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.

3 comments:

Anonymous 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.

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!

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