wrote about that here.  However, after that ended, more people leapt in and I was forced admit that, no, I don’t think abortion is the greatest thing since sliced cheese.  In fact, I’d much prefer if abortion was extremely rare.  In that, I agree with my atheist compatriot that abortion ought to go away, I just disagree with his methods and ideology.  Where I disagree with abortion comes from people who get them because of irresponsibility, not from necessity.  We’ll always have abortions because of rape and incest.  We’ll always have abortions because giving birth will kill the mother.  We’ll always have abortions because of fetal deformity.  I have no problem with any of those things.  Where I have problems are with people who act irresponsibly and then want to have an abortion to get out of a tight situation.  You know, people who don’t consider the possible ramifications of their actions, who get pregnant out of wedlock and when the father just takes off because they have no real commitment to the relationship, off to the doctor they go.

In particular, we were talking about sex education for teenagers and my opponent started arguing something that I’ve really discussed several times before, the idea that stupid people are stupid and therefore we shouldn’t bother trying to change anything stupid people do.  I entirely disagree with this position.  I don’t think we should accept that stupid people are going to be stupid and just throw up our hands.  I don’t think that we can accept that teenagers are going to be idiots and have sex anyhow and therefore we should just hand out condoms by the handful and whatever happens, happens.  I think there’s a better path to chart between the far-right “abstinence only because God will get you” bullcrap and the far-left “go have fun, don’t worry, you won’t be held responsible” positions we see most often.  But of course, this means we have to start teaching kids to be responsible early on, that we need to have kids that can handle the truth and deal with the actual facts and make responsible choices.  Both the left and the right think that’s impossible.  I disagree.

I think we should be teaching our kids the actual truth about sex and the dangers thereof.  There is no such thing as safe sex outside of abstinence or a committed, long-term, mutually exclusive relationship.  There can be safer sex, but not safe sex. You can never know for sure if your partner is disease free.  You can never know for sure if birth control, outside of permanent sterilization, is going to work.  You run a risk regardless.  Make those risks known.  Don’t throw around ridiculous religious claims, keep it realistic.  God has nothing to do with it, sin has nothing to do with it, the very real risk of getting pregnant out of wedlock and ruining your life has everything to do with it.  The very real risk of getting a disease that is incurable and perhaps fatal has everything to do with it.  The question has to be, do you want to risk ending your life, physically or financially, at a young age because you couldn’t keep it in your pants.  For lots of people, even people who are not religious, that answer is yes, not because of threats, but because they stopped to think about it and had a social group which supported that kind of decision.

But, of course, I’ll never get anyone to agree with me because they’ve all been indoctrinated, either into the right wing religious bullshit or the left wing irresponsibility bullshit.  I guess that’s something that I’ve come to expect from pretty much everything.

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #2.8

Bitchspot Report New Icon 500x276

Zombie Hitler!

This week, the guys, with special guest Christian Kemp from the IAmAnAtheist blog, take on abortion stupidity in Ohio, racist nonsense from Pastor Manning, go after the Duggars and the Quiverful movement, look at a Hitler fan in South Africa and revisit the re-opening of relations with Cuba.  Then we take some time to talk about secularism and the misrepresentation and outright lies of the religious.
Go listen.  Come on, you know you want to!

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #2.7

Bitchspot Report New Icon 500x276

Think Stupid, Think Subway

This week, idiot of the week Sierra McCurdy shows why you shouldn’t  be a moron in your work shirt, we take a look at the latest Pew survey on religion that shows a continual decline in religiosity in America, dinosaur faces on chickens, Texas trying to force women to bear dead fetuses and the recent election in England and what this spells for free speech.  Hate to say we told you so but we told you so.
And now we’re telling you to go listen to the show!

Same-Sex Marriage Causes Abortion?

how-is-my-marriage-affecting-youSometimes you wonder if the religious can get any more bat-shit insane and then they have to go and prove that yes, yes they can.  According to Gene Schaerr, a lawyer on the unsuccessful legal team that argued against Utah’s same-sex marriage laws, that legalizing gay marriage will have the effect of producing even more abortions.

Uh… what?

According to Schaerr, “On the surface, abortion and same-sex marriage may seem unrelated”.  Yes, just like religion and common sense are unrelated, but please continue.  He goes on to say that “the two are closely linked in a short and simple causal chain.”  Oh, do tell.  This ought to be good.

He argues that allowing gay marriage somehow devalues marriage, thus causing fewer women to get married.  As such, he says that “nearly 900,000 more children of the next generation would be aborted as a result of their mothers never marrying. This is equal to the entire population of the cities of Sacramento and Atlanta combined.”

Wait, is he fucking kidding?  Please tell me nobody can be that stupid.  Oh wait, he’s a lawyer, of course he can.

Where does he get any of these ideas?  Why does he think that  legalizing gay marriage has any effect whatsoever on the number of heterosexual couples that get married?  Where is his data?  We know he has none, he even admits it. This is all a load of made-up bullshit, vomited out in desperation before the Supremes make their ruling.  Let’s look at this logically, even though we know Schaerr has never done so.  If we’re talking about women who are going to get pregnant out of wedlock in the first place, why should we they’d care about getting married at all?  More likely, according to the religious, they wouldn’t be good Christians to begin with and thus, the legalization of gay marriage really wouldn’t matter to them one way or the other. No more of these women would get abortions because of gay marriage than they would without it.  Whether or not it was legal would be no factor at all.  This is, as expected, a totally empty argument.

But it gets worse.  In debating this story, a bunch of religious whack-a-loons started claiming that gay marriage, in and of itself, would produce a higher number of abortions coming from… get this… gay people!  I guess they don’t really understand homosexuality or how babies are made because two people of the same gender cannot, by definition, become pregnant.  Where is the logic in this belief?  Oh yeah… religion.

Two gay men getting married simply cannot create a pregnancy, thus they are totally out of the running for an abortion.  Two lesbians can certainly get pregnant through artificial insemination, but this isn’t going to be an accidental or unwanted pregnancy.  Few, if any of them would end in abortion, so where does this crazy train end?

At the end of the day, these are religious crazies getting desperate, now that the Supreme Court is going to finally make a decision on gay marriage and it looks like the only choice is to make it legal across all 50 states whether the states want it or not.  I will be very, very surprised if they do anything else and even if they do, 35 states have already legalized it and it’s just a matter of time until the remaining 15 do as well.  Even if some ridiculous backwards religious state refuses, they are still bound under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to recognize marriages performed in other states.  All gay residents have to do is cross the border, get married and come back.  It doesn’t matter what it says in their state Constitutions, the federal Constitution overrides them all. This has been decided back in the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia decision.

Where these religious asshats get these bizarre ideas is entirely beyond me.  I’m guessing they really take this stuff seriously, but then again, they take an imaginary friend in the sky seriously, so there’s already something seriously suspect about their rational faculties.  In any case, it’s just a few months until, hopefully, we’ll hear millions of voices cry out in religious terror and be suddenly silenced.  It couldn’t happen to a worse group of people.

Timing the Abortion Discussion

man-woman-yellingThe more time I spend in an abortion forum, the more I’m reminded why I don’t spend much time in abortion forums.  The place is just horrifically stupid and the people are just screaming at each other. Case in point, there are a bunch of fundamentalist Christian guys in the forum complaining that their wives just might decide to abort their unborn children and they can’t do a damn thing about it.  Well guess what, brain-trust, are you telling me that you’ve gone through this entire relationship, gotten married and never once had a discussion what would happen in this particular situation?  Really?

See, my wife and I had this discussion long before we got married, long before we were ever sexually active.  We decided that, even though we’re both adamantly pro-choice in our viewpoints, if an unwanted pregnancy ever occurred, we’d take responsibility for our actions and have the baby anyhow. Then, we were very careful because we knew that the decision had already been made, the discussion had already been held and we knew the expectations long before we might have had to deal with them.  Luckily for us, we never had an unwanted pregnancy, both of our kids were planned and wanted at the time we had them.

So what is wrong with these people that they never bother to have that talk?  Oh, we all know that these evangelical Christian men think their wives are slaves who will do whatever they want because they’re the man, yadda yadda yadda. These people are totally out of touch with the modern world, but if you want to know who is responsible for these little miscommunications, they need to look in the mirror, it’s almost always their own fault.  Granted, it is unlikely that these women, who are probably just as religious as their husband, would ever disrespect his wishes because they’ve been indoctrinated that way and these men are just trying to use this trumped up excuse as a ridiculous talking point against abortion, just like they say “my wife just might decide to be a lesbian, therefore homosexuality is wrong!”  They don’t get how this works.

Again, I’m left shaking my head at the utter stupidity of the anti-abortion side.  True, most on the pro-choice side are just as ridiculous but at least most of them don’t believe they have an imaginary friend in the sky telling them what to do and think and believe.  Their insanity is more politically based, not religiously based. It doesn’t make the arguments any better, just more grounded in reality.

And so, back to watching the insanity and the screaming and the ridiculous claims that anyone with half a clue could see right through.  Why don’t these people?  Oh yeah… half a clue… got it.

Endless Emotional Reactions on Abortion

Says the guy whose church supports and defends child molesters.
Says the guy whose church supports and defends child molesters.

It bothers me a bit that so many people are totally unable to set aside their base emotional reactions and actually deal with arguments intelligently.  Quite often, I see this from the liberal side, as I did today on quite a few different claims, where they just reacted, wholly without reason, because they really had no answers to what was being asked of them.  Then I made a mistake and wandered, quite innocently, into the abortion forum to make a single and quite simple statement and I got immediately attacked for it.

Someone had posted that a million fetuses (that’s not the word they used) were killed via abortion per year in the United States.  I said, quite accurately, that in 2012, more than 56 million people died worldwide.  So what if a million fetuses were among them?  It is an honest question and one that anti-abortionists are completely able to parse because they can’t move beyond their foolish “what about the children” rhetoric.  People die every day, often from natural causes, often from disaster, sometimes from human-caused violence.  In the U.S., 37 people, on average, are killed by lightning every year.  What makes  those lives any less valuable than an aborted fetus?  After all, we don’t see these “pro-life” people campaigning to save the electrocuted.

But yeah, the shit hit the fan and I found myself in the middle of a shitstorm because I dared to suggest that all fetuses aren’t that important.  Well, they’re not.  Let’s be honest here, between 25-35% of all pregnancies end in miscarriages, we don’t see the “pro-life” crowd running around whining about those fetuses, do we?  It’s not even a concern because they’re natural occurrences.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus at all and are simply flushed from the system, but there is no outrage from the “pro-life” crowd whatsoever.  That means that if they believe in God and are at all honest, then God is the biggest abortionist in history.  Yet bring up that nugget of joy and they run around like someone raped their chihuahua.  There is something wrong with these people.

That’s really why I don’t bother with abortion debates often, usually neither side has the capacity to be at all rational.  You have the rabid, insane anti-abortionists and the rabid, insane hyper-feminists screaming at each other and there’s no point to being involved.  You can’t reason with either side and posting something rational just gets you attacked by both of them.  The simple fact is, there are over 7 billion people infesting this planet today and losing a couple million of them a year to abortion isn’t a big deal.  In fact, if half the population of the planet dropped dead tomorrow, I wouldn’t shed a tear, most people are totally useless sacks of shit in human skin.  We could stand to lose a sizable percentage of them.  Why would I cry about a bunch of fetuses that will almost certainly not amount to anything?  It makes no rational sense to me.

In any case, I might watch the antics in the abortion forum for a little bit, just to have something to shake my head at.  Granted, I don’t need any more things to be frustrated at their stupidity, but hey, when the opportunity presents itself, I might as well.

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #75

Bitchspot Report New Icon

Joined once again by returning guest Charles, we look at stupidity in Utah, a learning center who doesn’t know what a “homophone” is but is sure it’s part of the gay agenda.  We shake our heads at Kentucky, who once again offers Ken Ham’s Ark Encounter tax money.  The courts slap down Alabama for trying to restrict access to abortion and a Million Moms are outraged at Black Jesus, a new show on Cartoon Network.  Then we revisit the Hobby Lobby decision in light of the new Satanist Church claim.  Of course, we go totally off the rails and spend a lot of time talking about American politics.  Here we go again.

All comments on the podcast, please visit the podcast page at the link provided above!

The Bitchspot Report Podcast #51

Bitchspot Report New Icon

Wow, there’s some really bad audio this week, which is too bad because we have a lot of important stuff to talk about.  Bear with us as the Devil messes with Mike’s recording setup as we complain about Vicky Hartzler and he claims that abortions stop a man’s fundamental right to be a father, we cheer over the Texas Board of Education returning to sanity and demanding actual science in science textbooks, we argue for equality in a Canadian debacle over religious law students and yet another Catholic Diocese files for bankruptcy to get out of paying it’s just dues to more than 350 sex abuse victims.  Oh, and we address a complaint from last week’s show that we shouldn’t ever argue for violence, even against those who are being violent to others.  We try anyhow, just listen to the show, you’ll see what I mean.

Examining Ten Universal Principles

Fr SpitzerThere was a theist on Twitter who was demanding that theists watch this 2 1/2 hour video by Father Robert Spitzer, claiming it would convince us all that God was real.  Um… no.  Not going to happen.  However, that doesn’t mean Spitzer might not have something worth listening to so I selected another of his videos, this one an hour long, that I will deconstruct and see if he has anything worth saying.  Of course, if you want to sit through the original 2 1/2 hour video and give a report for the class, you’ve got more patience than I do, Gunga Din.

Now to begin with, this isn’t my first time hearing about Spitzer, I may have even read a couple of things that he’s written but for the life of me I can’t tell you what it might have been, it was that forgettable.  However, this is the first time watching him speak and, sad to say, he’s not the greatest public speaker in the world.  I’m not either, I admit that, but considering how hard the theist above pushed his stuff, I thought he’d be more erudite.  As I’ve watched his video, called Ten Universal Principles, I’ve made some notes and I’ll go back and clean things up, but in general, as you’re watching the video, things happen in this order.  Unfortunately, Spitzer never lays out these ten principles in any organized format, he says he’ll talk about things later and many times, never does.  Organization is not his strong suit.  Please note that while the original video suggested dealt with his claims that God is real, this is not about that subject.  I have found another, much shorter, video that I will be addressing in the future.  If he can’t make his points that God is real in a half-hour, why should I watch him stumble around for 2 1/2 hours trying to do it? So let’s begin.

He immediately fails by asserting “natural rights”, something I’ve spoken about many times in the past. No such thing, sorry.  And you’re not on videotape either.  Join 2012, which is when this video was made.  However, I will address his specific claims and debunk them along the way.

This is generally a “pro-life” video although he’s throwing libertarianism and religion into it as well.  That’s okay, I haven’t addressed abortion very much recently anyhow.  I find it funny that his anti-abortion position is generally supported only by the argument from personal incredulity, that he cannot understand how anyone could not adopt his position because he doesn’t understand any other way to look at it.  He also asserts that everything is a conspiracy, that it’s designed to “get” him and his followers.  He also falls for a fallacy that I’ve come to call the “good old days” fallacy, where he clings tenaciously to something that was true in the past as a means of claiming it must still be true today.  Now I’m a conservative, but there are conservatives and there are fanatics and I think he falls into the fanatical category.  He’s so enamored with the Founding Fathers and what they wanted that it borders on hero worship.  He desperately wants what they said to be true forever and it’s not necessarily so.  There are plenty of things that they thought, just a few hundred years ago, that are simply absurd by today’s standards.  Most of his arguments are based around his modern-day theology and the things that he simply wishes were true, therefore he quotes from people in the past who also thought they were true as his justification for believing that it actually is true.  That’s fallacious on the face of it.

He starts to talk about objective truth, again a subject I’ve addressed in the past, and starts asserting that the most “truthful” opinion ought to win the day.  Of course, he’s a Catholic priest and Christianity in general has not been demonstrated to be the most “truthful” opinion, that goes a lot toward the absurdity of his claims already. In fact, if you remember that simple fact throughout his talk, it becomes painfully clear how irrational his position is.  He wants to apply it to abortion but not to his religion.  He also starts claiming that the Founding Fathers believed in objective morality, which is another thing they were simply wrong about.  Whether they believed in it or not doesn’t mean it’s actually so, so much of what he does within this video is base hero worship and appeals to popularity and authority.  What more can you expect from a priest though?

So why does he bring these things up?  Because it’s all he’s got to support his beliefs, that’s why.  He says that the concept of inalienable rights is true, but why does the Catholic church object to gay marriage then?  If people are inherently equal, how can you grant rights to one group while denying it to another?  It seems that rights are only inalienable when he wants them to be.  It’s painfully obvious that his idea of rights has nothing to do with his choice of a religion and he’s totally blinded to that fact.

He then starts arguing that “pre-born” humans, ie. fetuses, are claimed by pro-choice people as “not fully human”. Sorry, I’ve never seen anyone argue that.  Clearly, on the basis of their genetics, a fetus is human.  It’s just not a protected human.  Of course, Spitzer goes on to point out the horrible Dred Scott decision that blacks were only worth 3/5 of a white person, but entirely ignores similar decisions made within his own church.  One only has to look at the long, bloody history of the Catholic Church to see how many times they have treated non-Catholics as less than human.  Hypocritical much?  Of course, later he goes on to say that we  can sequence the DNA from a fetus and it’s fully human.  Yup.  So what?  We can sequence the DNA from your appendix and it’s fully human too, but we have no problem taking it out and disposing of it if it causes us problems.  He  complains that the Supreme Court has never reconsidered Rowe vs. Wade based on our knowledge that a fetus is human, but they never made the decision based on the humanity or nonhumanity of the fetus in the first place.  That was never even a consideration.  It was decided based on the rights of the woman to control her own body.  Besides, Catholics don’t give a damn about human beings who are born, they’re only too happy to let human beings in Africa pass along AIDS and other diseases because they can’t allow their members to use condoms.  Don’t give me this “but it’s human!” nonsense.

He argues that not all opinions are equally valid and I agree with him, as far as that  goes.  However, he never rationally justifies his own opinion and provides evidence that his opinion is more likely true than anyone else’s, he just repeats that this is how things have always been done, therefore this is how things should always be done and that’s not a valid argument.  It isn’t the opinion that explains the most data that wins, he doesn’t believe that because he remains a Christian and Christianity doesn’t actually explain anything.  More properly, it’s the opinion that CORRECTLY explains the most data wins.  His explanations are simply wrong.  He compares Einstein to Newton and concludes that Einstein is more correct than Newton.  That is true, but there are still things that Einstein got wrong that we know better today and in another 50 years, there will be things that we don’t know that our future selves will have figured out.  So how is this guy claiming that everything the Founding Fathers believed is still right today when the advance of human thought happens constantly?  None of the people he references as his authorities have lived in the past 200 years.

The law of non-contradiction?  You mean like that God of yours who you think is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, yet allows evil in the world?  Contradiction?  Ah, whenever you have contradictions, you know they’re wrong.  Like in the Bible for instance?  No?  He thinks you should seriously discount any contradictory statement, yet he doesn’t want to do that with his own religious beliefs.  And this is the guy they put up to make an argument against abortion?  Seriously?

He correctly states that a child can sue, or someone can sue in their name, for things that happened to them in utero.  That’s correct.  Notice that a fetus cannot sue, only a born individual can sue.  Why doesn’t he recognize the absurdity of his statements?  He talks about evidence and correctly identifies objective evidence as something that everyone can see.  Then he starts talking about post priori evidence and goes entirely sideways.  He claims that A² + B² cannot be C^4, but that’s not based on evidence but on definition.  Mathematics operates by definitions, not by evidence.  Let’s look at the operator “+”.  It operates in a particular way because we, as humans, have agreed that it operates in that way.  If two people who have never been exposed to mathematics in their lives were to come across the “+” symbol on some deserted island somewhere, they could never use evidence to discover it’s purpose.  It wouldn’t mean anything and there is no way to determine it’s proper use without it being explained.  He clearly doesn’t understand math or science.  He said that one legislative body argued that ∏ was too large a number and therefore they were going to round it off at 3.2 and the engineers complained that if they did that, all of the bridges would just fall down.  Of course they wouldn’t!  Passing a law doesn’t change reality!  Reality doesn’t care if some group of idiots claim ∏ is 3.14159 or 47.  What a moron.

It’s hysterical when he starts talking about ethics and says that ethics must be based on objective truth and cannot be based on incomplete evidence.  You know… like Christianity?  It’s not based on objective truth nor is it based on incomplete evidence, or any objective evidence at all, yet there he sits with that ridiculous collar.  He proposes three “rules” that he claims must be true.  The first is the law of non-maleficence, which in modern terms might be spelled out as “don’t be a dick”.   It says not to do things to others that you would not want done to yourself.  Okay, I can accept that, it’s really part of enlightened self-interest.  If I had been aborted as a fetus, I never would have been born and I therefore never would have had any experiences.  There’s no net loss there, I never would have known that I existed, nor that I was missing anything by not existing.  So had I been aborted, I never would have known about it.  Is there a problem there?  I don’t think so.  He claims that the Supreme Court ignored this principle but I don’t think that’s justifiable.  It all comes down to how you define harm.  He apparently defines harm as anything that causes an individual, even a potential individual, not to exist.  By that definition, God is the biggest abortionist out there, ending more than 130,000,000 pregnancies by miscarriage every year.  Why isn’t God immoral?  I also think that we ought to allow people to commit suicide for whatever reason they want, especially for people suffering from agonizing disease.  Is that immoral?  I think it’s a lot more harmful to force people to continue to live an unwanted life in pain than to just let them die.  Besides, Catholic doctrine has traditionally said that any fetus that dies before birth goes straight to heaven, you’d think that they’d be advocating abortion if they want to save these poor, innocent souls.  He talks about how horrible it was that the American Indians were enslaved and slaughtered early in our country’s history, why does he not mention that Catholics and other Christians were at the forefront of that teaching?  He says that if you meet someone who doesn’t want to limit the harm that they do to you, you ought to run because you’re dealing with a sociopath.  Want to know where many of those sociopaths work?  The Catholic Church!  Let’s be honest, it was Christianity in general that taught that it was Biblical to enslave the blacks.  It was Christian churches that taught that blacks were inferior to whites.  Why doesn’t Spitzer bring this up?  He’s playing to his audience, of course and they don’t want to be reminded of inconvenient or unpleasant truths.

He claims that the hierarchy of rights means that the right to life overrides the right to liberty, yet he goes ahead and ignores it when he says that if you’re dead, you have no liberty.  Then neither right is fundamental, is it? If you’re dead, you don’t need liberty.  However, we recognize the importance of already born individuals over those that are not yet born.  A born woman has greater rights, no matter what those rights may be, than a non-born fetus.  That’s how our society works.  That’s why we don’t force women, at gunpoint, to receive prenatal care.  That’s why we don’t make it illegal for women to eat the wrong things while they are pregnant, or make it illegal for them to smoke or drink alcohol.  If we valued all rights equally, we would.  Why don’t we see the Catholic Church supporting laws that would require women to act for the health and welfare of their unborn fetuses? Because they know it would never fly in the modern world and they’re not willing to put their money where their mouths are.  They’re too busy paying sex abuse lawsuits.  Let’s be honest, the Catholic Church only cares about women as brood mares to pump out more little Catholics to fill their pews and to be molested by their priests.  He won’t admit it because it’s not a nice thing to admit to but it’s still true and Spitzer is an idiot.

Next comes the “principle of full human potential”, which again, Spitzer entirely ignores the history of the Church he belongs to.  He claims that personhood has always been associated with human beings, yet he’s spent this entire time arguing that we didn’t treat American Indians like they were people, we didn’t treat the blacks like they were people, so clearly he’s just wrong.  He might think that we *SHOULD* have done that but he can’t argue that we actually have.  Wishful thinking doesn’t make things so.  I also think it’s hysterical that he keeps talking about Sepulveda as though he was some horrible, awful person.  Sepulveda was a Catholic, yet Spitzer never acknowledges this because, again, it’s not what his audience wants to hear.

He says that the human being is not decided by growth, yet that’s easily and demonstrably wrong.  We determine many different rights based on age and development.  American teenagers cannot legally drive until they are 16. They do not get the right to vote until they are 18.  They cannot drink in most areas until they are 21.  All of these things are determined by age and growth.  Now they’re not seen as rights but, like it or not, rights and laws are essentially the same thing.  His idea that they must legally get rights now that they would get in the future is laughable.  When are we going to start handing out driver’s licenses for 3-year olds?  You can’t deny them that, they’ll get it sometime in the future!  He also says that we cannot deny them justice because they’re waiting on the brink.  Okay, let’s start charging all minors as adults then.  We cannot deny them adult justice because they’re waiting on the brink, after all.  Does this idiot listen to himself?

The very nature of “natural rights”, or rights that exist for an individual by their very human existence, are absurd and plainly non-existent.  Go to Iran and declare yourself to be an atheist and see how far your “natural rights” get you.  He talks about Suarez and his ideas on rights, he recognizes that people have to have ownership over themselves, yet he doesn’t want women to have ownership over their bodies.  Huh?  Then he goes on to declare that the Founding Fathers recognized that rights were self-evident and somehow different from the rights that were declared by the British government.  How is that the case?  The British Monarchy declared rights, now the American Founding Fathers are likewise declaring rights.  Instead of having them come from an authoritarian body though, they’re declaring them to magically exist floating around in the aether somewhere.  How is that any different?  He says that the Founding Fathers never enumerated these “inalienable rights” in the Constitution because they feared that if they spelled them out, somehow the government might try to take them away, but if they don’t enumerate them, and there is no list of these magical “inalienable rights” anywhere, how can anyone argue that they actually have them?  Dumb, dumb, dumb.  Then he complains that the Supreme Court went to the Constitution to see if these rights were there.  Dude, have you read the Constitution?  That’s what the Supreme Court does!  That’s it’s job!  It interprets cases in light of the Constitution!  Are you insane?

Seriously, it’s hard to imagine a bigger hypocrite than Father Robert Spitzer.  He simply asserts claims that he cannot back up, insults people that disagree with him, etc.  His arguments are very, very bad.  It’s really quite ridiculous that anyone with half a brain listens to this fool.

I’m sorry, but if this is the best this guy can do on a subject like abortion, how can I expect him to do any better on science?  And seriously, for anyone who watched this video, did it seem to you that through a lot of it, he sounded on the verge of tears?  He spent a lot of time all choked up, I was expecting him to break down crying at any moment.  Why?  Because all he has are feel-good arguments and emotional claims.  He isn’t practicing logic or reason, every single one of his claims are emotional in nature, what he wants to be true rather that is actually true and this leads me to my final observation.

I thought at first that he was arguing the “is-ought” fallacy, until I realized he’s really arguing the reverse, the “ought-is” fallacy.  He thinks things ought to be a certain way, therefore he simply states that they actually are that way without justifying his statements.  That’s just as fallacious.  If I thought there should be flying cars, that doesn’t mean there actually are flying cars.  Just because he wants the moral landscape to be the way he describes doesn’t mean it actually is that way.  This is a common tactic for theists, they assert that they have the truth and that everyone else knows it too.  It’s the basis for those absurd “you really know God is real, you’re just lying about it” nonsense that we see out of theists regularly.

And by all means, go buy his book.  He pushes it enough.  I counted at least four times in the video and could have missed a couple more.  Go see for yourself.

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc5E9lEMuKg’]

It should come as no surprise that comments are disabled for the video, which is no surprise.  Granted, YouTube comments are usually a cesspool, but there’s nowhere that you can go and publically post comments on Father Spitzer’s views.  That’s why I have to write a blog post about it.  I was hoping to see others pointing out the same problems with his claims but since whoever put up the video has chosen to restrict that, I guess I’ll just have to act on my own.

In the end, I am not at all impressed with the performance of Father Robert Spitzer and I’m not sure why anyone else would be either.  Maybe those who have a preconceived notion of reality, those who aren’t interested in actual evidence or non-emotional claims, might think this guy has his shit together but it’s laughably untrue.  He didn’t convince me that the “pro-life” side has any valid claims or ideals, especially from a secular perspective, it was the same nonsense that religion pulls all the time, the empty claims and the unjustified beliefs.  Too bad I expect more than that and too bad Spitzer is utterly unable to deliver.

Unlike the YouTube channel, your comments are welcome here.

Liberal Stupidity on Abortion

equal_rights_for_all_special_treatment_for_noneThere are reasons that I really avoid a couple of debate subjects, like abortion and racism, because the second you make any statements, no matter how mild, the whining liberals are out in force trying to make you seem like a hate-monger.  This is really why I utterly hate the whole radical feminist nonsense, because they’re not reasonable, rational people, they’re fanatics.

Unfortunately, I fell into this again when someone on a forum posed a simple question.  Given that abortion is legal and the sole prerogative of the woman, should men be given an equal chance to end their financial and social obligations on a pregnancy?  I answered that of c0urse they should, if we’re going for equality, if a woman has an “out” on an unwanted pregnancy, it is only fair for a man to similarly get an “out” on an unwanted pregnancy.  It’s equal.  It’s fair.  That’s what we’re supposed to be going for.

But no, the whining self-identified liberals and progressives are out in force.  They don’t give a damn about equality.  It’s not even in their playbook.  We see this among the Atheism+ assholes who are fanatically pro-woman and fanatically anti-man.  Of course, it’s not just them, it’s the whole radical feminist movement and that takes up a lot of modern liberal thought.

So anyhow, I make some very simple comments that everyone ought to be equal and if you’re going to give rights to one side, you have to give equivalent rights to the other.  I never once suggested taking away anyone’s rights.  It was always framed as equality.  And then the liberal assholes came out of the woodwork.

Nope, no equality for men.  Women have an absolute right to have an abortion if they want it, but if they choose not to have an abortion, then men have no choice whatsoever but to spend 18 years paying for an unwanted pregnancy.  Women have rights.  Men have none.  So lots of people start saying how unfair that is and the liberals start claiming that we all want to take away abortion rights from women!  Surely, calling for equality means that we want to eliminate rights!  What a bunch of idiots.

Isn’t this how it’s supposed to be? Not according to liberals.

But wait, it gets better!  The liberals started arguing that if a man wants the same rights, he can get an abortion! Seriously!  When I pointed out how perilously close that was to the far-right claim that gays who want equal rights can just marry people of the opposite sex, they called me a gay-hater.

I honestly do not get how my liberal readers can possibly stand up and side with these morons.  Seriously, justify being able to stomach standing alongside these cocksuckers.  You scream and cry about how horrible the religious right is, how gays deserve equality, when there are people on  your own side  that are pulling this kind of stupidity?  You ought to be ashamed of them and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for not telling them where to shove their stupidity.

It just makes me sick to see this kind of  ridiculous doubletalk and blatant hypocrisy.  Worse yet is their complete inability to recognize that they’re being ridiculously hypocritcal.  It’s pointed out to them, time and time again and they cannot understand the concept of equality or equivalent rights.  The second you suggest an equivalent right for men, they act like you’re taking rights away from women.

So, since I don’t dare open my mouth and suggest actual equality for all, I’ll go ahead and make my suggestion for actual equality for both sides here.  Yeah, I don’t expect anyone to like it, but what can you expect?

A woman finds out she’s pregnant.  She knows who the father is.  If she decides she’s going to keep it, she has to inform the father before she reaches a certain point in the pregnancy.  Yes, I know that some women don’t realize they’re pregnant until later, but that’s a relatively rare thing so we’ll leave that to be worked out in those rare cases.  I’m not even going to say what that time is, it’s a detail, not a part of the real plan.  Once the father has been informed, he has a certain amount of time to decide if he wants to take financial responsibility for the upcoming infant.  If he does, fine, everything proceeds as normal.  If not though, he files a legal form, provides a certain amount of money, typically I’d suggest an amount to cover the cost of an abortion, and he is freed from any and all financial liability for the child.  Then the woman can make her decision, knowing that she is going to be solely financially responsible for the child, whether to use the money for an abortion or not.  Regardless, she has no legal recourse to force the father to have anything to do with the child, nor is he able to have anything to do with the child until the child is 18 years old.  He is not recorded on the birth certificate, although I think some record should be made in the event of a serious medical emergency where he might need to be contacted.  And then… that’s it.  He’s no longer the legal father, she’s 100% responsible.

But wait, I hear lots of liberals whine, what if she can’t afford to do it on her own?  That’s her problem, isn’t it?  She needs to be responsible for her own actions and her own decisions.  If she can’t afford to take care of it, then have an abortion or give it up for adoption.  I know responsibility is a bad word in liberal circles, but this demonstrates a dearth of irresponsibility from all concerned parties.  If these two morons were responsible, they wouldn’t be in bed together without being in a serious, long-term relationship to begin with.  They would have decided beforehand if they wanted a pregnancy to occur and if one did, what their response would be to it.  It should all be worked out ahead of time.  But no, people are stupid and liberals are happy to have stupid people on their side. Their entire political and social philosophy depends on stupidity and irresponsibility.

That’s kind of the whole problem with liberalism.

My Position on Abortion

abortionThis ought to piss pretty much everyone off.  I have tried to avoid discussions and debates on abortion for a long, long time now, mostly because they are all emotional cluster-fucks where people who spend all their time “feeling” instead of “thinking” congregate and whine at each other.  I can’t tell you when the last time I saw a rational debate of abortion from anyone, on any forum, from either the pro-choice side or the anti-abortion side.  I don’t know that it’s possible to even have one with the majority of the population.

So it was somewhat of a surprise when I ran across a discussion on a forum about rational approaches to abortion.  Of course, in just the first dozen posts or so, it was already going south.  Theists had shown up and were demanding that God said abortion was evil.  Feminists were showing up and screaming that stopping abortion was a violation of their rights.  The clueless were showing up and claiming that atheists believed a fetus wasn’t human.  It was already painful to read, but I decided to drop my opinion and see what happened.  It should have been predictable, but madness ensued.  I managed to pretty much piss everyone off across the board.

Let me clarify a few points then, in reverse order.  First off, I absolutely think that a fetus is 100% human.  Being human is a matter of genetics.  A human fetus is genetically human, it is just as human as an adult human being.  My response to that is… so what?  I don’t get hung up on whether something is human or not.  It doesn’t matter to me.  I’m not even all that concerned about the typical human emotional attachment to humanity.  It’s a matter of being able to scale the discussion and also being able to exempt yourself from the emotions.  See, people care about people because people are people and people want to be cared about.  That doesn’t mean that people are objectively important, just that people have a vested interest in being important.  Yes, a fetus is human.  Couldn’t care less on an intellectual level.  Enlightened self-interest aside, it has no bearing on the details of the debate.

Secondly, I’ve already had my say on the existence of rights and frankly, I’m just not impressed by anyone who shows up and declares themselves to have rights, especially if they’re doing it on the behalf of an entire gender planet-wide.  You have the rights determined by the society in which you live, no more, no less.  That means that in a nation like the United States, women have a legal right to an abortion because the society has determined that it is so.  It also means that in countries like Ireland, women do not have a legal right to an abortion.  You can hate Ireland and similar nations for their stances, most are based on religion, but you can’t single-handedly over-ride their social order because you wish it was different.  There simply are no universal rights to anything.

Third, I don’t give a rat’s ass what the Bible or any other religious book says on the subject, but please, can theists stop lying?  The Bible says nothing whatsoever about abortion, in fact, the closest you can get in the Bible is the story of Solomon where the parentage of a baby is in question and he demands the baby be cut in half and be distributed to the two women.  No, this is not abortion, but the ancient Hebrews didn’t even consider a child to be alive until it was a certain age, due to high infant mortality.  Lots of kids died and killing a pregnant woman wouldn’t get you a second glance because fetuses were property, not lifeforms.  Absolutely no argument that starts out with “God says…” will ever impress me, don’t even bother.

So what’s the reality?  In the United States at least, we have decided that the line between a legally protected human being and a legally unprotected human being is at the moment of birth.  That’s it.  It’s an arbitrary line to be sure but it’s the line that we’ve set, just like we’ve set the arbitrary age of 18 as the line between adolescence and adulthood.  Further, I don’t give a damn about women’s rights in the sense that anyone demands they have universal rights that are not granted by their society.  Women have certain rights in this country.  Those are the rights that they get.  There was a time when they did not have those rights.  Before that time, they didn’t have those rights.  Society as a whole, through the ballot box, gets to decide how we distribute rights in this country.  This is what society as a whole has determined.

Now to be honest, I would like to think that in a perfect world, there would be only a minimal need for abortions.  I’d like for people to be responsible, I’d like for birth control methods to never fail, I’d like every child to be a wanted child and for people to put the well-being of a coming child ahead of their own.  We just don’t live in a perfect world and never will.

As far as I’m concerned, I don’t care if you like abortion or not, you have to deal with it.  If you really don’t like it, try to convince enough voters in this country to overturn it and make it illegal.  If you can do so, if the majority of Americans suddenly decide that abortion should not be legal, then it will not be legal.  I wouldn’t hold my breath since most Americans are just fine with abortion, but I’m fine with people exercising their Constitutional rights to try to make changes in the law.  The same goes for democratic nations where abortion is illegal, if you can convince the majority of your countrymen that it ought to be legal, by all means go for it!  Change the system, but don’t whine about it if you’re in the minority and  just don’t like the way things are.  Learning to deal with reality is a part of the maturation process, just do it and stop whining.  Your rights exist only so far as the nation in which you live decides they exist.  If you’re really pissed at your lack of rights, find another nation to live in.

But it’s not fair?  Life’s not fair.  That’s another thing that everyone needs to get a grip on.

Catholic Church Hypocritical Much?

Do As We Say, Not As We Do
Do As We Say, Not As We Do

In 2006, Lori Stodghill, a woman pregnant with twins, was rushed into St. Thomas More Hospital in Cañon City, Colorado.  She was suffering from a clogged artery which had starved her lungs and caused a massive heart attack, causing her death less than an hour after arriving in the hospital.  As tragic as that is, it’s not really the story.  Stodghill’s husband filed a lawsuit against the hospital, not alleging that they could have saved her life, but that, being seven months pregnant, the hospital had a duty to do an emergency c-section in an effort to save the lives of his unborn children.

The lawyers for the hospital argued that since 7-month old fetuses are not people, the hospital had no obligation to consider their welfare.

Um… what?!?!?!?

Let me explain.  St. Thomas More Hospital is run by the Roman Catholic Church, specifically by the group called Catholic Health Initiatives.  It runs approximately 170 hospitals in 17 states and it’s stated mission is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be run their operation by a strict “fidelity to the Gospel.”  It operates by following the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church which were written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  According to the Ethical and Religious Directives, “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death, the Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

Well, not so much in this case.

See, for a very long time, the Catholic Church has fought nationwide to change health and medical laws to protect the unborn, to guarantee them the same rights and privileges that we grant to born children.  Yet in the courtroom, attorney Jason Langley argued that the court “should not overturn the long-standing rule in Colorado that the term ‘person,’ as is used in the Wrongful Death Act, encompasses only individuals born alive. Colorado state courts define ‘person’ under the Act to include only those born alive. Therefore Plaintiffs cannot maintain wrongful death claims based on two unborn fetuses.”

I guess that means the Catholic Church, as with most other things, wants people to do as they say and not as they do.  The court sided with the Catholic lawyers and rejected the claims of Mr. Stodghill, who has filed an appeal.  Now on the one hand, I agree with the decision, a fetus does not have the same rights as a born individual and even though I think the hospital should have made an attempt to save the twins, in fact, I think most hospitals would have done so as a matter of course, I don’t think they ought to be punished because they didn’t do so.  What I do have a massive problem with is the Catholic Church once again ignoring their own rhetoric when it gets in the way.  They say they want to protect the unborn, yet when the opportunity presents itself to do just that, they fail in their stated mission statement, then pretend they were just going along with the same established laws that they’ve spent years fighting against and calling evil and immoral.

Yet again, we see the Catholic Church display their true stripes, as an opportunistic predatory cult, willing to throw principles and morals out the window the second they get in the way of profit.  They’ve done it with pedophile priests, now they’ve done it with medicine.  What’s next?

Douchebags Have Rights Too

There was a recent news story about a man in New Mexico who, upset that his girlfriend supposedly had an abortion, put up a billboard accusing her of having an abortion and denying him fatherhood.  He admits he has no idea whether she had an abortion or not, she could have had a miscarriage, but that didn’t stop him from putting up the sign.

Yes, it’s a complete and total asshole move.  The guy is a sleazebag.  Even ignoring the fact that he was 35 and she was 18, that apparently they had never sat down and discussed the possibility of pregnancy, or that they were off screwing up a storm without having any real legal or financial responsibility toward each other, the fact is that he put up a billboard with the express purpose of embarrassing her.  It was a dick move.

But she’s no better.  For all we know, she was never really pregnant in the first place, she could have been lying to trap him into marrying her.  Frankly, neither of these people deserve to be parents in the first place.  Assholes shouldn’t breed.

But it’s still entirely within his rights to do so.  Freedom of speech doesn’t just protect speech we all like, in fact, it’s much more important in protecting speech we all detest.  That’s the real test.  It protects the rights of scumbag groups like the neo-Nazis, Fred Phelps and the KKK to peddle their hate, just as much as it  does for the rest of us to talk about more reasonable positions.  That’s the way freedom works.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending his decision, I’m not defending his actions, I’m defending his freedom.  I will never say he’s not a scumbag, I will say that it’s just as disgusting to see people arguing that rights only belong to people who say and do things they personally agree with.

The guy might be a dick but he’s a dick with rights.  Welcome to America.