ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( May. 4th, 2017 11:41 am)
I get so fucking sick of the religious argument against abortion.

Your fucking religion shouldn't tell someone else what to do. One religion shouldn't dictate the law of the United States. We are not a fucking theocracy.

But there's more to it than that.

We are talking about a fundamental right, to life and liberty here - the right of the woman.

The zygote/fetus is a dependent organism. Even if you believe life begins at conception, the host (woman) still has a right to abort that "life".

Here's why:

In US law, there is the concept of bodily autonomy, even for the dead:

.... Under existing law, if a person prefers not to donate any organs or tissue after she dies may be buried or cremated or otherwise laid to rest with her organs intact. This means, among other things, that even when there is an organ shortage and people who might otherwise have lived will die without a transplant from a suitable donor, the government lacks the power to take organs from a potential donor who, prior to her death, did not consent to donation. In fact, as I have discussed elsewhere, the legal presumption, in the absence of evidence one way or the other, is that people have refused to donate their organs post-mortem.

One way of thinking about this approach is to say that our bodies belong to us, both in life and in death, and we have the right not to share them with anyone else, no matter how helpful such sharing would be or how necessary to save lives. By respecting people's right to refuse to donate organs upon death, then, we are showing respect for each individual's dignity rather than viewing people instrumentally, whether alive or dead, as organ donors.

-- http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2014/01/the-rights-of-dead.html

These rights exist for the living as well. They can't hook someone up to you as a dialysis machine, or demand your kidney, blood or marrow, even if the recipient would be your parent, sibling or offspring (who would be the most likely match)!!

So why in the living fuck would a fetus have more rights?

Because pregnancy is a "natural" process, and the fetus is "where it should be"? So are worms and other parasites, but that doesn't give them a right to leech your blood and marrow. (Yes, an unwanted fetus is a parasite. In the case of rape, it is a parasite violently implanted by another person.)

Because it's your own "blood kin"? See above about parents, siblings or children. They don't have a claim on your body for life support.

So when you say "No Abortion", you are saying, essentially, that a woman does not have a right to decide what use her literal tissue will be put to. You are literally saying that a pregnant woman has fewer rights than a dead man whose son needs one of his kidneys or a bone marrow transplant.

You are essentially saying that she is a walking womb, a slave to biology and a man's sperm, having no choice but to risk her life (yes, folks, pregnancy is a risk to the woman's life, even if it seems to be going well) for the sacred fetus.

I don't care whether that's "what she was designed to do" - I don't believe in your designer, and even if I did there is still free will involved. Women are not animals, to be kept as a vessel for breeding children, cokking, cleaning and fucking. To hell with that shit.

So bodily autonomy, free will, and the right to privacy all come into play in the abortion matter.

That these "Pro (unborn) Life" people want to push their twisted beliefs about women into US law is horrifying. Most of these assholes (mostly older white men) want to restrict or ban contraceptives, too, because they interfere with "nature" (and their control over women.)

Now, of course, anything to do with pregnancy and being female is on the slate for being classified a "pre-existing condition". Women will become virtually uninsurable by the time most of them are thirty, except if they are married to rich men with jobs that cover their spouses.

They are trying to drive women back into the kitchen, stay at home slaves to their wombs and the men who own them. But that time is gone. We have had the taste of freedom, and it will live on, even in whispers, if they succeed for a time.
ravan: (451F)
( Aug. 19th, 2011 09:44 pm)
If you're gonna accuse all white people of having "Mammy issues", and also of taking over any fight for rights, common decency, or whatever, then don't accuse me of being "passive-aggressive" and doing nothing when I fucking tell you "I know I personally don't do X, and don't give my money to it. Anything else, you're driving, what do you you want me to do?"

You know why? Because you are expecting me to be fucking psychic, and somehow mystically know how you want white people to help, and when we don't, you accuse us of some fucked up mammy shit. I never had a "mammy", or any other "help" when I grew up. I don't crave it now, either. Does not apply, sorry to disappoint you. I'm not your stereotypical white chick.

I'm doing what you have told me you want: Staying out of the drivers seat, because it's your fight, not mine.

I try to be sympathetic, but if I can't understand *why* some people treat others in some really fucked up ways, it's not because of "privilege", but because I don't treat people in those fucked up ways!

There's some things no one should have to put up with, I don't care their color, ability, gender, gender identity, religion, or any other artificial division we make in the definition of human. The fact that some jerks think those things exclude people from being human pisses me off, but I can't walk up and change them. Sorry to disillusion you. I can refuse to do it, support it or feed it. That's it, without some other inspiration from you, because I don't really have any other tools or knowledge at my disposal. I'm not rich and powerful.

So I will do my best to not step in your way, and I try to ask what you want.

But I'm really not into getting abuse for being born white, any more than you are into getting abuse for being non-white. I'm not going to assume what's best for you - that's fucking patronizing - and I'll thank you to not assume that I know how you want me to help.

I try to be understanding of experiences I've never had. But some shit I don't, and can't get my head around. Not just color issues, either, but lots of it dealing with breaches of common (to me) courtesy and respect. I don't condone it, either. But that's not good enough for some people.

BTW, this is in my blog, instead of someone else's, because this kind of piss and vinegar doesn't belong in somebody's "home" that isn't party to it.
From [livejournal.com profile] coffeeandink in this post:
* Reasons people may prefer pseudonyms or limited personal disclosure on the Internet:

* Because it is a standard identity- and privacy-protection precaution
* Because they have experienced online or offline stalking, harassment, or political or domestic violence
* Because they wish to discuss sexual abuse, sexuality, domestic abuse, assault, politics, health, or mental illness, and do not wish some subset of family, friends, strangers, acquaintances, employers, or potential employers to know about it
* Because they wish to keep their private lives, activities, and tastes separate from their professional lives, employers, or potential employers
* Because they fear threats to their employment or the custody of their children
* Because it's the custom among their Internet cohort
* Because it's no one else's business

Even if you know someone's "real name", Do Not Disclose It On The Net!!. It is a serious breach of privacy, can actually endanger a person's life and/or livelihood, and can also endanger their friends, relatives or people who have similar names!!

I really don't care if you "don't approve of" or "don't agree with" pseudonymity, it's not your choice, not your life, and not your place to reveal someone else's legal identity, period.

Got it? Good.
ravan: (Blog Against Theocracy - tengrain)
( Feb. 6th, 2009 03:12 pm)
... to this post.

Go see, follow links.
ravan: by icons r us (flamethrower - from icons r us)
( Nov. 5th, 2008 10:12 am)
From another friend:
I cannot see how I could be friends with someone who is interested in removing basic civil rights from a portion of the population that they happen not to like. A similar thing happened in Europe in the 30's and 40's. I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as self-protection.

And really, if any of you feel like you fit that category, please, bail the fuck out now. I'm not in anyway OK with having friends who think that denying people basic human civil rights is ever justified.

Agreed. If you voted for Prop 8, or any of its cousins, to ban gay marriage (or to "define" "marriage" as only between a man and a woman), you can take yourself the fuck off of my friends list.

I am not friends with people who vote to deny rights to other people based on something they can't change, and vote to enshrine bigotry, discrimination and hate in a constitution. While I won't come and troll in your journals, you are not welcome in mine.
Today is the 220th birthday of the United States Constitution.

As we look with discomfort at the inroads that the last few administrations have made against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we all need to take a few minutes and actually *read* the thing - U.S. Constitution
ravan: (lj revenue - fireflypenance)
( May. 30th, 2007 06:42 pm)
Because LJ has "decided" that having interests that are "illegal" is somehow a solicitation to break the law, or is not the "kind" of "community" that they want to have, I will not be updating this journal with anything but posts about the deletions, bigotry, and judgemental crap that is involved.

Quotes from LJ CEO Berkowitz on CNet:
"We did a review of our policies related to how we review those sites, those journals, and came up with the fact that we actually did have a number of journals up that we didn't think met our policies and didn't think they were appropriate to have up," Barak Berkowitz, chairman and chief executive of Six Apart, said in a telephone interview.


"Our decision here was not based on pure legal issues. It was based on what community we want to build and what we think is appropriate within that community and what's not."
--Barak Berkowitz, chairman and CEO, Six Apart

This kind of knee-jerk, bigoted, "sanitization" of the LJ environment by daddy-knows-best corporate jerks turns my stomach. The fact that they bowed down and kissed the ass of dominionist, "Joels Army" type fundamentalist scum like WfI is just appalling!

Saying fanfic containing torture of villians or underage sex is promoting torture and pedophilia is like saying murder mysteries are manuals for murder. Dumb.
ravan: by Ravan (Blog Against Theocracy - by Tengrain)
( Apr. 6th, 2007 12:06 pm)
How would you like to live in a country where your religion was dictated by the government? Where the government took all of its laws and mandates from the tenets of a very restrictive sect?

Whether you actually believed it or not, you would have to live by the strict tenets and conduct rules of that religion, including in private personal matters, or risk your job, your home, and even your life.

You could partake no entertainment that was not approved, and deemed "appropriate" for all upstanding citizens, including children. Anything deemed obscene or blasphemous would be censored or outright banned from the entire country.

If you were even believed to engage in certain sorts of activities, you could be executed by a mob of "believers", without even trial. Even if you had a trial and "proved" your innocence (no, they don't have to prove you guilty, you have to prove your innocence), you would be forever tainted by the accusation, and under suspicion until the day you died.

You would be suspect of moral turpitude if you did not make public demonstration of adherence to the dominant religion. Every utterance that you made would be suspect, and might get you sent to a re-indoctrination center, exorcism, revival or whatever that religion used to retrain and reinforce it's "one true way".

You very body would be viewed as not your own, but put to the service of that religion and it's life script. Any misgivings would be sternly admonished, and any rebellion or refusal would result in "legal" action against you and any who aided you.

Your relationships, from your parents, to your friends, to your romance, would be forced into the accepted mold. Your marriage would be set in stone, all of your actions would be scripted.

If you were a woman, your body would be seen as a vessel for the continuance of the ranks of the faithful, and as the "reward" to the man your were paired with. Your tasks in life would be proscribed according to the tenets of the religion, whether you were suited for them or not. Any rebellion could get you murdered.

Individuality would be suffocated under the veil of adherence to the religion. What you could read or learn would be controlled from the earliest age by the tenets of the religion. Children would not even learn of anything different, only the religion and its dogma.

Sound like Afghanistan? Maybe. But it's actually what the Radical Religious Right wants: Dominionism, Theonomy, or Christian Reconstructionism. Anyone with half a clue sees it for what it is - an attempt to overthrow the US Constitution and put a totalitarian theocracy in its place.

Think it's impossible? Google on things like "US Marriage Amendment", "US Abortion Law", "US Pornography Censorship", "Intelligent Design Science", "Public Ten Commandments", "US Internet Gambling Restriction", "War on Drugs". Thirty years ago the proponents of crap like this would have been laughed at, or slapped down hard. We have right wing pundits, talk show mouths, and bloggers (all of whom who have the gall to try to call themselves journalists) calling for the execution of gays, adulterers, and liberals (and non-"Christians"). These yammerheads would have been laughed out of the public arena 25 years ago, or put on an FBI watch list as dangerous subversives. Now these people are given mainstream media airtime, and are making traction in local councils and school boards!

By me, if you need a holy book or preacher to tell you right from wrong, you are morally deficient. If you feel the need to enact your religious dogma as law, you are a menace. I support the US Bill of Rights - All Ten Amendments!!!
ravan: (451F)
( Mar. 9th, 2007 01:23 pm)
TIA (Total Information Awareness) formerly of the Pentagon, and killed due to privacy issues, has reared its ugly, unkillable head again, in the guise of DHS's ADVISE program. Same trolling through personal financial and travel records of American citizens: "Data can include credit-card purchases, telephone or Internet details, medical records, travel and banking information. "

I don't know about you, but I get the heebie jeebies thinking of some fundie, pervert, or stalker who happens to be employed by the DHS having access to all of that information in one handy-dandy place. Even though most of my life is very vanilla, I just don't want all that stuff about me and my roomies collated and gone over by someone who may or may not have their own axe to grind. As Cardinal Richelieu (1585-1642) once said "If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him." Your personal financial, phone, health and travel data comprise more than six lines, and by having or doing them, you are "writing" them.

When will these assholes understand that the constitution never had the intention of allowing unfettered government prying into our lives?? Amendments III, IV, V prohibit it. What the hell do they think privacy is, but a rounded understanding of the Fourth Amemdment: "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are protected from "unreasonable search and seizure". Your buying, telephone, internet, travel, health, and banking data is all part of your papers and effects. It's yours, not public data, regardless of where it's stored.

Time to get out the red postcards....
ravan: (451F)
( Jan. 9th, 2006 01:05 pm)
Via [livejournal.com profile] dubhain: It is now a crime to "annoy" someone via the net and/or to do so anonymously.
Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

This is bad. As many know, I write under a pseudonym. "Ravan Asteris" is my "nom de net" - it is not my real name. Thus, if anyone finds my rants, opinions, or even jokes "annoying", I have a big problem. Even if I don't, the way it seem to be worded would bar even this posting - I am not, and will not, expose my "identity". Sod off, Congress, I won't be one of your "papers in order, even on the net" clones.

I've used this pseudonym for years. I've griped again and again about attempts to force me to give up my pseudononymity, both on-line (see the soc.religion.paganism RFP archives), and in real life. Always with some sort of "security" or other justification.

It's the prying, surveillance, "safety first over liberty" sheep versus the basic rights to privacy, anonymity and pseudonymity, again and again and again! People pooh poohed my slippery slope arguments, have given me the old, tired "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" bullshit. Now look, where we're going.

It's really no one's business WHY I want to be pseudononymous. It's no one's business why I don't want my finances, comings and goings, grocery shopping, hobbies and bra size hung out in public for anyone to examine and make assumptions about.

I am sick to shit of people who can't (or won't) respect the privacy of others. Now the jackasses in Congress have slipped yet another nail into the coffin of basic rights and privacy in this country.

Edit: Upon telling a coworker about this assininity, he said "Good luck enforcing it." Problem is, enough of it could be enforced to effectively silence whistleblowers, and people who are otherwise being stalked.


ravan: by Ravan (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags