This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Petition: no jail time for birth control

Petition: no jail time for birth control - Comments

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 1 by strangebrew

'Fundy Xians to the left of us Islamic clowns to the right and still we must ride onward'

What can be said?...signed the petition...

Religion is a sick and evil curse on humanity! Possibly the greatest threat civilization has ever had to face!

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:35:41 UTC | #934371

GOD?'s Avatar Comment 2 by GOD?

Here's the internet address for those looking for it

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_prison_for_contraception_global

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:42:28 UTC | #934374

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 3 by QuestioningKat

Why have there been so many attacks on women's rights within the last couple of years? What is the trend going? People who suggest such ludicrous ideas should have their faces all over the internet to shame them. Names...people need to be held accountable.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:07:15 UTC | #934376

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 4 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 3 by QuestioningKat :

Why have there been so many attacks on women's rights within the last couple of years? What is the trend going? People who suggest such ludicrous ideas should have their faces all over the internet to shame them. Names...people need to be held accountable.

This brutal attack where a woman's eyes were gouged out by her own boyfriend, here in England has left me feeling ill today.

I'm not sure if it's a trend or we're raising our own conscious to just how uncivilized and savage much of humanity is.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:38:13 UTC | #934381

strangebrew's Avatar Comment 5 by strangebrew

Comment 4 by AtheistEgbert

This brutal attack where a woman's eyes were gouged out by her own boyfriend, here in England has left me feeling ill today.

What are the odds that this fine specimen of manhood was a Roman Catholic? Maybe that is unfair...but all the same....?

Went cyber surfing the other day...as is my want... in a quest to understand the story behind the Manson murders in the late 60's... I had of course heard of them growing up but was unfamiliar with what supposed to have actually occurred...apart from the grizzly deaths...

Seems that Manson was probably the instigator...managing to manipulate the 'family' into doing his twisted will....but did not actually take part in the bloodshed at the Tate household...in fact he was not even there!

But his 'second-in-command' Tex Watson was...and it seems he was the main instigator of the carnage and did it with a certain pleasure.

Tate was actually..they think...killed by one of the female family members...probably Susan Atkins but the actual chronology is somewhat blurred...but she admitted performing the act under the urging from 'Tex'

Anyway's...it is all on the web if anyone is that way inclined...what the point is that 'Tex' was the drug crazed psychopathic liability to humanity that insured all the deeds were done...mainly by him.

Of course they all got life after having the death sentences commuted...but 'Tex' baby decided after a few years that his path in life was that of being 'born again in the blood of the lawd' ....

Oh yeah...praise de lawd!

He got training, set up a ministry and is now a fully fledged minister of jeebus!

The ministry...wait for it...'Abounding love'.... presumably receives tax exemption and the rest...

The last parole board comment on his application for release in 2011 was...

"Basically the prison panel found they could not measure his true remorse or his measure of understanding of what caused him to become involved in these gruesome murders," Sequeira said. "I think he lacks insight and understanding, I think he lacks true remorse. I think he has remorse for his being in prison all these years."

A 2006 parole report mentions mentions this...

"a very devout fundamentalist Christian ... a young, naive and gullible man (who) got into drugs and bizarre company without appreciating the deviance of the company he was keeping."

i am sorry for the off topic flavour...my point being there is none so vicious as the religiously inclined!

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:13:17 UTC | #934387

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 6 by Zeuglodon

Comment 2 by GOD?

I'm signing. This sort of ignorance-based inconsideration for people irritates me no end. The morning after pill prevents a zygote from developing long before it has a nervous system to speak of. Denying its access to rape victims is to heap unnecessary suffering on an already-traumatized victim.

At times, the sheer paleolithic ignorance of some people makes me want to hit my head against a wall.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:13:22 UTC | #934388

RJMoore's Avatar Comment 7 by RJMoore

Comment 5 by strangebrew

What are the odds that this fine specimen of manhood was a Roman Catholic?

In England? 1 in 10 to 1 in 15 approx.? Unless you are suggesting English catholics are more likely to commit such an attack? Obviously nobody using this site would have such a prejudice that it would cause them to make such a claim without supporting evidence.

Maybe that is unfair...but all the same....?

Not at all; its perfectly fair. Im sure you'd make such a claim about a black person, without any hesitation.

Im sorry, but I dont have the web address of the UVF at hand...Im sure you can Google it

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:53:41 UTC | #934393

Stephen of Wimbledon's Avatar Comment 8 by Stephen of Wimbledon

As an AVAAZ member I signed this some time ago.

May I also suggest that richarddawkins.net also considers re-posting activist posts from:

  • The Open Rights Group [UK]

  • Unlock Democracy [UK]

  • Demand Progress [US]

  • Cheers!

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:55:55 UTC | #934395

    hellosnackbar's Avatar Comment 9 by hellosnackbar

    This ruling just shows how in a religious context dogma trumps common sense. Even some believers would probably throw up at this.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:11:32 UTC | #934398

    hellosnackbar's Avatar Comment 10 by hellosnackbar

    @strangebrew, Charles "Tex"Watson is still in jail 42 years after he was sent there. So far he has lodged 16 appeals for parole. He will make another in five years. Whether he should be let out after the hideous murders he committed is debateable. He belongs in the Ian Brady categorie.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:22:17 UTC | #934400

    achromat666's Avatar Comment 11 by achromat666

    Why have there been so many attacks on women's rights within the last couple of years?

    I believe it was Christopher Hitchens that in his many debates made mention of the desperation of the religious to gain a foothold in the ever increasing world of science we live in, and the breed of extremism it has lead to. In short, religion (the Abrahamic faiths in particular) have had to concede so much that the only way many of the blind followers see to retaliate is to usurp authority at every turn, claiming their religion as dominant and ignoring all data to the contrary.

    So, compound the zealous and literal belief with the highly misogynistic bronze age insanity the bible supports, and you have the mired ignorance that is your war on women.

    Half your population, the only side capable of giving birth, still judged inferior by people who would choose a bronze age mythical tradition over accepting that all people have right to control their bodies.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:35:25 UTC | #934403

    Isaiah40's Avatar Comment 12 by Isaiah40

    Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:56:35 UTC | #934407

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 13 by mmurray

    Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

    Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

    I think I would rather argue that the morning after pill is not wrong. I think there are better ways of avoiding pregnancy that the morning after pill such as the contraceptive pill or condom or some other barrier method. The advantage of barrier methods is that there are no additional hormones being introduced into the body so less chance of side-effects.

    Rape is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principle which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", the Golden Rule. By the way it predates Christianity with wikipedia having instances going back to 1780 BCE. I would have thought it goes back our social primate ancestors.

    Michael

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:07:55 UTC | #934408

    drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 14 by drumdaddy

    More horrific punishment of innocents sanctioned by religion. Pure hatred at work.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:18:55 UTC | #934410

    Isaiah40's Avatar Comment 15 by Isaiah40

    Comment 13 by mmurray :

    Rape is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principle which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", the Golden Rule. By the way it predates Christianity with wikipedia having instances going back to 1780 BCE. I would have thought it goes back our social primate ancestors.

    Michael

    Is rape therefore wrong in some absolute moral sense or just on the basis of cultural convention - a convention that could change to match other species that copulate without consent?

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:21:27 UTC | #934412

    glenister_m's Avatar Comment 16 by glenister_m

    @strangebrew I remember a discussion about the Manson case, and the suggestion was that one of the techniques Manson used to control his "family" was to unite them by telling them that a revolution was coming and that they would be part of the battle. However 'when' was not made clear, Manson probably had no actual plans to start one, but 'Tex' jumped the gun and Manson was forced into saying either that Tex was wrong (and potentially lose control/leadership) or to support the actions.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:24:11 UTC | #934414

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 17 by mmurray

    Comment 15 by Isaiah40 :

    Comment 13 by mmurray :

    Rape is wrong because it violates the basic ethical principle which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", the Golden Rule. By the way it predates Christianity with wikipedia having instances going back to 1780 BCE. I would have thought it goes back our social primate ancestors.

    Michael

    Is rape therefore wrong in some absolute moral sense or just on the basis of cultural convention - a convention that could change to match other species that copulate without consent?

    You will have to explain what you mean by "absolute moral sense". Do you mean is it against the galactic federations codes or something ? The statement makes no sense to me.

    Michael

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:36:46 UTC | #934416

    God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 18 by God fearing Atheist

    Comment 15 by Isaiah40 :

    Is rape therefore wrong in some absolute moral sense or just on the basis of cultural convention - a convention that could change to match other species that copulate without consent?

    You forgot an option - our innate sense of fairness. See The Moral life of babies

    I suspect rape is only considered justified where the Abrahamic religions have corrupted innate human morality.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:38:45 UTC | #934417

    Corylus's Avatar Comment 19 by Corylus

    Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

    Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

    Contemplate for a moment experiencing both of these events. Which do you think you would find most unpleasant? Then contemplate experiencing the latter event whilst not having recourse to the former. Would this make your experience more or less bearable?

    This sort of reasoning works whatever position one takes on the existence of deity(s). Unless, of course, one has both the situational modelling skills and the empathy levels of a housebrick.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:39:04 UTC | #934418

    God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 20 by God fearing Atheist

    Comment 19 by Corylus :

    Contemplate for a moment experiencing both of these events.

    Isaiah is a male name. I didn't know anal rape could result in pregnancy, so he is probably safe.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:44:23 UTC | #934419

    mmurray's Avatar Comment 21 by mmurray

    Well it's night time here. I'll leave you guys to explain why hurting people is a bad thing.

    Maybe Isiah40 instead of pussy footing around with this "to an atheist" stuff you could explain your moral and ethical position on rape and the morning after pill. I think we have explained ours.

    Michael

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:45:31 UTC | #934420

    Corylus's Avatar Comment 22 by Corylus

    Comment 20 by God fearing Atheist :

    Comment 19 by Corylus :

    Contemplate for a moment experiencing both of these events.

    Isaiah is a male name. I didn't know anal rape could result in pregnancy, so he is probably safe.

    Yes indeed.

    However, as carrying a child to term could lead to the death of a physically undeveloped rape victim (possibly assaulted soon after menarche) a reasonable alternative thought experiment would be for him to contemplate his own rape both with and without access to post exposure prophylaxis.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:00:39 UTC | #934423

    God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 23 by God fearing Atheist

    Comment 22 by Corylus :

    I should have added the ;-)

    ;-)

    PEP - ha!

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:09:19 UTC | #934425

    Corylus's Avatar Comment 24 by Corylus

    Comment 23 by God fearing Atheist :

    I should have added the ;-)

    I knew it was there :)

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:11:50 UTC | #934426

    Premiseless's Avatar Comment 25 by Premiseless

    Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

    Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

    Based on an ideal principle of equal sharing and everyones basic entitlement to be treated in humanitarian ways, as much as each other:

    MAP: One conscious being has choices over cellular potential life which will forever alter their future. Their choice is provided them as opposed to another conscious being defining this. Medicine has constructed possibilities for choice. It is personal to them as opposed to any other human, in proportional measure therefore more weighted towards their rights over which they may decide.

    Rape: Again the enforcement of one conscious being over another's physical intimacy is not a mutually considerate action. Such permissions breach another's equitable life space.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:15:37 UTC | #934429

    I'm_not's Avatar Comment 26 by I'm_not

    Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

    Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

    Try reading your namesake, Isiah 13:16 and asking yourself the same question. I can't speak for all atheists, obviously, but I certainly feel on far more solid ethical ground than you who not only subscribes to but derives his username from that pile of violent, misogynistic garbage.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:29:57 UTC | #934431

    CJHefford's Avatar Comment 27 by CJHefford

    Signed and shared.

    I don't need to debate the ethics of the above with one of the aforementioned posters, I know this is wrong and it should be stopped.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:45:17 UTC | #934434

    Sample's Avatar Comment 28 by Sample

    Signed. Thanks for the AVAAZ link. I had not heard of that organization before.

    Mike

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:47:30 UTC | #934437

    Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 29 by Zeuglodon

    Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

    Comment 15 by Isaiah40 :

    As opposed to deciding right and wrong from, say, following a multi-century-spanning anthology of myths and legends, a voice in your head, and the cosmic equivalent of an argumentum ad baculum? In any case, this isn't the thread for that kind of discussion, so you should submit a discussion to the mods instead or find an existing one and comment on that.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:49:21 UTC | #934438

    Quine's Avatar Comment 30 by Quine

    Comment 3 by QuestioningKat:
    Why have there been so many attacks on women's rights within the last couple of years?

    You start getting cut by the wire when you start pushing against the fence. In this case, when a large enough number are pushing the limits, such that, it invokes a response by those who feel their authority (power) is being threatened.

    Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:56:18 UTC | #934440