Friday, October 07, 2005

I read today that female Scientologists are supposed to give birth to their children in silence and without taking any drugs. What do you want to bet a man wrote that rule? You see Scientologists believe that a child born into a quiet calm world is better off. Also they discourage their practitioners from taking drugs. So no pain killers and please be quiet, you might disturb the child. Personally I’d like to see L. Ron Hubbard try and pass a watermelon through an opening the size of a dime.

See any religion that denies basic medical treatment to its believers is bad. We were given brains for a reason. If through science we can fix problems then we should. To deny people healing and comfort is wrong.

I know what some of you are thinking, “Gee Eric how can you judge?” I’ll tell you how, if you really must know. I believe that there are many roads to enlightenment and heaven not infinite. Just because something dresses itself up as religion or some pseudo-scientific school of thought does not make it legitimate. Anything that denies people help is wrong.

What about abortion? You may be thinking. An elective abortion is not basic medical treatment. Women get abortions for a lot of different reasons and though I’m not a big fan of the procedure and I’d like to see society get to a place where elective abortions are unnecessary because we have highly effective birth control and people make responsible decisions. I don’t want it outlawed though because the alternative to abortion is as bad as what we got now. If however the women’s life is at danger then it’s her decision. I would never ask someone to die. Same thing applies in cases of rape as well. She had no part in the decision to get pregnant so it’s her decision whether or not to carry it to term.

That little sidetrack aside I understand why religions are usually so anti-abortion. Twelve years in Catholic school and you pick up a few things. The religious argument is that all life is sacred. So even the unborn have right to protection from undue harm. I tend to agree.

It does however infuriate me when someone who is hard line anti-abortion because they want to protect the innocent babies doesn’t care about hungry kids or civilian casualties in war or innocent men on death row. If you’re going to defend life as sacred then it better be all life or your point is moot.

I do wish they wouldn’t make it such an issue however. There are millions of people who have died for horribly unjust reasons, capital punishment and war, and they should oppose those at least as strongly as they do abortion. But abortion I guess is an easier target. Pregnant women aren’t quite the opposition that heads of state are.

Whoa! I started out ripping Scientology and ended up with an abortion essay. Thankfully I never said my blog would be coherent.

2 Comments:

Blogger Saathiya said...

Coherent? Maybe not. Entertaining? I thought so.

Very interesting. I tend to agree. I am fairly torn about abortion also. But in the end I think women need the choice.

That scientology rule seems pretty stupid, I wouldn't think it was so strange if they just weren't supposed to have drugs, but no drugs and complete silence? Not going to happen. You are right, no woman could possibly have made up such a rule.

Cool blog.

Saathi*

10:33 PM  
Blogger Eric said...

Thanks for the comment.

Always nice to hear from new people. Especially people that aren't trying to prove me wrong. But it happens so you just got to roll with the punches.

You have a fine blog as well.

9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home