pro-choice vs anti-choice

At a time when abortion and rape is being discussed heavily on TV news stations, you would think someone would say something of some substance.  The best comment I have heard is “rape is rape.”  Yes, rape is rape.  Rape is rape whether it is ‘forcible’ or whether it occurs when the woman, OR MAN, is under some sort of sedative or date rape drug.  Rape is rape.  It marks the victim, and that victim will NEVER forget the traumatic experience of being violated in such a way.  But what happens when you add a child into that equation?  Sen. Akin and whoever else wants to say that pregnancy cannot occur from rape can pick up a book or go and speak to rape survivors and find out very quickly it can happen.  Just because every rape does not result in pregnancy does not mean it doesn’t happen.  So for a woman who was not only raped but did get pregnant, how is she supposed to be okay with bringing that man’s child into this world?  How in the world do you think she could look at that child daily?  Not only that, but is she to be a single mother – and how is she supposed to be able to request child support if she does not know who the attacker was?  Well, let me help all of you out there – keep abortion legal for rape and incest victims.  Why are you going to punish the victim by making them carry a child to term that they don’t want, that they cannot fully take care of, and that they cannot even look in the face?  If a woman feels that an abortion is the best thing to do in this situation, who is Senator Todd Akin to tell her she is wrong?  Along the same lines, who is anyone to tell a woman that an abortion is not the right thing to do? 

I heard a comment the other day that frankly pissed me off.  There was a man on some news station that said something along the line about “pro-abortionist” and that they were going to start chanting about it again, or something.  But the word stuck out to me like a sore thumb.  First off, I would say that I don’t know anyone who would consider themselves pro-abortion.  Granted, I think science’s development of safer abortions and the ability to have them is a great thing – but I would never say I was pro-abortion.  (And if that is the name ‘pro-choicers’ are going to be called then “pro-life” no longer exists; you will be known as ‘anti-choice.’  Because that is what this debate is about.)  The argument around abortion should be about having the choice to take the fetus out of your body before the pregnancy term is over.  No woman is going to have an abortion without all of the information, and no legitimate doctor will perform one without giving all of the necessary information.  The religious argument surrounding abortion should not even be discussed at a public level – that is a private decision.  If you think that having an abortion is murder, don’t have one.  Don’t tell me that I cannot make my own decision to have an abortion and don’t tell me I’m going to be religiously punished for it.  The religious debate needs to be taken out of abortion and the political scene altogether.  The right to an abortion has everything to do with choice, and any person who says that a woman cannot have an abortion is taking away her right to choose what she wants to do with something that is in her body.

Long story short, abortion is about choice.  It is about a decision a woman makes that has to do with her body.  The decision is made after consultations with her doctor and typically her boyfriend/husband/family/friends.  The last time I checked, a woman does not consult the government or her state senator to get an abortion – she asks those who would be affected by the decision.  So, Todd Akin and the rest of the GOP who thinks it is okay to speak so ignorantly about rape and abortion need to stop thinking that they can control women and their ability to make decisions for themselves.  Women are capable of putting together facts and statistics and considering their life to make a smart decision regarding abortion.  Abortion should not even be written into the law books – it should be about a decision made between a woman and her doctor – the federal government should have NO jurisdiction in a private hospital room.

I’m done.

non-religious voters: speak up or get ready for theocracy.

Calling all non-religious voters…Where are all the non-religious voters?  At a time when religion seems to be the driving factor in almost every single social issue, you would think someone speaking on behalf of the non-religious would speak up.  But they aren’t.  Not saying that the non-religious are quiet, they aren’t, but they don’t spout about their lack of religion.  What do I mean?  How many people arguing for pro-choice have on their poster “I’m an atheist, I support choice!”  You show me the sign, I will change my mind.  However, how often do you see the sign “God doesn’t support killing, be pro-life!”  The same goes for the issue of gay marriage, stem cell research, and not surprisingly the separation of church and state.  It seems that people who hold certain stances on issues because of a religious reason ONLY have it because of religion – yet, you see more often than not non-religious voters/people hold stances based on many different reasons.  (Granted I am over-simplifying a very complex topic, these observations are still relevant).  To someone who enjoys studying religion and does not practice any faith, it is striking to see how much religion currently influences the decisions and thoughts of everyday people and politicians/lawmakers; yet for some reason the lack of religion is rarely spoken of.

In all the data and polls I have ever saw, those identifying as non-religious make up about 14 to 16 percent of the population, but according to a recent Gallup poll, the non-religious make up about 30 percent of the registered voters (Gallup 7/2012).  Please contain your astonishment, because I was just as shocked that the number was that high; also forewarning the number may be that high because it might be exclusively looking at white voters – the report was unclear.  This measure of religion is based on the importance of religion in their daily lives and also religious attendance (Gallup 7/2012).  Gallup also linked the lack of religion with a few other demographics.  Accordingly, those who are non-religious tend to be younger, unmarried, and vote more prevalently for Obama (Gallup 7/2012).  (Please take a look at the data obtained in argument for what Gallup is proposing.)  I would even go as far to make the claim that geography has just as much of a pull on the effects of a voter’s religion or lack thereof.  I don’t think it is any big surprise to see a religious divide between the south and the northeast – that is pretty much common sense.  Those in the south, particularly in the ‘Bible Belt’, tend to vote more conservatively and Republican, but you could even argue that the area is more rural, traditional, and just plain older.  In states where there are more cities and that are more urban, you are much more likely to see young, college students, unmarried, and more liberal voters – that is just how it goes. 

HuffingtonPost looked at the most and least religious cities in May of this year and not surprisingly Salt Lake City, Utah was the most religious at an astounding 74 percent (surprised, I’m not?) (HuffingtonPost 5/2012).  To be honest, I thought Salt Lake City would be relatively higher than just a measly 74 percent, but whateves.  The cities were kind of all over the map, but some of the higher percentages were from the south, particularly in the ‘Bible Belt’.  Portland, Oregon was the least religious that Huffington mentioned, at 31,591 religious adherents to every 100,000 people (Huffington Post 5/2012).  And just to tie the two points together, according to the CNN election map, not surprisingly Romney has Utah, and Oregon seems to be voting Obama.  Also, minus North Carolina (who isn’t firmly Romney, but leaning) and Florida (toss up like always), the south is supporting Romney.  The northeast, with an exception for New Hampshire (which is a toss up ) is for the  most part supporting Obama (CNN).  So, I do think that geographical location should be a demographic variable used when looking at religion and voting for a specific party as well, because these non-religious voters are attracted to certain areas for a reason.  But, just as Gallup states at the end of this release, this religion divide is not new unique to Obama, but is typically visible where the non-religious vote does tend to sway more with the Democratic candidate (Gallup 7/2012).

Okay, so now we know where all of you non-religious voters are hiding, why are you, as a resource, not being tapped in to?  Why are there no programs set up to improve your life?  There are no private schools to encourage non-religious thinkers.  No well-known lobbyists vying for non-religious institutions or laws.  But you know what, that is testament (ironic word I know) to what non-religious believers stand for – or at least I think so.  Myself, being non-religious, believe that everyone should have an open opportunity not based on their religion.  A politician should not be judged based on their religion but their qualifications for the job at hand; their experience, their knowledge of other cultures, their defense knowledge – not their ability to say a good prayer or go to church every Sunday.  Accordingly, a child should not get a different education or one that does not display all of the facts and theories just because of some religious rhetoric.  Also, religion should not be the basis of the laws that go on the books in this country.  Even though according to Reuters, a poll showed last year around November, “that two-thirds of Americans  believe that it is important for a presidential candidate to have strong religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different than their own” (Reuters).  However, you see the numbers sway a bit when you ask about a Muslim candidate or a Mormon candidate – solely based on their religion.  But here is the question, are people just confused about religion – I mean it seems that way to me.  They want a religious president and yet, in this country, we are constitutionally contracted to not produce religious laws.  But in reality, religion drives almost every single conservative argument, but the liberal argument rarely mentions religion – speaking social issues. 

I think it is about time for the non-religious voters to get just as much media hype as the religious ones.  I want to see some good, non-religious candidates that can run on issues without bringing up the stupid religion arguments.  Face it, not all of us believe that a god created us, not all of us believe that it is a ‘sin’ for same-sex marriage, some of us want to learn about all theories of creation not just the bible version, not all of us believe it is a ‘sin’ to use birth control and contraceptives, and for christ sake, not all of us believe that America is god’s country.  We are all Americans, and that is something we should unite over – we should not be divided by the one thing that differentiates us all from one another, religion.  Non-religious voters want jobs and a booming economy just like those who are religious, so stop shouting your morals and shoving useless bible quotes down our throats, we don’t care.  Politicians who have their religion taped to their forehead and cannot make a statement without quoting the bible is more than likely not going to get a non-religious voters vote.  Keep in mind, granted this news article is a little dated, but the non-religious percentage in the U.S. is growing, and already surpasses some of the most well-known religions and is quickly approaching Catholicism (USA Today).  I think it is about time to realize that the least recognized minority is quickly growing, and yet no politician is seemingly evolving to meet their needs.  It is time to stop ignoring the non-religious and bantering towards the radical religious right.  This is America where religion is supposed to be something we do behind closed doors not printed in the law-books, so how about we take the step and get it out of our decision making process before this country is turned into a theocracy.  

Gallup. 7/2012. http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/07/religiosity-remains-huge-predictor-of.html

Huffington Post. 5/2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/most-and-least-religious-cities_n_1522644.html

CNN. Politics. 2012 Electoral Map. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground

Reuters. 11/2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-survey-idUSTRE7A748N20111108

USA Today. 9/2009. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm