Fanatics (Was: Re: [geeks] Booze and Religion)

[Rick McMullen]

On Saturday 09 March 2002 01:57 pm, you wrote:
> On Saturday, March 9, 2002, at 10:25 , Bill Bradford wrote:
> > Best commentary I've heard on this one: (dont hit me, please..)
> >
> > Ever notice that the pro-life women are ones that you really
> > wouldnt to f**k in the first place?
>
> I've seen a few that were *really* cute, but their attitudes put me
> way off.  Usually that ultra -sugary, bible-thumpin', "My first love
> is the LORD JESUS", right-wing Christian attitude that make me want
> to fill my shoes with steaming piles of vomit.

Unwillingly, I'm drawn to the bait:

"Pro-Life" != Christian

My own personal religious belief could best be described as relaxed 
agnosticism mixed with ruthless social-darwinism.  Nevertheless, I have 
a real issue with the casual disregard for human potential that is 
embodied in the catchy "lump of flesh" moniker.  We cannot know what we 
risk losing every time an abortion is performed.  It could be Joe Blow. 
Or it could be the next Einstein.  Is it worth the risk?  I don't see 
this as a question of religious faith, it is just logical reasoning.  
And before someone throws it back at me, yes, this applies in cases of 
rape and incest as well.  The only possible justification I can see is 
the in extremis hazard to the life of the mother (not including 
Ireland's easy suicide loophole).

This uneasiness even extends to the creation and subsequent destruction 
(or, worse, genetic experimentation a la stem cell cultures) of 
fertilized ova in the in-vitro fertilization process.  Can't reproduce 
without extensive medical intervention?  Nature is telling you your 
section of the gene-pool needs a little chlorine.  Sorry, but that's 
the way I see it.  I feel compassion for those who desperately wish 
children, but the long-range view overrides.  

OTOH, this is just the way _I_ look at it.  Feel free to disagree as 
vehemently as you wish.  Convince me I'm wrong.
-- 
Rick McMullen