jamesq: (An actual picture of me.)
Adventures may be a little strong. I was a largely passive observer of the debate at Tomkin's Park. This blog post is mostly about the impressions I got watching the debate rather than my personal beliefs on abortion. If you want that, you can read this.

The format was simple: Each side had two speakers, who alternated. I don't know how the first speaker was decided (I missed the very beginning) but the anti-abortion side went first and third and the pro-choice side went second and fourth. The format was also in-the-round: Both observers and participants were in a tight circle of about two dozen folding chairs. Around that was several cameras. Because of the closed in nature and the cameras, I opted to sit well away from the action. Everything was on loud speaker though, so I had no problem hearing the arguments.

The first anti-abortionist speaker was on when I arrived and he was hammering on an argument that it's wrong to kill humans and abortion kills humans, because things like "zygote", "embryo" and "fetus" were simply age categories, like "infant", "child" and "adult". Fetuses are human, killing a human is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong and should be outlawed.

The next speaker, for the pro-choice side was HJ Hornbeck. He freely admitted that he, personally, has no problem with a fetus being human. He proceeded to argue that believing that wasn't an obstacle to abortion because no one is obligated to use their body to provide for another person. I can't have my kidney commandeered to save someone else and you can't have your uterus commandeered either. There's a right to life, but there's also a right to body autonomy, and as a society we've decided that the latter outweighs the former when they come into conflict.

All well and good, and it's certainly one of the tenets I used to decide on being pro-choice. He sort of went off into look-at-me-I'm-an-intellectual mode after this. While this might be good if you're in a high school debate club setting, where making a point actually gains you points, I suspect it has a way of losing people who aren't intellectuals.

More to the point, if you have to ask the audience if they've heard of Thomas Aquinas' Principle of double effect, you've lost them. Better to describe the principle in layman's terms without naming it. After all, if the principle's reasoning is valid, you don't need to show how smart you are by naming it.

To the point at hand, abortion might be bad, but we're allowed to do something bad if the effect is a net good - i.e. the mother doesn't suffer. And not in a ends-justify-the-means way, but an actual good at least as great as the means are bad.

He also described some cases of compassionate abortion. For example, children doomed by birth defects to a short miserable existence, or cases where the mother will die if the pregnancy is allowed to continue.

All in all, I'd give it a "B". He could polish that speech so that mere mortals could follow it and do much better.

Then came our third speaker. If the first speaker was the the light-and-fluffy anti-abortion "good cop", then this guy was the "bad cop". This would be Merle Terlesky. If you habitually read my blog, then trust me when I say Merle is not the sort of person you want to know.

Merle is your standard-issue authoritarian reactionary. He wants the government out of his business and in everyone else's. I can't even really remember much of his "arguments" except in that they were damn near rants.

No, what was really interesting about him is that he used to be a member of an Ontario pro-choice group and now speaks of them in damn near apoplectic tones. At first, when the moderator described his bonafides, I wanted to call "bullshit" - I flat out did not believe that he was what he said he was (namely a former pro-choice activist who had switched sides). I even fired up my smart phone to see if I could find contradictory evidence. Between my lack of success and listening to Merle speak, I decided that he probably was a former pro-choice activist.

I don't know what happened to him to make him switch sides, but I doubt it had much to do with the sanctity of life of a fetus. Mostly this was his tone when speaking of his former colleagues at the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics. He always named them individually and had nothing good to say about them. He clearly hated them. Personally. I think he feels betrayed by them in some way, possibly imagined. And being betrayed, has lashed out at them in the worst way he can think of. I imagine a scenario where he was smitten with one of the OCAC organizers, became involved to get closer to them, and turned bitter and vindictive when his feeling went unrequited. Sort of the MRA of the anti-abortion set. Not that I have a shred of proof of that.

The final speaker was Tiffany Sostar (our mutual friend JD was the one who clued me in that the debate was going on). She largely made an argument from consent.
Consent is at the foundation of my politics – I believe that consent must be given for anything that happens to our bodies, and I believe that consent can be withdrawn at any time. Consenting to kiss is not the same as consenting to sex, consenting to sex is not the same as consenting to be pregnant, and consenting to be pregnant is not the same as consenting to remain pregnant.
You can read her whole speech here and I recommend that you do so.

And that was the other thing that convinced me to be pro-choice those many years ago. Though she articulated it much better than I did.

The final portion of the debate was a question/answer that was open to anyone in attendance. Aside from a few sad mentally-ill folk who snuck in, it was informative. JD pointed out something to me that I didn't twig to when I was there - every female who spoke was pro-choice. That's not to say every female present was (a few were holding bloody fetus signs nearby). A few points stick out from this:
  • The moderator was lucky that the four main speakers stuck to the rules, because he wasn't terribly good about moderating the people who came later. A Q/A period should actually have questions, not polemics.
  • You'll do your side a big favour if you don't immediately describe yourself as a "working-class anarchist" when making your arguments. If you want to call for social justice, call for social justice - you don't need to prove it by being part of a group that you believe has the monopoly on that.
  • Mr. Terlesky was not able to grasp the "body autonomy" part of the argument for choice, since his counter-questions kept being of the form "why draw the line at birth, why not kill an infant or an elderly relative?"
  • I was surprised by the absence of a religious or slut-shaming argument (though Terlesky came close on both - I think he wanted to make both of those arguments, but knew they weren't going to help against either Hornbeck or Sostar. He clearly didn't think much of people who get "convenience abortions", or atheists.
Overall, the biggest problem for the pro-choice side was trying to do too much education all at once. It wasn't just a pro-choice argument, it was also an argument for acceptance of LGBT (and kinky and poly and... etc.) folk. Now I have no problem with this because these are arguments that need to be made. And I'm mindful that telling the folk making these arguments to wait for the perfect time is a kind of oppression (the perfect time never comes, and so things never improve). Absolutely, make those teaching moments happen. Just remember that there are five levels of empathic understanding, and when making a case, you can really only argue on the target's level, or one level up, if you want to make an impact. Argue too high and your audience ignores you. And frankly, when dealing with LGBT/free-thinking pro-choice people you can argue a level four or five, but with authoritarian religious zealots, you're really looking at a two or three. They can't argue up multiple levels, but you can argue down a couple. Sad as that is, it puts the onus on you to win them over rather than for them to educate themselves.

Of course, they're under no obligation to do so, but I like to hope that throttling back on some arguments will win over some fence sitters (and I consider "I think abortion is wrong, but I'm not willing to outlaw it" to be sitting on the fence. These people are pro-choice, even if they can't admit the term applies to them).

Being outside the circle, I didn't have the option to make a statement or ask a question, though I seriously considered both. And frankly, I wouldn't have been trying to match anyone's level of empathic understanding, I'd be trying to take the piss out of them. Perhaps it's for the best that I didn't.

Anyway, the statement I wanted to make:
I'd like to commend the protesters over there on their bloody fetus placards. Others may condemn you, but I won't. I want you to put the goriest most debased pictures of torn-apart body parts possible on display. Hell, I want you to make an audio component to go with it - something from a horror movie mixing babies screaming with pigs being slaughtered. And the reason I want all of this is because every time you guys send some poor seven-year old home in tears, you've lost another potential ally. The longer you stand on this corner pissing people off, the more people you push over to the pro-choice side because they want nothing to do with a bunch of irrational, gore-obsessed zealots. Keep it up.
The question I'd have asked would basically be the Fred Clark question:
If you got your way and abortion was illegal, how would you enforce it? What's the acceptable penalty for a woman who procures an abortion. Not the doctor, the mother.
And that last one I really hope Merle Terlesky answered, because, damn, I bet he's thought long and hard about how the women who've wronged him should be punished. And I want everyone in earshot to hear that answer.
jamesq: (Rage)
News from the Catholic Country of Ireland:
Savita Halappanavar (31), a dentist, presented with back pain at the hospital on October 21st, was found to be miscarrying, and died of septicaemia a week later.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

Disgusting. I hope that the authorities charge whoever they can with whatever they can at that hospital. They probably won't though. If any good comes of this, it will be because Ms. Halappanavar's death triggers a change. I can think of three changes, in decreasing order of goodness:

1) Legalize abortion. That's it. Not illegal unless raped and not illegal unless dying. Legal, across the board. It's between a woman and her doctor. The state should tell women how to use their uteri exactly as often as they tell me how to use my kidney.

And to be clear, I mean everywhere, not just Ireland where it's mostly illegal, or Canada where it's mostly legal.

2) Abortion on exceptions that would have helped this woman, and others. It's a step in the right direction. If my options are "legal for some exceptions" and "none at all", I'll hold my nose and pick the former.

3) Some doctor, when presented with a similar case, will simply lie. *unplugs heart monitor* "I can't hear a fetal heartbeat - rush this woman to the OR." Maybe the doctor will get away with that lie, maybe they won't (or maybe they'll come clean during the inquiry); I don't know how easy it would be to get away with it in the long term. However, if they can get away with it in the short term, their lie will have saved a life. I think lying to save a life is an acceptable sin. Perhaps one of Ms. Halappanavar's doctors, having trouble looking themselves in the mirror every morning, has quietly decided to do that next time. I hope so. Not just because it would be a positive change, but also because I'd like to think that their conscience does bother them. It should.
jamesq: (Lyle's Constant)
There's been a lot of discussion on the net about the Susan G. Koman Foundation's decision to cut ties with Planned Parenthood. Short version: SGKF executive Karen Handel doesn't like PP so implemented a rule that SGKF would not fund any group under (US) Federal investigation. Given that it's ridiculously easy for majority Congressman to start an investigation, this means PP will be under investigation whenever the Republicans control one of the houses. Doesn't mean that PP is actually doing anything wrong (PP actually maintains multiple funding streams for the specific purpose of keeping the abortion money from touching anything else. They have to do this, it's already US federal law.

Anyway, numerous insiders have reported that the rule was tailored specifically to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Given that they're still funding Penn State (under Federal investigation) we can see what the point is.

And then it blew up in their faces. In three days, Planned Parenthood has taken in more funding then they lost from SGKF. SGKF had to "reverse" their policy and apologize. As StudentActivism.net points out, it's not really a policy decision, it's a PR ass covering, more "We're sorry we got caught" than "You're right, this was a bad policy decision that ultimately hurt more women than it helped". Go ahead and read it - it's a great example of weasel words.

My guess is that they'll quietly retreat to lick their wounds and then simply not fund PP for some other reason.

One thing I haven't read yet in the assorted stories about this mess is the long-range goals of Karen Handel, the Komen Senior VP most likely responsible for this (but the rest of the Board is not blameless, for reasons I'll get into below). Short term, we know she's anti-abortion and she ran for Governor of Georgia (She lost a squeaker in the Republican primary). She took the job at Komen after losing.

On the face of it, this just looks like another right wing loon just trying to screw everyone else. Certainly it is that, but it's more than that too. I think she's going to try again to run for public office, and she wants to use the de-funding of Planned Parenthood as proof of her right-wing ideological purity. She lost the Republican primary by less than 2500 votes. What are the odds that she can pick up that many votes next time in a vote of Republicans in Georgia? In short, I think Karen Handel shit on women's health so she can win an election. That she could screw PP doing it was the icing rather than the cake. Certainly nothing in her past points to any sort of concern towards women's health when it's not self-serving.

Of course, you don't get to be a VP at Komen unless you're right-wing. The founder, Nancy Brinker was a member of the Bush administration. The rest of the board went along with this and did so knowing what they were really attacking. I'm guessing those insiders were opposing members on the board who, regardless of their opinion on abortion, knew this was going to cause a lot of women to die of breast cancer who wouldn't have otherwise. And that is sort of the whole point of the group really.

I don't think Komen as a whole is made up of right-wing ideologues. I suspect that there are more pro-choice people involved with them than anti-abortion people, simply because by-and-large anti-abortion people don't care about women's health and pro-choice people do. The rank-and-file probably hate this decision because they recognize that Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, especially when it comes to breast cancer screening (roughly 16% of their budget, compared to 3% for abortion). I'd love to see a mass exodus of non-executives abandoning Komen (and focusing the awesome level of volunteerism to some other organization that provides similar services).

What really irks me is the dishonesty of the anti-abortion side. If you really cared about preventing abortions, you'd want Planned Parenthood to get more funding. They really are one of the few organizations around that reduce the abortion rate, and they do it through the only ways that have ever worked: Education and birth control.

If the anti-abortions ever got their way and managed to kill Planned Parenthood entirely, the abortion rate would go up, simply because there would be a lot more women out there who knew less about how to prevent pregnancy or had no access to the tools that requires. 3% of PP funding might go to abortions, and 16% might go to cancer screening, but 35% of its funding goes towards contraceptives.

But they're not in it to stop abortions. The point is to punish women for having sex. More to the point, to reestablish traditional gender roles. Women who don't have options are women who take less risks. In this scenario, losing an organization that provides contraceptives and STD treatment in addition to abortion is a feature not a bug. More risk and less options are the point.

If you're interested in charities related to breast cancer (or health in general, regardless of gender), I encourage you to give or volunteer directly to those groups, rather than Komen. Planned Parenthood is a pretty good organization I hear.

Addendum: While researching this post, I looked up the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's relationship to Komen. Their not the same organization, thought they do partner up with each other.
"Paul Cantin, director of communications at the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation's central office, says there are no policy links between it and the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Regardless, CBCF doesn't provide any funding to Planned Parenthood in Canada, he said."

Whether they don't fund PP in Canada because of ideology, or something simpler, like focusing on research rather than screening, I don't know. I will be keeping an eye out.
jamesq: (Default)
Oh look, first they quietly remove the per-vote subsidy, now they're talking about abortion again.

When do I get to say "I told you so"?
jamesq: (genius)
Here's a lighter story to ever-so-slightly contrast the rampaging reduction in Woman's Reproductive Rights that's underway in the United States:

Here in Calgary the Kensington Clinic is beside a playground. That and assorted ordinances means that protesters must stay a certain distance away from the premises and they can't have more then four people protesting at one time. IANAL, so take my description of the legal rules with a grain of salt.

Anyway, there's a nation-wide anti-abortion protest going on right now (coinciding with Lent I think - and isn't sacrificing other people's rights for Lent kind of missing the point) so they've had protesters out in force. Seven protesters (four adults, three children) were out, which violates the rules.

So the clinic manager goes out to tell them to knock it off. The lead protester objects, saying "the children don't count, they're not people".

Anyway, just a story I heard third-hand that made me chuckle.
jamesq: (Default)
The government is planning on omitting abortion funding from its new maternal health initiative for developing countries. Senator Nancy Ruth reacted to some of the heat this has caused:
"We've got five weeks or whatever left until the G8 starts. Shut the f--k up on this issue," she says. "If you push it, there'll be more backlash. This is now a political football. This is not about women's health in this country."

She went on to say, "Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Don't make this an election issue."

Afterward, Ruth was asked about her comments. "I'm not going to repeat them in front of microphones. You gotta be crazy."

[Liberal MP Dr. Carolyn] Bennett echoed another panelist at the meeting, saying that women in the world didn't achieve what they have over the years by "shutting up."

Not only do you not achieve anything by shutting up, you will be pushed, slowly but surely, backwards. Do you really think that progress will be made by letting social reactionaries have their way? Is there any doubt that they'll take that small victory and try to turn back the clock even farther?

(crossposted to [livejournal.com profile] canpolitik)
jamesq: (Default)
So you want to ban abortion outright, but that pesky Roe v. Wade thing keeps coming up? What do you do? Well, you could simply make it more and more difficult to get an abortion. After all, you're not actually banning it, you're simply putting up every conceivable (heh) roadblock to it. If the monetary requirements (you don't think the mandatory ultrasound is going to be paid for by taxpayers do you?) don't clobber you, then the barrage of presentations "to keep you informed" might catch you in a moment of weakness. Finally, if navigating all the roadblocks take too long you'll hit your 22 (varies by state) week time limit.

And let's not forget the lengthy, allegedly anonymous, forms you have to fill out. I say "allegedly" because, despite not having your name, they're sufficiently detailed to allow a good data-miner to figure out who you are. How many 6'4", 42-year old, males with red hair own a house in my postal code? I haven't named names, but I bet you could attach a name to that information without much effort. Same for women filling out this information. Then it gets put up on a publicly accessible database, ostensibly for research purposes. The next day a brigade of anti-abortionists just happen to show up on your doorstep.

I'd compare it to a sibling putting his finger as close to your face as they can while chanting "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Except that's funny and this situation isn't.

If these are successful, I predict that even more roadblocks will be put up. Multiple presentations, multiple invasive medical procedures, more detailed forms, all to "keep the mother informed". Time limits will be clawed back (Oops, sorry, but the fetus has nerve tissue now, we can't let you abort this late). The goal being to make it to expensive in terms of time and money to ever successfully get in under the wire.

When abortion is still technically legal, but effectively impossible, they'll declare victory. Seriously, I fully expect some politician to happily stand in front of a crowd and say that "We've made abortion so difficult to get in this state that no one successfully got one last year. Yay!"

Women who try to take things into their own hands will be charged with homicide. This could include self-induced abortions, using a back-alley abortionist, or simply traveling to a less-restrictive area. People who try to assist them will also be charged.


Pro-choice forces will come up with some way of giving women information remotely. decentralized web-sites with information on how to do your own abortion safely. Anti-abortion forces will try to infiltrate these sites, set up "look-alike" sites, etc. Legislatures will try to make the web-sites illegal.

You'll need to give personal information when buying home pregnancy kits.

Laws that outlaw helping people procure an abortion will become more draconian. Walk a woman past the clinic's protesters? That's a fine. Take her to another state? That's jail time. Hell, simply encouraging someone to get an abortion will become illegal.

It makes me glad I'm Canadian. Things aren't perfect here, but they are better. Calgary has an abortion clinic and it's generally free of protesters (due to court injunctions they have to stay well away from it - typically hundreds of feet). Of course, the fact that the building is built to withstand small explosives is testament to the fact that we're not yet as enlightened as I'd like.

Anyway, the whole thing is another attempt to punish women for all kinds of things: Chief among them having sex. Also violating traditional gender roles - married homemakers should want babies, and unmarried women shouldn't require abortions because they're not having sex. There are no other categories.

It all boils down to men making the decisions because women can't be trusted to make the right decisions themselves. It's patronizing, mean-spirited and increases the amount of suffering in the world.
jamesq: (Leviticus)
A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.
Lets say for a moment that you disagree with Archbishop Sobrinho and the Roman Catholic Church on this. Was the child entitled to the abortion because of she was
  1. a victim of incestuous rape.
  2. severelyunderage.
  3. not able to carry the twins to term successfully.
  4. very likely going to die.
The correct answer is "because she doesn't want to have the children".

I don't know that Brazil has quite gotten to the point where excommunication is an entirely meaningless punishment yet. Being predominantly RC, it might still carry some social stigma. Regardless, I hope all involved take this as the gift it truly is. The Archbishop has released them from the shackles of the church. It's the most he can possibly do to them and he can't exactly do it twice without their consent.

The 9-year old in question hasn't been excommunicated (the Archbishop magnanimously decided she was too young). Hopefully when she is older, and capable of giving consent in all things adult, she'll join her mother and the doctors in their freedom.
jamesq: (Default)
My Anti-Abortionists Hate Sex rant got published in today's Herald. Unfortunately, you need a web subscription to read the latter link. It is, however, pretty much identical to this version here (they only editted it to improve my grammar).

So I'm writing letters to the editor now. All that remains is for me to complain about kids on my lawn and my journey to crank-ville will be complete. Special thanks to [livejournal.com profile] ersatz_marduk and [livejournal.com profile] madeileen for getting me off my ass.

Let the irate letters from anti-abortion fuck-wads begin!
jamesq: (Default)
Abortions are in the news again thanks to the South Dakota's attempt to ban abortion. As one of my roomies gets the Calgary Herald delivered to our house, I get the opportunity to read Calgary's right-wing drivel without having to pay for it. There's been a slow-motion debate about abortion going on in the letters page for the last few weeks and I wanted to comment on it.

The best letter was by one Mary-Anne Pechet (Calgary Herald Letters Page, February 18, 2006). Responding to another letter which was a litany of the horrors that befall women that have abortions, she writes:
Like most people trying to exert control over women's bodies [they] fail to mention the millions of women devastated by the emotional and physical consequences of pregnancy and childbirth.

Where do you warn us that having the baby may mean we "suffer depression for years to come as a consequence"? Stop trying to make women believe having an abortion will likely fill us with all sorts of long-lasting negative emotions and that having a baby will not. One in three pregnancies in Canada ends in abortion? What's the figure for those that end in infanticide or years of fetal-alcohol syndrome, shaken-baby syndrome, abuse and misery?

I don't see you people, including "those women who desperately want to adopt a baby" lining up to adopt these poor lost souls. Yet you are so intent on condemning them to wallow in the poverty and abuse that often follows unwanted births or births to millions of drug-addicted/abusing parents.
It was a pretty good rant! Unfortunately it too garnered a response, this time from Cary Funk (Calgary Herald Letters Page, February 23, 2006):
If the prospect of parenthood causes women such severe "emotional and physical consequences" that one-third choose to abort, perhaps they should reconsider if they are mature enough to engage in sex...

...We are tragically failing young women if we are teaching them pleasure and rights supersede the logical results of using their bodies sexually.
It was at this point that I understood the real issue here. Banning abortion has nothing to do with saving the unborn. It's not even about controlling women's fates (though that is a natural consequence of the true issue). It's all about punishing women for having sex. Remember kids, sex is evil and it must be punished.

I've heard this before, but I never really got it until now. I suspect Cary Funk gets it too, he ends his letter with this gem: "If you don't care about the child before it is born, chances are you won't care about it afterwards." He says this, but still wants these people to carry (and presumably raise) children they don't want - even though he acknowledges that they will likely not care about the child. This shows two things - that the child doesn't matter in and of itself to anti-abortionists, it's merely the means to punish sinful woman. Secondly, that while it's true that not caring before the child is born probably means you won't care about it afterwards, it doesn't follow that caring before means you will care afterwards. That is why you never hear about anti-abortionists helping out poverty-stricken moms with postpartum depression. The child is not the point, the punishment for having sex is.

You can see this desire to punish cropping up in different ways. Abstinence-only sex education and attitudes towards AIDS sufferers are obvious. The fight against an HPV vaccine (which should be a no-brainer - it will reduce deaths due to cervical cancer) is less obvious, but still comes from the same motivation. And of course there are the Pharmacists who know better then you and your doctor.

This is like a swift kick to the chakra for me - how could I have not noticed this before?
jamesq: (Default)
Grog and [livejournal.com profile] evilscientist have both been writing lately about the rise of Fundamental Christians as a political force. Mostly this is because they (the Fundies) have been making changes now that they are in power - primarily towards reproductive rights, but also towards education. They both make some pretty good points, If you read my blog, you'll probably like theirs too.

So what are they doing? Well they're very quickly getting ready to ditch Row v. Wade. They're linking all federal funding to abstinence only sex education. Several states have more-or-less already succeeded in outlawing abortion. Several more are trying to undermine science classes by introducing "intelligent design" into the mix.

Same-sex marriage? Not a chance. I think they'll be lucky in the states to keep all that the gay-rights movement has achieved in the last thirty years.

But this is old news and you've heard me whine about it before. I didn't really want to talk what they are doing so much as what they are thinking.

Grog has a mind tuned to legalities and so that is the sort of arguments that he makes - an appeal to the rule of law. Evilscientist was trained as a political scientist so he tends to see things in terms of raw power and its pursuit. In a way they are both right. Grog in that the rule of law is important, evilscientist in that a lot of people in these organizations are more interested in secular power than they are in devotion to god.

But they both err in assuming that the religious reich (as grog describes them) can be reasoned with. They can't be because the fundies have a magical world-view. Let me sum that view up for you:

1) God is real and the bible is a true and accurate historical document.
2) Satan is real.
3) God and Satan are battling for the souls of humanity.
4) The end times are near.

... and most importantly:

5) If you're not with us, you're against us.

It is impossible to debate with someone like that because any valid argument you make will be interpreted through the filter of their beliefs. Disagreeing means you're against them and therefore you are a pawn of Satan. The rapture is coming soon and they are desperate to make this world acceptable to Jesus. They will not compromise, because the stakes are their immortal soul and compromise means giving an inch to the forces of darkness.


The only was to turn the tide is education. People need to have the tools to think critically, the rest will follow. Unfortunately, the fundies are well-aware of this, which is why education will reamin the biggest battleground.


jamesq: (Default)

September 2017

345678 9


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:24 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios