Bryan's Refugees

Since apparently at least one of my compatriots has found my blog, so far, I'll initiate sharing of stories of what we may have said that compelled Bryan to ban us and delete our comments. (Personally I consider deleting comments, then accusing the commenter of lying, generally to be bad form, but I suppose when one is running a ministry one is more concerned about ensuring that comments stay on message.)

Here's my story:

Bryan was unhappy that I had objected to his claim that President Obama is evil for, among other violations, having rescinded the Mexico City Policy. Bryan responded by providing several links, mostly to MSM sources, that he seemed to believe supported his case.

His links included the following, which I used for my response:
ReligiousTolerance.org
Washington Post
Reuters UK

I responded with the following:

The last paragraph of the Washington Post article:  "Lifting the Mexico City Policy would not permit U.S. tax dollars to be used for abortions, but it would allow funding to resume to groups that provide other services, including counseling about abortions."

No tax dollars for abortions.

The information contained in the topic from Religious Tolerance was even more telling:

Under "1984 Background:"  "Thus, an agency's funding might be cut off from its contraceptive/family planning counseling services in one country if it had any abortion activity in the same or in another country."

Under "2003: President Bush partly abandons Mexico City policy:"  "An anonymous senior White House aide said: 'Any agency that provides treatment for AIDS will get the money - as long as none of the funds are used for family planning purposes or for abortions - except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.'"

Thus purpose of the Mexico City Policy was not to defund abortions, because abortions are not otherwise funded.  The purpose was to hinder "contraceptive/family planning counseling services," a goal that is supported by only a tiny minority of the U.S. public.

From Reuters:  "George W. Bush reinstated it on Jan 22, 2001, in one of his first policy moves as president, saying: 'It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad.'"

Here Bush intentionally deceived us by falsely associating the Mexico City Policy with ending taxpayer-funded abortions, which the Mexico City Policy did not affect.

I also had posted another comment, which I reposted as a comment to Violet's post here. (Based on the location of his ban announcement, this post may not have been included in the decision, although I can understand why my opinion would be considered controversial.)

Would anyone else care to share?

(For those who do not know who I am talking about: no, I am not going to provide a link.)

Abortion and Innocent Life

A frequent justification I see for the assignment of special rights to "pre-born" life (zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses) is that these entities have the status of "innocent life." "Innocent life" should never be killed, is the justification given for the desire to use the force of law to prevent women from obtaining abortions.

My problem with this reasoning is that it presupposes a religious basis for morality, for which there is not consensus in a pluralistic society such as ours.

My basis for morality, in a nutshell, is the Golden Rule, which I understand predates Christianity.

When one declares a fetus, et al, to be "innocent," the implication is that the rest of the population is not innocent, or blameworthy, as some would say. Basically my understanding of this concept is that all born humans have guilt, but that fetuses have a special moral status because they have not yet have had opportunity to sin against God. Such concepts are of no use to nonbelievers such as myself.

(For background, I was raised Roman Catholic, but have been atheist for over 25 years. My recollection of Catholic and Christian doctrine is fuzzy, so I apologize in advance if my summations of such are inaccurate.)

Thus I would not confer a moral superiority to a fetus over a woman, or vice-versa.

As to why I believe women should have the right to "kill pre-born life" through abortion, in my view the right to human bodily autonomy prevails when the rights of the fetus and the woman are in conflict. No one is forcibly required to donate organs, or even to give blood, in order to save the life of another person. To give fetuses the right to inhabit a woman for gestation would remove this right of bodily autonomy from women.

For a relevant thought experiment, I submit the case of the Famous Violinist.