Saturday, September 30, 2006

Dawkinsian Feminism?

Currently top of Cru-blogs hot hunks list is still Richard Dawkins. I've just found this great article on embryonic stem cell research.

Of course these distributors of God's love to the world are not new to the idea of defending embryos however small, they've been doing it for years as part of their wildly successful ongoing campaign to make life as miserable as possible for women in general. Large parts of the US now hold essentially no abortion facilities and in many places it is close to impossible to obtain the morning after pill. In the UK we already have pharmacies refusing to dispense the pill and the MAP on the grounds that they prevent implantation of a fertilised egg rather than fertilisation.

What gets me is that you never see the "It's Against God's Will" placards turning up outside IVF centres. It's surely just as much against what God wanted to make babies when he had planned for you not to. But then women refused IVF might escape lives of domestic servitude and perhaps use the available time to assemble and protest the way the church has been treating them for the last 2000 years. And if medical intervention is against God's will then why have hospitals at all? Or even pharmacies? Surely God will not let you die unless it is his will for you to die. And why wear a watch? Surely God will not let you be late for brunch unless it is his will for you to be late. And why why do anything at all unless you really feel like it cos surely God will make you do what he wants if he wills it so...?

And here's another one. Since God didn't want us to have that extra-marital sex* anyway then how can he want you to keep the resulting sprog? Pretty mixed messages there. Also the demand for abortions might be a whole lot lower if women getting pregnant outside of wedlock weren't totally ostracised for being "loose women" by their church and local community in these areas.

* Widely preached in churches but the actual bible is very ambiguous on the subject. Not keen in the new testament and reference to adultery in the ten commandments but the rest of the old testament contains innumerable references to women working as hookers or concubines and no-one seemed to mind.

7 comments:

Iceman said...

Of course these distributors of God's love to the world are not new to the idea of defending embryos however small,

Did you ever see the cartoon where George W. Bush's aide shows him a flag-draped soldier's coffin...and tells him "don't worry, it's not a stem cell!"

Large parts of the US now hold essentially no abortion facilities and in many places it is close to impossible to obtain the morning after pill.

Despite only being 15-20% of the population, the religious right are very mobilized in the US. The right-wing churches are very good at getting their members to vote in large numbers while many other segments of society have low voter turnout, and the Republicans emphasize issues like abortion and gay marriage to energize them. The 2004 election went for Bush in large part because of that vote, while a more informed electorate would have thrown Bush out in a landslide.

And if medical intervention is against God's will then why have hospitals at all?

There are actually some Christian groups that don't go to doctors - some of their members have been jailed when their children die for lack of medical care for treatable diseases.

Sarah Louise Parry said...

You brought up some really valid points. Hospital interference is OK when it suits a lot of activists. There is a hell of a lot of hypocrisy surrounding the abortion/IVF devate.

Zola_Malay said...

http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php

great site for the alternative view.

Cruella said...

Wow hello Zola, how interesting to have a real creationist on the blog. Welcome. I had a look at your site and your profile and had a few questions about it:

I notice the site busily refuting aspects of the evolutionary theory. And the argument runs that if evolution didn't make the universe, God must have done. Now I need an answer to the question "who created God?". Is this covered?

Also unlike my site, Dawkins' site and evolution sites like pharyngula, etc, your site doesn't have anywhere I can post comments. What are they afraid of? Please ask them to change that.

I notice that you have started a blog yourself called "The Muslim Feminist" and then not actually posted any pieces. Are you planning to write something? Do you think women can achieve equality with men while (all-male) religious leaders are insisting they dress in burquas, don't have an education, only leave the house in the company of a male relative and can be stoned to death for adultery? I'm fascinated to know how you think tis is possible. Please let me know when you're posting articles!

Zola_Malay said...

Cruella,
I will start publishing shortly and will try my best to answer some of the questions you raise inshallah.
I agree that the site should have a place to leave messages for discussion but its is not "my site". I will email the author and see what he says..

Zola_Malay said...

Cruella my response to "who created god?" is fortunatley already given in Islamic texts.

According to the Quran, Allah tells us that He is the only creator and sustainer of all that exists and that nothing and no one exists alongside Him, nor does He have any partners. He tells us that He is not created, nor is He like His creation in anyway. He calls Himself by a number of names and three of them are:

A) The First - (Al-Awal)
B) The Last - (Al Akhir)
C) The Eternal, who is sought after by His creation, while He has no need from them at all. (As-Samad)

He always has existed and He never was created, as He is not like His creation, nor similar to it, in any way.

("He" is used only out of respect and dignity - not for gender, Allah has no gender).

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created God?' is illogical, just like 'To whom is the bachelor married?', i.e. God cannot be a creation if He himself is the creator?

I will try and post more on this on a seperate piece on my own blog.

Cruella said...

Ah Zola some wonderful arguements here. I've started a new post on them so other readers can chip in...

http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/creationist-ahoy.html#comments