I fuck- and I vote
Monday January 23rd 2006, 10:15 am

My greatest objection to anti-choice zealots is that they fail to understand the hardwired humanity of humans. We’re all born with particular pre-programmed behaviours, like eating, sleeping and breathing. One of those bit-banged instincts is the innately human use of sexuality for recreation, completely separate from procreation.

Bible bashers insist that the mess of cells and DNA that comprise us somehow come with a holy instruction book- nay, their holy instruction book- to which they opine all humans are obligated to subscribe, regardless of their choice of religion or choice for absence thereof. They whinge that humans are innately imperfect and require the guidance of self-appointed authority to make humans worthy of so little as food and air.

Look a little closer; bible bashers are not looking merely to control what women do with their pregnancies. They want to control human sexuality- in total. They want to have a say in all the ways humans rub their own ugly bits. If you’re not intent upon making a baby, the Christians insist you’ve got no right to rub your bits at all- and if you do rub your uglies, the religionists want you to feel as bad about it as possible.

I regret to inform the religionists that not everyone is intent upon propagating their genetics. In but one example, I’m child-free quite by choice and have succeeded in being so for nearly 44 years. I further refuse to accept that I am to be absent sexuality because I choose not to be a father. I fuck for fun as well as for building and accentuating other relationships. I’m not terribly exceptional aside from my choice not to raise children. You’d be very hard pressed to find many people in western society who do use sex exclusively for procreation.

Ever since the discovery that the earth is neither flat nor the centre of the universe, the god-botherers have had increasingly bad luck attracting ordinary humans to subscribe to their madcap ideas. Failing any voluntary belief in their tenets, religionists have gotten stuck right in to inserting the nonsensical whimsy of their god’s rules for living into public law.

You needn’t make any agreement to follow public laws to be subject to them; if you’re going to live in community with humans, you have an obligation to follow communal laws. The blatant manipulation by religionists of common law (and common sense, for that matter) is designed to force all in a community to comply with their bible-based rules for living. The religionists’ preferred behaviours are not based in evidence but rather in how they choose to believe. However, they can believe the sky is green as grass until the cows come home to eat it- but not even the most ardent belief will ever make this so.

Despite safe use by millions of women to terminate unwanted pregnancies, RU486 is banned in Australia. RU486 is not banned because it’s unsafe or ineffective but because it is one more wrench in the toolbox of free reproductive choice and thus free expression of one’s very human sexuality.

Science works on the basis of creating hypotheses which are then tested via logical means to prove or disprove them. Since the inception of the Pure Food and Drugs Act in 1906 which created the US Food and Drug Administration, science-based governmental organisations have existed in countries around the world to regulate medications on the basis of their scientifically proven safety and efficacy. Evidence is not created by screaming mobs of blind believers nor even by elections.

However, Queensland MP Peter Slipper thinks that the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration, despite its inherently evidence based nature, should not be empowered to approve RU486- because it is an unelected body. In course of that innately flawed logic, I’m waiting for Slipper to introduce a private member’s bill to legislate the colour of sky to something a bit more acceptable to the belief-based mobs. He’ll have just as much luck forcing human behaviour to conform to his belief-based notions.

There’s one concept the religionists have got right; denial. The only way humans who want to behave like humans can fight back is to employ denial to their own advantage. ‘Just say no’ works- when you deny religionists the unfettered ability to forcibly control those people who do not subscribe to the behaviours which Christians wish to proscribe. "Good Christian" is an oxymoron. You need not be Christian to be ‘good’ and you need not be ‘good’ to be Christian.

Well informed decisions for one’s medical care are not subject to sermons, elections, placard-waving or political stumping. Competent medical care decisions are based in what treatments are available and of those, which are proven to be safe and effective via scientific evidence- not validated or prohibited by the rants of priests- nor clergymen masquerading as politicians.

No faith-healers or priests will be wielding scalpels at my next knee surgery- nor will either be attending the next time I get laid.

-weez


7 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Slipper’s assessment of the TGA is a hoot.
Not elected= not competent? WTF?

You are so right though Weez, this is not about the preciousness of a baby’s life, it is about him thinking sex is a filthy vice. idiot. an elected idiot.

Comment by Brownie 01.23.06 @ 6:42 pm

Pills are for athiests. Good Christians use coat hangers.

Comment by Kieran Bennett 01.24.06 @ 2:50 pm

We don’t actually elect the individuals who get elected in, neither. The get preselected by some other nutters.

Comment by Jennifer 01.24.06 @ 3:37 pm

Jennifer, what some people don’t figure is that being elected doesn’t make you a god nor even holy. Often, it’s quite the other way round.

I don’t mind electing people to do certain jobs, but a person who is merely elected and has no medical qualifications has no business whatsoever approving medicines or determining what is or is not appropriate medical care. Tony Abbott indeed has NO medical qualifications.

Even if it was prerequisite that the officeholder for the Health Minister portfolio was at very least a GP, one person’s opinion is not sufficient in the process of approving medications. That’s why we have a TGA. Process, people, process…

Comment by weezil 01.24.06 @ 4:21 pm

I agree with you weezil. Being elected often only means that you have refined your processes of manipulating and deceiving the public, at any cost.

Comment by Jennifer 01.25.06 @ 4:00 pm

Weez – you was robbed.
As far as I am concerned, you are Best NSW Blog, and Daily Flute is Most Humourous Blog, and that Samuel Day-Lewis has a boring blog.

Comment by Brownie 01.27.06 @ 10:12 am

heh, thanks Brownie. There’s many, much better political writers than I, but thanks for your vote of confidence. :)

Comment by weezil 02.01.06 @ 12:26 am



Leave a comment

(required)

(required)