Can you explain the problem with the Buddhist tattoo, please? It seems to me that he actually really respects the religion. I have a white British friend who decided to become a Buddhist a few years ago, if she got a tattoo like that would it be seen as a problem? Sorry that I don't quite understand! If someone joined a religion (eg an English person joining Islam) would it be wrong for them to wear a headscarf or anything? I try to be careful with this stuff but I don't know all of it.

@Anonymous

mercuryqueenlovr:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

Having images of Buddha, of Hindu Gods and Goddesses is EXTREMELY disrespectful and no one in that religion would do such a thing, its much more different than someone converting to a religion and then following what the religion says to do.
If he truly knew that much about Buddhism and cared that much, I think he would be a little more open eyed to how actual followers to react to his displaying of Buddha on his body.


-Ash

Except that I have a Buddhist monk that comes into my work who has a tattoo of the Buddha. Does that mean that he is disrespecting the Buddha?

Most religions have sects that are stricter than others. When you say that “No one who follows that religion would do that.” You are discounting the people who do those things.

The major consensus that I’ve seen in Buddhism over getting tattoos is the fact you are depicting Buddha somewhere that could be dirty or soiled, or displaying Buddha in a way that is vain or show offy about your ‘worldlyness’ or Buddhist’ness’. When you don’t even follow the religion you have no place appropriating symbols from it, no matter how much a person has researched. Yes. Certain sects of Buddhism do have tattoos of the Buddha, but those are monks, not western white people who are spoon fed Buddhism by media and people who are looking to make a money off of spirituality of other ethnicities
-Ash

(If you want to keep up that conversation, you can clip the post for brevity and just state that you did so!)

true, I always forget you can do stuff like that, but I also have to make dinner for the kid now lol. And there comes a point in those kind of discussions where they’re just going around in circles, and that kid was circling pretty hard.

- Jane

Thanks for your response about the Buddha tattoo Alyssa. I researched it a little more and apparently there's a few reasons that it could be seen as offensive, some people are saying that only higher class (there's some kind of ranking system I think) people should have the tattoo, and some are saying it's because in some parts of Thailand tattoos are associated with lower class people and gangs. I swear I learn something new every week or so on this blog.

@Anonymous

It’s Ash haha, but yeah that is a part that’s put with it but there’s also been accounts of legitimate Buddhist monks decrying the depiction of Buddha in tattoos. When the discontent comes from that, it’s awful to continue to do it because it shows you have no regards whatsoever to the religion
-Ash

Okay, I’m going to let that conversation go because that long-ass post is getting super annoying to scroll past, and this kid is learning nothing.

I gotta say though, anyone who thinks consent doesn’t exist without religion probably isn’t someone I’d want around.

- Jane

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

carolinachristian:

cake-and-grief-counseling:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

Whose “god” exactly?
Which one?
I’m Wiccan and I can tell you right now that my God and Goddess think I’m handling my reproductive health just fine.
But then, Christians forget other religions exist, don’t they?
- Jane

As an atheist, following this directive would be a bit like letting the tooth fairy govern my reproductive health. Jeez, this photo oozes ethnocentrism (or whatever the better word for “religion-centrism” might be).

Theeeeeeen….as an atheist, the “God” part OBVIOUSLY does not apply. You’re fussing because…what exactly?

I think the sign of the cross next to it makes it pretty clear which God it’s referring to. Of course there are no other Gods but let’s not get into that

You wanna know why I add commentary pointing out that “religion” and “god” do not always mean “Christianity”? Because I will remind Christians at every opportunity that they are not the only religion, they are not the only faith, they are not the only spiritual option. And that they cannot demand religious freedom for themselves without granting it for the rest of us.
Christians need to remember they are not the be-all and end-all of faith, and that people of all faiths - and no faiths - deserve just as many rights as they do, and that we should not be bound by the conventions of your religion.
- Jane

I’m not saying they don’t deserve as many rights and freedom…I’m not really sure how you could possibly draw those conclusions. Even so there is a difference between what is morality and what is religious freedom, I would consider killing a person falls under the morality category…

Our most basic right is the right to bodily autonomy. Without it, there is no basis for any other rights we have.
It is immoral to use another person’s body without their consent, even if it means saving your own life.
So yes, if you are against abortion, you are absolutely trying to take away our right to bodily autonomy. And it is absolutely immoral.
- Jane

I would have considered our most basic right being life…if one’s life is not valuable then one’s bodily autonomy is not valuable, the reverse is not true. Not to say that bodily autonomy is not valuable, merely that life of a person is far more important than your discomfort, pain etc. etc. Now hear my right I’m not saying make abortion illegal and let’s be done with, of course other things need changing, better systems for adoption, better access to healthcare, better access to mental and social support for pregnant women etc.etc. these things all need improving as well, of course I still value the women and her well-being, I just also value the life of a human being. 

Except that we still have the right to bodily autonomy even when we die. We can’t take organ donations from a corpse without consent when the person was alive, even if that organ will save someone’s live - which is almost always will.
By removing the right to bodily autonomy from pregnant people to preserve a fetus, you are giving them less rights than a corpse.
And if the right to life was as important as pro-lifers seem to think then we’d never have kids starving in the street or people dying from treatable illnesses. Blood and organ donation would be mandatory. But it’s not, because we value one person’s bodily autonomy OVER the life of someone else.
- Jane

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

This “rebuttal” has been taken apart multiple times. Like here, for instance.
- Jane

Alright fine where are you getting your right from. Let’s assume that you’re completely correct and that bodily autonomy is indeed the most basic right for a human being. Where does that right come from?

Is this the part where you try to “gotcha!” me into saying “well, your Christian god does!”?
Being Wiccan, I do personally believe that as human beings, we are born with certain rights. Key words being born with. As in, you don’t have rights until you’re born.
But since I don’t expect anyone to follow my faith, the rights I’m talking about are the ones we, society as a whole, have decided are the ones we are afforded and that should be protected. Bodily autonomy is the one that is the most protected and most basic. Because we are autonomous beings, we have the right to preserve that autonomy. I don’t personally think personhood or rights should be granted to fetuses, but here’s the thing:
Even if they were, even if fetuses were granted personhood and the rights every born person has, they still wouldn’t have the right to use a person’s body without that person’s ongoing consent.
Using a person’s body without their continuous, informed consent is not a right we ever have had, nor is it a right anyone should be allowed. Not even a fetus.
- Jane

No that’s not it, I’m not stupid, shocking as it may seem. So since you exclude your personal faith from being a factor I shall also exclude it. Society is not a valid reason for justifying a right, some societies love their neighbour whilst others eat their neighbour, which societal concept of value do we then conform to? By what means do we attribute value to one society’s set of morals over another? Of course we could acknowledge that each society’s set of values are equally important within that society and that we have no right to impose our own values upon another society but then if we take that concept we find ourselves suddenly questioning moral decisions we generally accept as being right, you could even question the decision to oppose Germany on world war 2 on the grounds that it was their society and their values and we had no right to impose our own personal morality upon them. Not only that but suddenly the idea of change and reform within society doesn’t seem quite right, the abolitionists in Britain like William Wilberforce were for a very long period of time the minority in their society, they opposed the generally accepted values of their society and yet we look back and acknowledge that their actions and their reform of society was indeed right. (Just as a disclaimer I’m not comparing abortion to nazi germany or the trans-atlantic slave trade) If our rights and our value are attained purely from society then the concept of rights and value collapses in on itself. So the argument of bodily autonomy essentially ‘because society says so’ doesn’t really hold up very well.
I’ll also ask you another question, how does one lose one’s bodily autonomy?

Okay first, please learn to use a paragraph break. It’s difficult for people with vision problems to parse a great wall of text like that.
Second, I said that our right for bodily autonomy derives from the fact that we are autonomous people, and therefore should have the right to preserve that autonomy. Not that society gives us that right, just that we as a society have decided to recognize and protect that right.
I dislike the idea of assigning any kind of “value” to us as human beings. We’re people, we don’t need to have “value”, and too often the idea of “value” leads to the belief that some people are “worth” more than others.
Now, when you say “lose” one’s bodily autonomy, do you mean “when is the right to bodily autonomy taken away”? Or do you mean “is there a point in time when we no longer have that right”?
- Jane

With regards to your last paragraph, both.
First of all you make the assumption we are autonomous, I agree, we are. However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc. So we are required to accept a form of spirituality in order to even have the concept of people as autonomous. Now even if people are autonomous, why does that autonomy have any value, or since you dislike the term let’s say significance. Why is a person’s autonomy significant? Why does it even matter? We’ve already seen that we can’t look to society for that, so again we need to look to some form of spirituality for our answers, yet suddenly we are within the realms of subjectivity, your wiccan views say one thing while my Christian views say another, do we acknowledge one of them or do we concede that it is subjective and therefore we cannot look to that in order to inform our views.
So here’s what I’m saying, in order to inform your concept of bodily autonomy, not just that but bodily autonomy as a basic right we have to look to our subjective faith/spirituality call it what you will. So either you can’t use that argument because it is founded on something subjective, or you must defend the truth of your own faith, why should we accept and acknowledge your views which are informed by your faith.
Ultimately your argument of bodily autonomy requires an intellectual defense of your own faith and spirituality in order to be valid.
With regards to the whole paragraph thing I am doing other things, formatting a tumblr post is hardly top of my list of priorities.

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what bodily autonomy means. For instance this : " However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc"
What does that even mean? Bodily autonomy means that our bodies, once we are born, are not biologically dependent on another person’s body to live. That’s all it means. It isn’t about… whatever the hell you’re trying to say there, it sounds like you’re talking about our instincts, but it’s irrelevant to our biological bodily autonomy. So no, we are NOT required to have a religious belief to acknowledge born human beings as autonomous because it’s a biological fact.
Why is a person’s bodily autonomy significant? Because it’s literally the first thing we have when we’re born - a body that is no longer biologically dependent on another’s for survival.
And before you start talking about “well a baby is dependent on its parent’s for survival”, that is not the same as biological dependency. That is social dependency. Anyone can take care of a baby. Only the pregnant person can carry that particular pregnancy.
- Jane
ETA: As for “when is it taken away?” It isn’t. Even in death we still have bodily autonomy.
Now, there have been laws that have infringed on bodily autonomy before. But you’ll notice, progress has always been in the direction of allowing bodily autonomy, not restricting it.

Interesting then how we happily display the skulls of dead people in museums without their consent, interesting also how if a minor carries a donor card it requires parental consent before their organs can be used (at least that’s true in the UK)…
Also my other point is still valid because you say we infringe upon someone’s bodily autonomy when we force them to use their body for something without their consent, whatever that may be, now, consent only exists as a concept if we have free will, consent requires a choice which requires free will. Now from a purely naturalistic perspective we do not have free will, both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking concede that free will is not a real concept, that we are in fact pre determined by our genetics etc. To do everything we do, and the majority of learned people with their worldview concur. So in order for there to be such a concept as consent there has to be such a concept of free will which requires an appeal to a spirituality of some sort.
Again with regards to your last paragraph I wasn’t going to mention that, as I said I’m not a fool despite what you may suppose.

Yes, and that’s WRONG. Bodily autonomy isn’t null and void just because some museums infringe on it. I don’t think you need parental permission to be an organ donor in the US, just your license or ID, since that’s when you sign up.
No, consent does not only exist if we have divine free will. The fact that we can make decisions (whether those decisions are influenced by genetics or not) means we can consent or withdraw consent or refuse consent. It doesn’t matter what the basis of those decisions is, whether it’s divine free will or genetics and evolution, or magic trolls from under a bridge, as long as we can make a choice, we can consent.
I mean, Richard Dawkins is a complete jackass, but c’mon. You really think that even if we’re working mostly on instinct that we can’t consent or revoke consent?
You can try and bring it back to religion all you want, but even if we’re making choices based on biological drives alone, we still make those choices. And we still have bodily autonomy.
- Jane

No here’s what I’m saying. From a purely biological standpoint we do not have free will, I’m not talking about divine free will, I’m just talking about a person’s ability to make their own choices. With just biology we are incapable of making our own decisions because everything we do is predetermined by our genetics, not just influenced, predetermined. Our choices are not our own they are merely a series of chemicals firing off in the brain, and because of our genetics those chemicals were always going to do that anyway.
Richard Dawkins is a rather rude man and I disagree with him on very many counts but he is an intellectual man and therefore presents a good representation of the intellectual consequences of having that world view.

Bro, you are still arguing from your religious point of view whether you realize it or not.
Because you keep insisting that the if choices we make are because of our own brains and genetics and chemical biology,those are  somehow not our own choices. But if it’s our brains and our genetics and our chemical reactions, then they are still our own choices. Whether we make those choices intellectually or instinctively, they still belong to us.
The only way we are separate from those choices and those choices are not our own, is if our consciousness was a separate being from our body and biological functions. Kind of like, mmm, a soul.
You are still arguing from your religious bias, and it’s not working.
- Jane

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

carolinachristian:

cake-and-grief-counseling:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

Whose “god” exactly?

Which one?

I’m Wiccan and I can tell you right now that my God and Goddess think I’m handling my reproductive health just fine.

But then, Christians forget other religions exist, don’t they?

- Jane

As an atheist, following this directive would be a bit like letting the tooth fairy govern my reproductive health. Jeez, this photo oozes ethnocentrism (or whatever the better word for “religion-centrism” might be).

Theeeeeeen….as an atheist, the “God” part OBVIOUSLY does not apply. You’re fussing because…what exactly?

I think the sign of the cross next to it makes it pretty clear which God it’s referring to. Of course there are no other Gods but let’s not get into that

You wanna know why I add commentary pointing out that “religion” and “god” do not always mean “Christianity”? Because I will remind Christians at every opportunity that they are not the only religion, they are not the only faith, they are not the only spiritual option. And that they cannot demand religious freedom for themselves without granting it for the rest of us.

Christians need to remember they are not the be-all and end-all of faith, and that people of all faiths - and no faiths - deserve just as many rights as they do, and that we should not be bound by the conventions of your religion.

- Jane

I’m not saying they don’t deserve as many rights and freedom…I’m not really sure how you could possibly draw those conclusions. Even so there is a difference between what is morality and what is religious freedom, I would consider killing a person falls under the morality category…

Our most basic right is the right to bodily autonomy. Without it, there is no basis for any other rights we have.

It is immoral to use another person’s body without their consent, even if it means saving your own life.

So yes, if you are against abortion, you are absolutely trying to take away our right to bodily autonomy. And it is absolutely immoral.

- Jane

I would have considered our most basic right being life…if one’s life is not valuable then one’s bodily autonomy is not valuable, the reverse is not true. Not to say that bodily autonomy is not valuable, merely that life of a person is far more important than your discomfort, pain etc. etc. Now hear my right I’m not saying make abortion illegal and let’s be done with, of course other things need changing, better systems for adoption, better access to healthcare, better access to mental and social support for pregnant women etc.etc. these things all need improving as well, of course I still value the women and her well-being, I just also value the life of a human being. 

Except that we still have the right to bodily autonomy even when we die. We can’t take organ donations from a corpse without consent when the person was alive, even if that organ will save someone’s live - which is almost always will.

By removing the right to bodily autonomy from pregnant people to preserve a fetus, you are giving them less rights than a corpse.

And if the right to life was as important as pro-lifers seem to think then we’d never have kids starving in the street or people dying from treatable illnesses. Blood and organ donation would be mandatory. But it’s not, because we value one person’s bodily autonomy OVER the life of someone else.

- Jane

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

This “rebuttal” has been taken apart multiple times. Like here, for instance.

- Jane

Alright fine where are you getting your right from. Let’s assume that you’re completely correct and that bodily autonomy is indeed the most basic right for a human being. Where does that right come from?

Is this the part where you try to “gotcha!” me into saying “well, your Christian god does!”?

Being Wiccan, I do personally believe that as human beings, we are born with certain rights. Key words being born with. As in, you don’t have rights until you’re born.

But since I don’t expect anyone to follow my faith, the rights I’m talking about are the ones we, society as a whole, have decided are the ones we are afforded and that should be protected. Bodily autonomy is the one that is the most protected and most basic. Because we are autonomous beings, we have the right to preserve that autonomy. I don’t personally think personhood or rights should be granted to fetuses, but here’s the thing:

Even if they were, even if fetuses were granted personhood and the rights every born person has, they still wouldn’t have the right to use a person’s body without that person’s ongoing consent.

Using a person’s body without their continuous, informed consent is not a right we ever have had, nor is it a right anyone should be allowed. Not even a fetus.

- Jane

No that’s not it, I’m not stupid, shocking as it may seem. So since you exclude your personal faith from being a factor I shall also exclude it. Society is not a valid reason for justifying a right, some societies love their neighbour whilst others eat their neighbour, which societal concept of value do we then conform to? By what means do we attribute value to one society’s set of morals over another? Of course we could acknowledge that each society’s set of values are equally important within that society and that we have no right to impose our own values upon another society but then if we take that concept we find ourselves suddenly questioning moral decisions we generally accept as being right, you could even question the decision to oppose Germany on world war 2 on the grounds that it was their society and their values and we had no right to impose our own personal morality upon them. Not only that but suddenly the idea of change and reform within society doesn’t seem quite right, the abolitionists in Britain like William Wilberforce were for a very long period of time the minority in their society, they opposed the generally accepted values of their society and yet we look back and acknowledge that their actions and their reform of society was indeed right. (Just as a disclaimer I’m not comparing abortion to nazi germany or the trans-atlantic slave trade) If our rights and our value are attained purely from society then the concept of rights and value collapses in on itself. So the argument of bodily autonomy essentially ‘because society says so’ doesn’t really hold up very well.

I’ll also ask you another question, how does one lose one’s bodily autonomy?

Okay first, please learn to use a paragraph break. It’s difficult for people with vision problems to parse a great wall of text like that.

Second, I said that our right for bodily autonomy derives from the fact that we are autonomous people, and therefore should have the right to preserve that autonomy. Not that society gives us that right, just that we as a society have decided to recognize and protect that right.

I dislike the idea of assigning any kind of “value” to us as human beings. We’re people, we don’t need to have “value”, and too often the idea of “value” leads to the belief that some people are “worth” more than others.

Now, when you say “lose” one’s bodily autonomy, do you mean “when is the right to bodily autonomy taken away”? Or do you mean “is there a point in time when we no longer have that right”?

- Jane

With regards to your last paragraph, both.

First of all you make the assumption we are autonomous, I agree, we are. However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc. So we are required to accept a form of spirituality in order to even have the concept of people as autonomous. Now even if people are autonomous, why does that autonomy have any value, or since you dislike the term let’s say significance. Why is a person’s autonomy significant? Why does it even matter? We’ve already seen that we can’t look to society for that, so again we need to look to some form of spirituality for our answers, yet suddenly we are within the realms of subjectivity, your wiccan views say one thing while my Christian views say another, do we acknowledge one of them or do we concede that it is subjective and therefore we cannot look to that in order to inform our views.

So here’s what I’m saying, in order to inform your concept of bodily autonomy, not just that but bodily autonomy as a basic right we have to look to our subjective faith/spirituality call it what you will. So either you can’t use that argument because it is founded on something subjective, or you must defend the truth of your own faith, why should we accept and acknowledge your views which are informed by your faith.

Ultimately your argument of bodily autonomy requires an intellectual defense of your own faith and spirituality in order to be valid.

With regards to the whole paragraph thing I am doing other things, formatting a tumblr post is hardly top of my list of priorities.

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what bodily autonomy means. For instance this : " However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc"

What does that even mean? Bodily autonomy means that our bodies, once we are born, are not biologically dependent on another person’s body to live. That’s all it means. It isn’t about… whatever the hell you’re trying to say there, it sounds like you’re talking about our instincts, but it’s irrelevant to our biological bodily autonomy. So no, we are NOT required to have a religious belief to acknowledge born human beings as autonomous because it’s a biological fact.

Why is a person’s bodily autonomy significant? Because it’s literally the first thing we have when we’re born - a body that is no longer biologically dependent on another’s for survival.

And before you start talking about “well a baby is dependent on its parent’s for survival”, that is not the same as biological dependency. That is social dependency. Anyone can take care of a baby. Only the pregnant person can carry that particular pregnancy.

- Jane

ETA: As for “when is it taken away?” It isn’t. Even in death we still have bodily autonomy.

Now, there have been laws that have infringed on bodily autonomy before. But you’ll notice, progress has always been in the direction of allowing bodily autonomy, not restricting it.

Interesting then how we happily display the skulls of dead people in museums without their consent, interesting also how if a minor carries a donor card it requires parental consent before their organs can be used (at least that’s true in the UK)…

Also my other point is still valid because you say we infringe upon someone’s bodily autonomy when we force them to use their body for something without their consent, whatever that may be, now, consent only exists as a concept if we have free will, consent requires a choice which requires free will. Now from a purely naturalistic perspective we do not have free will, both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking concede that free will is not a real concept, that we are in fact pre determined by our genetics etc. To do everything we do, and the majority of learned people with their worldview concur. So in order for there to be such a concept as consent there has to be such a concept of free will which requires an appeal to a spirituality of some sort.

Again with regards to your last paragraph I wasn’t going to mention that, as I said I’m not a fool despite what you may suppose.

Yes, and that’s WRONG. Bodily autonomy isn’t null and void just because some museums infringe on it. I don’t think you need parental permission to be an organ donor in the US, just your license or ID, since that’s when you sign up.

No, consent does not only exist if we have divine free will. The fact that we can make decisions (whether those decisions are influenced by genetics or not) means we can consent or withdraw consent or refuse consent. It doesn’t matter what the basis of those decisions is, whether it’s divine free will or genetics and evolution, or magic trolls from under a bridge, as long as we can make a choice, we can consent.

I mean, Richard Dawkins is a complete jackass, but c’mon. You really think that even if we’re working mostly on instinct that we can’t consent or revoke consent?

You can try and bring it back to religion all you want, but even if we’re making choices based on biological drives alone, we still make those choices. And we still have bodily autonomy.

- Jane

No here’s what I’m saying. From a purely biological standpoint we do not have free will, I’m not talking about divine free will, I’m just talking about a person’s ability to make their own choices. With just biology we are incapable of making our own decisions because everything we do is predetermined by our genetics, not just influenced, predetermined. Our choices are not our own they are merely a series of chemicals firing off in the brain, and because of our genetics those chemicals were always going to do that anyway.

Richard Dawkins is a rather rude man and I disagree with him on very many counts but he is an intellectual man and therefore presents a good representation of the intellectual consequences of having that world view.

Bro, you are still arguing from your religious point of view whether you realize it or not.

Because you keep insisting that the if choices we make are because of our own brains and genetics and chemical biology,those are  somehow not our own choices. But if it’s our brains and our genetics and our chemical reactions, then they are still our own choices. Whether we make those choices intellectually or instinctively, they still belong to us.

The only way we are separate from those choices and those choices are not our own, is if our consciousness was a separate being from our body and biological functions. Kind of like, mmm, a soul.

You are still arguing from your religious bias, and it’s not working.

- Jane

(Source: n0tofthisw0rld)

How many pro-lifers do you think would regret their life of fighting for abortion to be illegalized if it did become illegalized, and then they found out they needed one. I mean I have heard stories of pro-lifers who actually go in and have an abortion or have their child get one, because "This is different," and then go back the next day to harass people.

@zinge

I’ve read so many stories like that too, pretty amazing. They’d of course stress how their situation is really really really different than all others and they just can’t be pregnant at that point in time
-Ash

Can you explain the problem with the Buddhist tattoo, please? It seems to me that he actually really respects the religion. I have a white British friend who decided to become a Buddhist a few years ago, if she got a tattoo like that would it be seen as a problem? Sorry that I don't quite understand! If someone joined a religion (eg an English person joining Islam) would it be wrong for them to wear a headscarf or anything? I try to be careful with this stuff but I don't know all of it.

@Anonymous

Having images of Buddha, of Hindu Gods and Goddesses is EXTREMELY disrespectful and no one in that religion would do such a thing, its much more different than someone converting to a religion and then following what the religion says to do.
If he truly knew that much about Buddhism and cared that much, I think he would be a little more open eyed to how actual followers to react to his displaying of Buddha on his body.


-Ash

Okay I adore this blog as a whole and all of the mods but can I just say on that 'let god control my parenthood' or whatever it was post, Jane answered every single comment flawlessly in my opinion. That's one of the dumbest, infuriating posts I've seen about abortion in a while and I have no idea how she (or you, if you're the one reading this) remained so calm and gave intelligent thought out responses. You go Jane! Forever following this blog, I need it in my life.

@Anonymous

Thank you so much! I’ve never modded a blog before, and debate has never been my strong suit, so I wonder sometimes if I’m making any sense lol. Thank you so much for the support.

- Jane

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

carolinachristian:

cake-and-grief-counseling:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

Whose “god” exactly?
Which one?
I’m Wiccan and I can tell you right now that my God and Goddess think I’m handling my reproductive health just fine.
But then, Christians forget other religions exist, don’t they?
- Jane

As an atheist, following this directive would be a bit like letting the tooth fairy govern my reproductive health. Jeez, this photo oozes ethnocentrism (or whatever the better word for “religion-centrism” might be).

Theeeeeeen….as an atheist, the “God” part OBVIOUSLY does not apply. You’re fussing because…what exactly?

I think the sign of the cross next to it makes it pretty clear which God it’s referring to. Of course there are no other Gods but let’s not get into that

You wanna know why I add commentary pointing out that “religion” and “god” do not always mean “Christianity”? Because I will remind Christians at every opportunity that they are not the only religion, they are not the only faith, they are not the only spiritual option. And that they cannot demand religious freedom for themselves without granting it for the rest of us.
Christians need to remember they are not the be-all and end-all of faith, and that people of all faiths - and no faiths - deserve just as many rights as they do, and that we should not be bound by the conventions of your religion.
- Jane

I’m not saying they don’t deserve as many rights and freedom…I’m not really sure how you could possibly draw those conclusions. Even so there is a difference between what is morality and what is religious freedom, I would consider killing a person falls under the morality category…

Our most basic right is the right to bodily autonomy. Without it, there is no basis for any other rights we have.
It is immoral to use another person’s body without their consent, even if it means saving your own life.
So yes, if you are against abortion, you are absolutely trying to take away our right to bodily autonomy. And it is absolutely immoral.
- Jane

I would have considered our most basic right being life…if one’s life is not valuable then one’s bodily autonomy is not valuable, the reverse is not true. Not to say that bodily autonomy is not valuable, merely that life of a person is far more important than your discomfort, pain etc. etc. Now hear my right I’m not saying make abortion illegal and let’s be done with, of course other things need changing, better systems for adoption, better access to healthcare, better access to mental and social support for pregnant women etc.etc. these things all need improving as well, of course I still value the women and her well-being, I just also value the life of a human being. 

Except that we still have the right to bodily autonomy even when we die. We can’t take organ donations from a corpse without consent when the person was alive, even if that organ will save someone’s live - which is almost always will.
By removing the right to bodily autonomy from pregnant people to preserve a fetus, you are giving them less rights than a corpse.
And if the right to life was as important as pro-lifers seem to think then we’d never have kids starving in the street or people dying from treatable illnesses. Blood and organ donation would be mandatory. But it’s not, because we value one person’s bodily autonomy OVER the life of someone else.
- Jane

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

This “rebuttal” has been taken apart multiple times. Like here, for instance.
- Jane

Alright fine where are you getting your right from. Let’s assume that you’re completely correct and that bodily autonomy is indeed the most basic right for a human being. Where does that right come from?

Is this the part where you try to “gotcha!” me into saying “well, your Christian god does!”?
Being Wiccan, I do personally believe that as human beings, we are born with certain rights. Key words being born with. As in, you don’t have rights until you’re born.
But since I don’t expect anyone to follow my faith, the rights I’m talking about are the ones we, society as a whole, have decided are the ones we are afforded and that should be protected. Bodily autonomy is the one that is the most protected and most basic. Because we are autonomous beings, we have the right to preserve that autonomy. I don’t personally think personhood or rights should be granted to fetuses, but here’s the thing:
Even if they were, even if fetuses were granted personhood and the rights every born person has, they still wouldn’t have the right to use a person’s body without that person’s ongoing consent.
Using a person’s body without their continuous, informed consent is not a right we ever have had, nor is it a right anyone should be allowed. Not even a fetus.
- Jane

No that’s not it, I’m not stupid, shocking as it may seem. So since you exclude your personal faith from being a factor I shall also exclude it. Society is not a valid reason for justifying a right, some societies love their neighbour whilst others eat their neighbour, which societal concept of value do we then conform to? By what means do we attribute value to one society’s set of morals over another? Of course we could acknowledge that each society’s set of values are equally important within that society and that we have no right to impose our own values upon another society but then if we take that concept we find ourselves suddenly questioning moral decisions we generally accept as being right, you could even question the decision to oppose Germany on world war 2 on the grounds that it was their society and their values and we had no right to impose our own personal morality upon them. Not only that but suddenly the idea of change and reform within society doesn’t seem quite right, the abolitionists in Britain like William Wilberforce were for a very long period of time the minority in their society, they opposed the generally accepted values of their society and yet we look back and acknowledge that their actions and their reform of society was indeed right. (Just as a disclaimer I’m not comparing abortion to nazi germany or the trans-atlantic slave trade) If our rights and our value are attained purely from society then the concept of rights and value collapses in on itself. So the argument of bodily autonomy essentially ‘because society says so’ doesn’t really hold up very well.
I’ll also ask you another question, how does one lose one’s bodily autonomy?

Okay first, please learn to use a paragraph break. It’s difficult for people with vision problems to parse a great wall of text like that.
Second, I said that our right for bodily autonomy derives from the fact that we are autonomous people, and therefore should have the right to preserve that autonomy. Not that society gives us that right, just that we as a society have decided to recognize and protect that right.
I dislike the idea of assigning any kind of “value” to us as human beings. We’re people, we don’t need to have “value”, and too often the idea of “value” leads to the belief that some people are “worth” more than others.
Now, when you say “lose” one’s bodily autonomy, do you mean “when is the right to bodily autonomy taken away”? Or do you mean “is there a point in time when we no longer have that right”?
- Jane

With regards to your last paragraph, both.
First of all you make the assumption we are autonomous, I agree, we are. However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc. So we are required to accept a form of spirituality in order to even have the concept of people as autonomous. Now even if people are autonomous, why does that autonomy have any value, or since you dislike the term let’s say significance. Why is a person’s autonomy significant? Why does it even matter? We’ve already seen that we can’t look to society for that, so again we need to look to some form of spirituality for our answers, yet suddenly we are within the realms of subjectivity, your wiccan views say one thing while my Christian views say another, do we acknowledge one of them or do we concede that it is subjective and therefore we cannot look to that in order to inform our views.
So here’s what I’m saying, in order to inform your concept of bodily autonomy, not just that but bodily autonomy as a basic right we have to look to our subjective faith/spirituality call it what you will. So either you can’t use that argument because it is founded on something subjective, or you must defend the truth of your own faith, why should we accept and acknowledge your views which are informed by your faith.
Ultimately your argument of bodily autonomy requires an intellectual defense of your own faith and spirituality in order to be valid.
With regards to the whole paragraph thing I am doing other things, formatting a tumblr post is hardly top of my list of priorities.

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what bodily autonomy means. For instance this : " However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc"
What does that even mean? Bodily autonomy means that our bodies, once we are born, are not biologically dependent on another person’s body to live. That’s all it means. It isn’t about… whatever the hell you’re trying to say there, it sounds like you’re talking about our instincts, but it’s irrelevant to our biological bodily autonomy. So no, we are NOT required to have a religious belief to acknowledge born human beings as autonomous because it’s a biological fact.
Why is a person’s bodily autonomy significant? Because it’s literally the first thing we have when we’re born - a body that is no longer biologically dependent on another’s for survival.
And before you start talking about “well a baby is dependent on its parent’s for survival”, that is not the same as biological dependency. That is social dependency. Anyone can take care of a baby. Only the pregnant person can carry that particular pregnancy.
- Jane
ETA: As for “when is it taken away?” It isn’t. Even in death we still have bodily autonomy.
Now, there have been laws that have infringed on bodily autonomy before. But you’ll notice, progress has always been in the direction of allowing bodily autonomy, not restricting it.

Interesting then how we happily display the skulls of dead people in museums without their consent, interesting also how if a minor carries a donor card it requires parental consent before their organs can be used (at least that’s true in the UK)…
Also my other point is still valid because you say we infringe upon someone’s bodily autonomy when we force them to use their body for something without their consent, whatever that may be, now, consent only exists as a concept if we have free will, consent requires a choice which requires free will. Now from a purely naturalistic perspective we do not have free will, both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking concede that free will is not a real concept, that we are in fact pre determined by our genetics etc. To do everything we do, and the majority of learned people with their worldview concur. So in order for there to be such a concept as consent there has to be such a concept of free will which requires an appeal to a spirituality of some sort.
Again with regards to your last paragraph I wasn’t going to mention that, as I said I’m not a fool despite what you may suppose.

Yes, and that’s WRONG. Bodily autonomy isn’t null and void just because some museums infringe on it. I don’t think you need parental permission to be an organ donor in the US, just your license or ID, since that’s when you sign up.
No, consent does not only exist if we have divine free will. The fact that we can make decisions (whether those decisions are influenced by genetics or not) means we can consent or withdraw consent or refuse consent. It doesn’t matter what the basis of those decisions is, whether it’s divine free will or genetics and evolution, or magic trolls from under a bridge, as long as we can make a choice, we can consent.
I mean, Richard Dawkins is a complete jackass, but c’mon. You really think that even if we’re working mostly on instinct that we can’t consent or revoke consent?
You can try and bring it back to religion all you want, but even if we’re making choices based on biological drives alone, we still make those choices. And we still have bodily autonomy.
- Jane

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

carolinachristian:

cake-and-grief-counseling:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

Whose “god” exactly?

Which one?

I’m Wiccan and I can tell you right now that my God and Goddess think I’m handling my reproductive health just fine.

But then, Christians forget other religions exist, don’t they?

- Jane

As an atheist, following this directive would be a bit like letting the tooth fairy govern my reproductive health. Jeez, this photo oozes ethnocentrism (or whatever the better word for “religion-centrism” might be).

Theeeeeeen….as an atheist, the “God” part OBVIOUSLY does not apply. You’re fussing because…what exactly?

I think the sign of the cross next to it makes it pretty clear which God it’s referring to. Of course there are no other Gods but let’s not get into that

You wanna know why I add commentary pointing out that “religion” and “god” do not always mean “Christianity”? Because I will remind Christians at every opportunity that they are not the only religion, they are not the only faith, they are not the only spiritual option. And that they cannot demand religious freedom for themselves without granting it for the rest of us.

Christians need to remember they are not the be-all and end-all of faith, and that people of all faiths - and no faiths - deserve just as many rights as they do, and that we should not be bound by the conventions of your religion.

- Jane

I’m not saying they don’t deserve as many rights and freedom…I’m not really sure how you could possibly draw those conclusions. Even so there is a difference between what is morality and what is religious freedom, I would consider killing a person falls under the morality category…

Our most basic right is the right to bodily autonomy. Without it, there is no basis for any other rights we have.

It is immoral to use another person’s body without their consent, even if it means saving your own life.

So yes, if you are against abortion, you are absolutely trying to take away our right to bodily autonomy. And it is absolutely immoral.

- Jane

I would have considered our most basic right being life…if one’s life is not valuable then one’s bodily autonomy is not valuable, the reverse is not true. Not to say that bodily autonomy is not valuable, merely that life of a person is far more important than your discomfort, pain etc. etc. Now hear my right I’m not saying make abortion illegal and let’s be done with, of course other things need changing, better systems for adoption, better access to healthcare, better access to mental and social support for pregnant women etc.etc. these things all need improving as well, of course I still value the women and her well-being, I just also value the life of a human being. 

Except that we still have the right to bodily autonomy even when we die. We can’t take organ donations from a corpse without consent when the person was alive, even if that organ will save someone’s live - which is almost always will.

By removing the right to bodily autonomy from pregnant people to preserve a fetus, you are giving them less rights than a corpse.

And if the right to life was as important as pro-lifers seem to think then we’d never have kids starving in the street or people dying from treatable illnesses. Blood and organ donation would be mandatory. But it’s not, because we value one person’s bodily autonomy OVER the life of someone else.

- Jane

http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/03/04/i-am-afraid-of-this-indisputable-pro-choice-argument/

This “rebuttal” has been taken apart multiple times. Like here, for instance.

- Jane

Alright fine where are you getting your right from. Let’s assume that you’re completely correct and that bodily autonomy is indeed the most basic right for a human being. Where does that right come from?

Is this the part where you try to “gotcha!” me into saying “well, your Christian god does!”?

Being Wiccan, I do personally believe that as human beings, we are born with certain rights. Key words being born with. As in, you don’t have rights until you’re born.

But since I don’t expect anyone to follow my faith, the rights I’m talking about are the ones we, society as a whole, have decided are the ones we are afforded and that should be protected. Bodily autonomy is the one that is the most protected and most basic. Because we are autonomous beings, we have the right to preserve that autonomy. I don’t personally think personhood or rights should be granted to fetuses, but here’s the thing:

Even if they were, even if fetuses were granted personhood and the rights every born person has, they still wouldn’t have the right to use a person’s body without that person’s ongoing consent.

Using a person’s body without their continuous, informed consent is not a right we ever have had, nor is it a right anyone should be allowed. Not even a fetus.

- Jane

No that’s not it, I’m not stupid, shocking as it may seem. So since you exclude your personal faith from being a factor I shall also exclude it. Society is not a valid reason for justifying a right, some societies love their neighbour whilst others eat their neighbour, which societal concept of value do we then conform to? By what means do we attribute value to one society’s set of morals over another? Of course we could acknowledge that each society’s set of values are equally important within that society and that we have no right to impose our own values upon another society but then if we take that concept we find ourselves suddenly questioning moral decisions we generally accept as being right, you could even question the decision to oppose Germany on world war 2 on the grounds that it was their society and their values and we had no right to impose our own personal morality upon them. Not only that but suddenly the idea of change and reform within society doesn’t seem quite right, the abolitionists in Britain like William Wilberforce were for a very long period of time the minority in their society, they opposed the generally accepted values of their society and yet we look back and acknowledge that their actions and their reform of society was indeed right. (Just as a disclaimer I’m not comparing abortion to nazi germany or the trans-atlantic slave trade) If our rights and our value are attained purely from society then the concept of rights and value collapses in on itself. So the argument of bodily autonomy essentially ‘because society says so’ doesn’t really hold up very well.

I’ll also ask you another question, how does one lose one’s bodily autonomy?

Okay first, please learn to use a paragraph break. It’s difficult for people with vision problems to parse a great wall of text like that.

Second, I said that our right for bodily autonomy derives from the fact that we are autonomous people, and therefore should have the right to preserve that autonomy. Not that society gives us that right, just that we as a society have decided to recognize and protect that right.

I dislike the idea of assigning any kind of “value” to us as human beings. We’re people, we don’t need to have “value”, and too often the idea of “value” leads to the belief that some people are “worth” more than others.

Now, when you say “lose” one’s bodily autonomy, do you mean “when is the right to bodily autonomy taken away”? Or do you mean “is there a point in time when we no longer have that right”?

- Jane

With regards to your last paragraph, both.

First of all you make the assumption we are autonomous, I agree, we are. However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc. So we are required to accept a form of spirituality in order to even have the concept of people as autonomous. Now even if people are autonomous, why does that autonomy have any value, or since you dislike the term let’s say significance. Why is a person’s autonomy significant? Why does it even matter? We’ve already seen that we can’t look to society for that, so again we need to look to some form of spirituality for our answers, yet suddenly we are within the realms of subjectivity, your wiccan views say one thing while my Christian views say another, do we acknowledge one of them or do we concede that it is subjective and therefore we cannot look to that in order to inform our views.

So here’s what I’m saying, in order to inform your concept of bodily autonomy, not just that but bodily autonomy as a basic right we have to look to our subjective faith/spirituality call it what you will. So either you can’t use that argument because it is founded on something subjective, or you must defend the truth of your own faith, why should we accept and acknowledge your views which are informed by your faith.

Ultimately your argument of bodily autonomy requires an intellectual defense of your own faith and spirituality in order to be valid.

With regards to the whole paragraph thing I am doing other things, formatting a tumblr post is hardly top of my list of priorities.

You display a fundamental misunderstanding of what bodily autonomy means. For instance this : " However from a purely naturalistic point of view we’re not, in fact we are pre-disposed to do everything we do etc. Etc"

What does that even mean? Bodily autonomy means that our bodies, once we are born, are not biologically dependent on another person’s body to live. That’s all it means. It isn’t about… whatever the hell you’re trying to say there, it sounds like you’re talking about our instincts, but it’s irrelevant to our biological bodily autonomy. So no, we are NOT required to have a religious belief to acknowledge born human beings as autonomous because it’s a biological fact.

Why is a person’s bodily autonomy significant? Because it’s literally the first thing we have when we’re born - a body that is no longer biologically dependent on another’s for survival.

And before you start talking about “well a baby is dependent on its parent’s for survival”, that is not the same as biological dependency. That is social dependency. Anyone can take care of a baby. Only the pregnant person can carry that particular pregnancy.

- Jane

ETA: As for “when is it taken away?” It isn’t. Even in death we still have bodily autonomy.

Now, there have been laws that have infringed on bodily autonomy before. But you’ll notice, progress has always been in the direction of allowing bodily autonomy, not restricting it.

Interesting then how we happily display the skulls of dead people in museums without their consent, interesting also how if a minor carries a donor card it requires parental consent before their organs can be used (at least that’s true in the UK)…

Also my other point is still valid because you say we infringe upon someone’s bodily autonomy when we force them to use their body for something without their consent, whatever that may be, now, consent only exists as a concept if we have free will, consent requires a choice which requires free will. Now from a purely naturalistic perspective we do not have free will, both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking concede that free will is not a real concept, that we are in fact pre determined by our genetics etc. To do everything we do, and the majority of learned people with their worldview concur. So in order for there to be such a concept as consent there has to be such a concept of free will which requires an appeal to a spirituality of some sort.

Again with regards to your last paragraph I wasn’t going to mention that, as I said I’m not a fool despite what you may suppose.

Yes, and that’s WRONG. Bodily autonomy isn’t null and void just because some museums infringe on it. I don’t think you need parental permission to be an organ donor in the US, just your license or ID, since that’s when you sign up.

No, consent does not only exist if we have divine free will. The fact that we can make decisions (whether those decisions are influenced by genetics or not) means we can consent or withdraw consent or refuse consent. It doesn’t matter what the basis of those decisions is, whether it’s divine free will or genetics and evolution, or magic trolls from under a bridge, as long as we can make a choice, we can consent.

I mean, Richard Dawkins is a complete jackass, but c’mon. You really think that even if we’re working mostly on instinct that we can’t consent or revoke consent?

You can try and bring it back to religion all you want, but even if we’re making choices based on biological drives alone, we still make those choices. And we still have bodily autonomy.

- Jane

(Source: n0tofthisw0rld)

is it possible to have pregnancy signs a few days after conception?

@Anonymous

Typically no but some people report that they ‘knew they were pregnant’ days after intercourse without getting tested. It depends. I still recommend waiting a couple weeks so you can take a pregnancy test before doing anything solid
-Ash