Thou Shalt Not Use the Bible to Defend Your Abortion Stance

Congress is currently hearing H.R. 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act,” a bill introduced by Republican Steve King of Ohio that would Federally ban all abortions after six weeks.

It is widely accepted that the bill is not intended to pass, but is another great Republican use of the taxpayers’ money, to wit: poking Roe v. Wade. The right wing is very excited about the prospect of The Donald stacking the Supreme Court with a bunch of activist Bible-thumpers, and this is their first shot across the bow. As usual, it’s a bunch of men proposing restrictions on the rights of women.

Now, the right wing, especially the religious right, but even your average gay-bashing, Confederacy apologist Republican politician, loves to cite the Bible to justify their grossly inappropriate and inhumane behavior. For example, when the recent allegations about Roy Moore’s propensity to chase underage girls emerged, Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler brushed them off with “Joseph was an adult carpenter and Mary was a teenager, and they became the parents of Jesus.”

The Bible on Abortion

But since Pro-Birth activists are so quick to wave the Bible, let’s see what the Bible has to say about abortion. Hmm…

Let’s see here….

Oh! I see! Nothing! Since it’s the Bible, the words can be twisted to say anything the reader wants, but there is nothing explicit in the Bible about abortion, early termination of pregnancy (other than a verse stating that if someone causes your pregnant wife to miscarry, they owe you restitution, just as if they dented your fender, Exodus 21:22), or frankly, anything about children really at all, besides the fact that’s important to give them a good beating now and then to keep them in line (Proverbs 13:24).

And WHY, do you suppose it is, that God, who had so much to say about what you should wear, what you can eat and who you can have sex with, was completely mum on the subject of abortion? Well, I’ll tell you why. Because 2000 years ago, if you didn’t want your baby, you would take it up a mountain right after it was born and leave it there. It was called exposure, and it was a very effective form of birth control, and no one gave a shit. Not God. Not anybody. “Hey, Jim, what happened to that little one you had on the way?” “Oh, it turned out to be a girl, so I had to go up the mountain,” “Ah, hard luck. You’ll get ‘em next time, old boy!”

So, any Pro-Birther who tries to shove a Bible in your face has no idea what they’re talking about. Shockingly. The war by the Right against abortion is about one thing, and one thing only: The subjugation of women.

Is Abortion Murder?

Now, if you are Pro-Birth, you may personally feel that this does not reflect your opinion. You genuinely believe those clumps of cells are human beings being murdered. But let me ask you to participate in this thought experiment:

There is a virus raging through the country, killing everyone. There is a vaccine, but supplies are limited. You are six weeks pregnant with twins and have a four-year-old son. Do you give your one dose of vaccine to yourself or your four-year-old child?

If you choose to take the injection yourself and save your unborn twins in the process, you are a good, utilitarian, pro-birth mother. Three is better than one. If, on the other hand, you choose to give the medicine to your four year old, it means you actually have children.

Well, you don’t have to have children to make the right choice, obviously, but I have a hard time imagining any real mother opting to sacrifice her son in this scenario. So, at the very least, the life of a fetus and the life of a living human are not equivalent. The Republicans in Congress know this. They do not care. It’s about subjugation. Don’t believe me? I have three words for you: “Baird v. Eisenstadt.”

What Is Baird v. Eisenstadt?

We hear a lot about the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that affirmed that it is unconstitutional to criminalize abortion. We hear very little about the decision the previous year, Baird v. Eisenstadt. That’s the one that legalized birth control.

Yes, that’s right. Even though the birth control pill reached the public consciousness in the 1960s, and some form of birth control had existed pretty much since civilization began before that, unmarried women did not have a Federally protected right to birth control until 1972, the year before Roe. And you read that right, unmarried women. It was just fine for married couples to use birth control, presumably because that meant the man was sick of his wife pumping out rugrats.

Attacks on abortion, just like attacks on birth control, are about keeping women out of the workforce, out of politics, out of anything but the kitchen and the bedroom, just like “the good old days.”

Abortion may be a tragedy, you may find it distasteful, but if it occurs before a fetus is viable, it is not murder, and if you support legislation that implies that it is, you are betraying the female gender. The next time a Pro-Birther reaches for a Bible to defend their position, save them some time. There ain’t nothing in there for them. Perhaps you can convince them to pick up a book on gender politics in the 21^st century instead.

Can Atheists Pray?

In the 3/8/15 episode of The Good Wife (“The Mind’s Eye”), a heavily stylized episode that focuses mostly on the internal life of the protagonist, Alicia Florrick, Alicia goes to visit a nemesis who is in the hospital at death’s door. The dying man’s wife, Simone, asks Alicia to pray for him. Alicia, an avowed atheist, reluctantly agrees. You can see the full scene here.

This stirs up a crisis of conscience for Alicia (she even imagines Richard Dawkins calling her a hypocrite). Since she is an atheist, is it right for her to pray to a god she doesn’t believe in? Ultimately, she asks her daughter, the aptly named Grace, a much more faith-oriented individual, to pray for her. When Grace asks why, Alicia explains that it wouldn’t mean anything if she did it herself.

Grace rightly points out that from Alicia’s perspective, it shouldn’t mean anything if Grace does it either, and tells her mother it is perfectly acceptable for her to pray. Unmoved, Alicia presses the issue, and Grace agrees to be her proxy.

Who’s right here? I think it’s clearly Grace. In fact, Alicia seems to apply an ironic reverence to the concept of prayer. It’s almost as if she thinks God will be mad if He catches Alicia praying because He knows she doesn’t mean it. I mean, if she’s praying to no one, what’s the harm? It’s not like her dying nemesis will be sped closer to his reward because of a false prayer foul.

For Alicia, it comes down to this issue of hypocrisy. How can she proclaim to be an atheist and then entreat God for favors, even if they are for someone else? In her mind, by passing the duty on to her daughter, she is fulfilling the request more honestly, by putting it in the hands of someone who really believes in what she’s doing, despite the fact that this isn’t really what the requester asked for, and, from Alicia’s perspective, makes the prayer no more likely to be “successful.”

But I think Alicia is missing the point. I think it’s the gesture that the grieving wife was asking for, not any kind of result. For Alicia to agree and follow through with the request shows care and desire for connection; it’s not about any kind of magical power to bend God’s ear.

Why can’t Alicia see this? I think it has to do with how charged the issue of religion is, and how complicated atheism can be in a country that really does still cleave to many of the trappings of religion. After all, if Simone had asked Alicia to “think good thoughts,” I’m sure she would have happily agreed to the request with no reservations at all.

So why should atheists get squeamish about praying? Buddhists pray, and they don’t do it to curry favor with a Judeo-Christian concept of God. It’s more about speaking to the universe, and giving the universe an opportunity to listen, and being in that moment of attempting to communicate with something bigger than oneself (I imagine. I’m not a Buddhist. If I’m getting this wrong, I encourage my Buddhist readership to comment). If you want, like George Carlin, you can pray to Joe Pesci. As Carlin points out, your success rate will be no worse, and it might even be better.

Yes, a prayer that begins something like: “O Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for my sins and was reborn, please hear my prayer,” or the like, is probably not appropriate for an atheist. On the other hand, joining hands with a Christian family as they make such a prayer should really be no big deal. It makes them happy, and if you’re confident in your beliefs, it shouldn’t hurt you.

But besides that, prayer can serve purposes other than sucking up or asking favors to a Judeo-Christian god. Prayers put wishes, hopes, and dreams out there in the universe, and if nothing else, makes them real for you so you are in a better position to actualize them. Prayer can give comfort to others, even if you personally don’t feel anyone is listening. And in the end, even the atheists don’t really know who or what might or might not be listening.

Personally, the only time I really pray is when I need a heart on the river in a multi-way four-figure pot, and those prayers are usually answered about one time out of four. I’m not saying prayer is for everyone. But, even if you are an atheist, there certainly isn’t anything wrong with it.