“Goddess religion recognizes that to value life as an un-tempered absolute is ridiculous – it is to maintain the right of every cancer cell to reproduce blindly, of every sperm and every egg to unite a new embryo, of every flea and cockroach to populate the world endlessly. Life is interwoven in a dance of death, the limiting factor that sustains the possibility of new life….“The concern of the anti-abortion forces is not truly with the preservation of life, it is with punishment for sexuality….”
From an excellent article in Charlene Spretnak’s highly laudable The Politics of Women’s Spirituality: Essays on the Rise of Spiritual Power within the Feminist Movement, “Ethics and Justice in Goddess Religion,” by Starhawk.
SCIENCE QUIZ (circle the correct answer):
Which is the most deadly:
(a) The common cockroach, Blattodea blattaria.
(b) The common human, Homo sapiens sapiens, who, due to his Blattodea-like reproductive habits, depletes his own food, water and oxygen supplies and crowds all other life off the planet.
(c) The common deity, Jehovacus jahwehdicus allahadicus, who promises that if the common human fails to breed like Blattodea, he (the common human) will be slow roasted alive in a vast underground torture chamber for eternity.
___
furzyk, thnx for the foto
17 comments:
We at "The Gods Are Bored" staunchly support Right to Life, extending to cockroaches, bird flu virus, malaria mosquitoes, and kimodo dragons.
However, we are glad our days of living with common cockroaches are over. It is difficult indeed to view these Intelligently Designed creations as worthy of life.
We constantly wonder why Noah invited roaches onto the ark. But this is not a novel observation. Mark Twain also remared upon it, but he used malaria mosquitoes as his example.
I'm curious. Your post doesn't address the question of when human life begins. Why not?
Mike, I can see some merits in the idea that "life" doesn't begin until a human being has a sense of itself. And if I'm not mistaken, this usually doesn't happen for a year or two after birth.
At the very least, however, life does not begin until the organism is past the point where it is a parasite on another organism, i.e., the female who has sacrificed her own body and life to bring it into *potential* being.
It is entirely up to this female whether or not she wants continue the burden of carrying this potentially deadly parasite in her own body. Period. End of discussion.
Mike, I can see some merits in the idea that "life" doesn't begin until a human being has a sense of itself.
You don't think life is a biological concept, then? The idea that life begins with a conception of self (which I think begins developing around 6 - 18 months, a la Laconian psychology) can have some awfully disturbing ethical consequences. Are you willing to stand by this idea to the point of signing off on the "disposing" of 3 month old children?
At the very least, however, life does not begin until the organism is past the point where it is a parasite on another organism
Then other parasites, like tape worms, are not "alive?" What are they, inanimate objects?
The problem with attempting to nail down a start date for human life is that no matter what criteria you offer, I can probably find a post natal human that does not meet those criteria.
I'm also picking up a hint of contradiction here. Your blog is dedicated to the importance of maternal love, yet you implicitly disparrage the reality of the maternal instinct in a pregnant woman.
You want us all to behave as mothers towards one another. Ok. Does that motherhood only kick in with humans that meet your criteria of self-sufficiency or a sense of self?
If your answer is yes, you've set yet another foot down the road to totalitarianism and extermination.
Or you could bite the bullet and admit that any definition of when life begins is fundementally arbitrary, and the criteria you have set out here are self-serving. And that selfishes is in direct contradiction to the maternal love you preach elsewhere.
“Totalitarianism and extermination,” Mike, is where we are headed now. Women are losing control over the only thing any of us really own: our bodies; and, as a result, the earth is dying. You don’t call that totalitarian? You don’t call that extermination?
Women and only women know when to bring life into this world. But for the past 6000 years, men have strapped women down and forced life into them, and at too rapid a pace. Often this meant death to the woman AND the child. Now it’s meaning death to most life on earth. You’re just not smart enough for this. Not by a long shot.
Three or four generations ago, men often had 3-4 wives. Why? Because the first three usually died in childbirth, from being forced to have too many children, too fast. Now, after men have bred like cockroaches for 6000 years, the earth is groaning under all the weight of human-flesh you’ve forced onto it. Men are exterminating the human species and wrecking the planet with man-flesh. And you call me “selfish” and “self-serving”? How dare you!
As a man you have almost no right whatsoever even to enter the discussion about when life begins. Men aren’t intelligent enough to enter this discussion. Men lack the ability to think complexly. You take one small, isolated fact at a time, and dissect it. And you are incapable of then putting all those dissected part together again in one coherent whole. You have no brains for it, as I think you’ve just indicated with your last set of remarks, and as men in general have indicated by their general policy of force-feeding human life into the planet, slowly killing it inch by inch.
On some days I’m in the mood to play your games of logic. Sometimes they’re fun. But today, I’m impatient with them. We’re talking about the death of the human species, here, and your response is to play word games.
Well, once again, you've set aside the issue of when human life begins. You write as if you consider that to be a minor, tertiary concern. Am I understanding you?
So it's a simple question. Is the question of when human life begins a primary concern or not?
Men aren’t intelligent enough to enter this discussion. Men lack the ability to think complexly.
It's pretty damn ironic that you are making a broad, sweeping claim about the intelligence of men while claiming that men cannot think in a complex way, ie they cannot deal in details.
Mike, it is most definitely a tertiary concern compared to the threat of all human life disappearing from the planet.
I take back what I said about men not being intelligent enough to enter this discussion. Not all, only a *majority* of men aren’t. First, I’m sure you’ve read the new biological evidence suggesting women think more complexly than men -- something to do with the connection between the two sides of the brain (?) Second, no one can deny the world, run by men for 6000 years, is a mess. Third, new life is a female, not a male issue. In most species, males don’t even possess an understanding of the concept of paternity.
Mike, it is most definitely a tertiary concern compared to the threat of all human life disappearing from the planet.
Then why not applaud the deaths of adult humans? If population control is the most important moral issue facing humanity today, why not just go along with a Swiftian modest proposal?
First, I’m sure you’ve read the new biological evidence suggesting women think more complexly than men -- something to do with the connection between the two sides of the brain (?)
Nope, I haven't. Have you read the new statistical report that suggests 95% of the statistical and scientific arguments on the internet are pure sophistry?
Why not applaud the deaths of adults? In part because adults are human. Also, if we control the number of non-conscious foetuses delivered, there's no need to "applaud the death of adults."
Why not applaud the deaths of adults? In part because adults are human.
When do they become human...? (perhaps this is an impossible question)
Also, if we control the number of non-conscious foetuses delivered, there's no need to "applaud the death of adults."
If your primary goal is for a woman to "control" her reproductive abilities, then you have to accept that some women will choose to have 8 or 9 kids. Do you wish to control the number of fetuses these women deliver?
Well, I've given my answer re: when I think adults become human, Mike. And whichever decision you go with, I think most agree that by the time we reach "adulthood," most of us are human! (hee)
No, I don't want to control those women. The problem would be solved if you just got your hands off all women and let them follow their natural instincts. My guess is that few women willingly have more than a few kids.
My guess is that few women willingly have more than a few kids.
(or maybe all women aren't clones of athana?)
You gave two possible criteria for life or "being human." One was a sense of self, which both of us seem to believe that very young infants do not possess. Would you accept throwing these infants from cliffs as a valid ethical choice? You didn't answer this question the first time I asked it, which makes me think you don't have an answer.
The second criteria you offered was the parasite idea. You seemed to claim that parasites are somehow not even "alive," leaving aside the whole issue of humanness. Again, you did not answer my questions on this subject, which leads me to believe you simply do not have an answer.
Mike, Athana has been more than patient. I'm less so. No man has any business determining what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. ever. period.
Birth is exclusively woman's domain. Men should have no political input into a woman's reproductive decisions.
I believe life begins when there is a viable mind - not even a possibility until about the 5th month in utero. However, until the child is born - as in living outside the womb - its interests are subordinate to those of the mother whether it is "alive" or not. There is no doubt of the mother's state of being in these matters and that takes precedence.
You have this science fiction vision of women wanting to exterminate men or something that clouds your perception of these discussions. Athana was perfectly correct when she said men aren't capable of discussing these matters. You identify too closely with the fetus because you can never be the mother. Frankly, until you have a uterus, this is none of your business.
If our attitudes seem harsh, consider that they are the natural reaction to 6,000 years of gynocidal terror perpetrated against Earth and Her Daughters. Women are systematically beaten, raped, tortured, mutilated, enslaved, bought, sold, and kept from any meaningful control of wealth, property or even self. You're just another oppressor coming into woman's space to create disruption and keep us from focusing on our goals. You're nothing new, and neither are your knee-jerk reactions to women's anger and you're presumption at coming in here to tell us what we can and cannot say or think. Fuck off.
No man has any business determining what a woman can and cannot do with her own body. ever. period.
This is one of fascinating things about the abortion debate: there is a fundamental disconnect between people on either side. Pro-lifers want to discuss issue X, and pro-choices want to discuss issue Y. Both sides dismiss the signifigance of the other's issue.
That being said, it does seem to be pro-choicers that most emphatically stick to their pet issue, ie body rights. Pro-lifers are (sometimes) willing to and capable of discussing legal issues from that stand point, but pro-choicers (as evidenced by this very discussion) are utterly unable to discuss the concerns of pro-lifers; pro-choicers simply have no answers to offer. So they shout louder, hoping to drown out the questions.
You have this science fiction vision of women wanting to exterminate men or something that clouds your perception of these discussions.
Um, no, I've never said that you want to exterminate men. I've said that Athana (at least) clearly wants to play thought police with the world, and ultimately, the only way you can truely control thought is by making sure no one thinks at all - ie, extermination.
You're just another oppressor coming into woman's space to create disruption and keep us from focusing on our goals.
Alas, to achieve your goals you are going to have to engage with people like me. There's no getting around it. You can tell me to fuck off all you like... but if you want your ideas to have public sway, you have to be able to deal with your "oppressors" in some civil way, unless you just want to cut through your bullshit and put us all under the guillotine right away.
And I'm sorry to say, but "women's anger" is pretty much identical to "men's anger."
Interestingly enough I've found it's pro-lifers to be the more pushy and obnoxious of the two. Who cares when you believe life begins? Everyone will say differently. What matters is your own thoughts and the choices that follow. I've been doing alot of web-walking on this topic and I've found so very little published on the idea that a woman should feel free to do what she feels is best for her health (mental and physical) and best for her future. It's selfish to tell a woman she must carry a child conceived of rape because to abort would be murder. If that's the case the rapist should be charged for murder, violating that woman and forcing her into such a traumatising situation. What of the women who studied for years and worked their way into a career? How unfair to tell them they must sacrifice all they have worked for to bear children they never wanted. If a foetus has a right to love then it also has a right to be born into a loving family that can provide for them. Our existence is one of creation and destruction, sometimes the right choice is the hardest.
Right to live **
Anon, interesting idea:
"It's selfish to tell a woman she must carry a child conceived of rape because to abort would be murder. If that's the case the rapist should be charged for murder, violating that woman and forcing her into such a traumatising situation."
We need to continue to work for a world in which women and men are valued equally so that your idea might someday become a possibility.
Post a Comment