Why women get late-term abortions, and how we all force them to.

Reality check.

You are a woman working 60 hours a week between two jobs to provide for your two young children.  You make about $400 a week, but have almost nothing left between child care, rent, food, gas for the car.

You get pregnant and find out 7 weeks into your pregnancy.  The clock starts now.  In your state, you have 13 weeks (91 days) to come up with $1000 to pay for the abortion you need in order to keep the jobs that keep your family fed and housed.

Maybe add another part-time job?  An extra 10 hours on top of the 60 you are already doing?  That would bring in $72 a week, which will still leave you $100 short by the time you hit the deadline.  Besides, who would watch the kids?  You are already exhausted on your one day off as it is.  This isn't going to work.

Okay, plan b - cut out some expenses.  You could get rid of your dog and save a couple hundred bucks on dog food.  The kids might be sad, but it's better than getting evicted.  You could stop paying auto liability insurance and hope for the best, saving you another $300.  Only $500 to go.  Maybe switch to one meal a day?  That would surely save a few hundred dollars over the next 91 miserable days.

It all sounds so hopeless.  Because it is.  But it doesn't have to be.  We make it so, willfully, as a society.  You make it so.

I very rarely see anyone bringing up the most obvious target of these new abortion laws - poor, young single women.  For them, the state is not going to help them pay for their abortion, and nor will anyone else in their life.  They are working hard, and an unplanned pregnancy is the utter derailment of a slow, steady crawl out of a dismal situation.  And it is so because we allow it to be.

Look, conservatives, I'll make you a deal: Pay for women's abortions anytime leading up to the 20 week mark, and I'll agree it should be limited to 20 weeks.  Any interest?  What is your solution?

Islam-Bashing is for Losers: "New" Atheism, or Same-Old Racism?

Great scientist, bashes Muslims too much.

Reposted from john-lindsey.net.

Anyone getting tired of these "new atheists" and their penchant for Islam-bashing? I am, and that's without having the slightest regard for modern-day Islam (or any religion.) In many ways I'd be their fellow traveler (science, rationality, progress), but this persistent Islam-bashing is bullshit.

Yes, all religions are metaphysical bullshit. But if you come from a predominately Christian country, known for oppressing Muslims (looking at you, US and UK) , and especially if you're a white male from said country, singling out Muslims for special contempt looks a little suspicious. As do the fans of that kind of attitude:

• White males, particularly the Internet-savvy, self-styled "libertarian"ones
• White "atheists" (especially the superior, obnoxious ones)
• Right wingers, Christians
• Neocons
• White millennials (because they know fuck-all about religion, racism or geopolitics, and because they're 20)
• etc.

Something of a rogue's gallery, is my point. Strange bedfellows.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with bashing religion (I do it all the time). Pointing out the ridiculousness, the destructiveness, of Islam - or any religion - is great. But othering Muslims and appealing to Islamophobia isn't.

Here's the thing. You don't have to explicitly assert that a whole group of people are inferior, you just have to use the right language.

"These Muslims", huh?

Here's another "New Atheist", Sam Harris, from his "In Defense of Profiling" article: "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it." (As a mixed-ancestry - black/white - person of color who could "conceivably" look "Muslim", I speak for many when I say we get profiled enough, fuck you very much, white man. How's that for honesty, Sam?)

In the above examples, switch "Muslims" with "Blacks", "Jews", "Gays" (using the nice terms), etc. You get the idea. Where have we seen this kind of language before? Oh yeah, throughout the entire history of oppression.

Dawkins and Harris are using othering language, and they know it. If they don't, they're strikingly ignorant for people of their intellect.

And they must know that this kind of Muslim-bashing isn't the same as Christian-bashing. Christians aren't the ones being profiled at airports or intimidated by the NYPD. Christians aren't exactly an oppressed minority here in the States (more like an oppressive majority), and if they live in fear, it's only fear of the bullshit they make up in their own heads. When bashing, these things ought to be taken into account.

Could have missed it, but haven't seen any of these guys acknowledge what significantly contributed to the rise of militaristic, radical Islam in the first place: colonialism and imperialism, primarily by (surprise!) the UK and US. If Islam is to blame, then certainly Christianity is, too. More importantly, our (Anglo) nations share  direct culpability. Maybe we should take responsibility, instead of acting self-righteous and throwing temper tantrums.

You know, like Jesus said, deal with the huge plank in our own eye before we worry about the speck in someone else's. I'm not saying that Islam's issues are a speck, but I'm definitely saying that we have a plank, and if we don't acknowledge and deal with it, we have no right to be taken seriously. Hypocrites never should be.

Please, New Atheists, stop piling on. And remember that you're privileged white people talking about predominately black and brown people. People whose countries we invade. People our countries oppress, occupy, and kill in greater numbers than any terrorist could dream of.

I agree that Islam, - like most, or all, religions - is bullshit, and destructive, but your strident preoccupation with bashing Muslims looks a lot more like racism than enlightenment.

Original post here.