A progressive Christian's modest proposal, and a 2020 reminder of the duty to vote


 

A couple of weeks ago, Matthew DiStefano, who writes at Patheos Progressive Christian, had this to say about the logical absurdity of the anti-abortion "life begins at conception" stance:

"By the same logic anti-abortion folks use to protect embryos, we should be holding candlelight vigils for every spermatozoa lost down the drain. And, for the love of God, think of the mass sperm genocide happening on gym towels across this great nation. Shouldn’t we have a Supreme Court case to protect sperm rights? After all, if destroying life is immoral, then ejaculating outside the possibility of conception is nothing short of mass murder.

"Every Man is a Murderer: By now, you’re probably thinking, “But Matt, this is ridiculous! Sperm can’t survive without an egg!” To which I say: Bingo! That’s exactly the point. Anti-abortion rhetoric is similarly absurd when it suggests life begins only at conception. If we were to accept the premise that all life is sacred from the moment of its biological creation, then ejaculating into a condom or a tissue is just as morally reprehensible as abortion. And oh, my fellow men, that means we are all guilty. Every. Single. One."

He concludes with the following: "Until then, I'm off to buy some sperm-shaped candles for my next vigil."

And one of our friends on this blog posted this reminder after the 2020 election season: 

"Democracy is too hard. It means you are always the adult who makes sure dinner happens and gets out of bed when the baby cries. You have to get at the truth about the candidates, not just be entertained by them.

"You have to get off the sofa and vote. 2020 had a record turnout at 2/3. A pandemic and a madman with nukes, and a third still didn't vote."

Thank you, Freeze Peach🍑!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more