A great talk by Greta Christina about why “we” atheists are so damn angry!

Thanks to my friend Julie for pointing this out!

What does Students for Life suggest Planned Parenthood groups do?

The article is indignant about some VOX groups making Halloween “goodie bags” containing condoms, and how they will be doing the same for Valentines day.

It’s called creative marketing, something that all kinds of college groups are known for.

If you don’t like Planned Parenthood, that’s fine–but aren’t there other things that Planned Parenthood does that are “outrageous”.

Catherine Adair is the most recent of several former Planned Parenthood employees to point out flaws or broken laws within the organization.

Today SecularProlife founder Kelsey Hazzard posted a story on SP’s Facebook page detailing a former Planned Parenthood employee’s accusations against the organization, which really is nothing new to us. Kelsey writes (and I agree wholeheartedly):

“Ms Adair is at least the fifth ex-PP employee to come out and say this. I do not understand how well-meaning, truly “pro-choice” people can continue to ignore Planned Parenthood’s abortion-first business model. They are in denial.”

It may surprise my 12 loyal readers to know that I do not fall in-step with the rest of the Pro-Life movement regarding what should happen to Planned Parenthood. I think all of the managers (from the branch levels up) should be fired, and a new CEO put in place who will insist upon new expectations that all laws will be followed, and that Planned Parenthood will always stand up for girls’ safety over girls’ rights. Meaning, they will call in suspected child abuse, as they should be doing anyway.

After that, my biggest issue with Planned Parenthood is that they are quick to promote and provide abortions. Other than that, I welcome their desire to get sex education information out to teens and young adults. What alternative is there?

Planned Parenthood should be another issue where pro-lifers and pro-choicers can find some common ground on. If pro-lifers can get over the fact that Planned Parenthood does abortions and if pro-choicers can admit that Planned Parenthood is fucking screwed up, progress could be made to ensure the safety of women. Progress on any front will help create a new way of looking at the abortion debate.

I will say that I agree 100% with Jill Stanek when she talks about the campign of misinformation that the pro-choice movement put out. Yes, it was a campaign of lies and misinformation, which is sad. Pro-choicers knew that Mississippi would be a tough place to win, so they resorted to lies. They wouldn’t have done this in, say, Oregon.

What does it say about a movement that is OK with lying to the public when they see defeat? They were against the amendment because they’re OK with abortion, not because it “would outlaw contraception”. It’s just damn annoying. Yes Feminist blogs, I’m talking to you.

The idea that this bill would have outlawed contraception is laughable, and only adds the pro-life misconception that contraceptives are abortive. They’re not. (See All Our Lives excellent PowerPoint presentation demonstrating that contraceptives are NOT abortive here). But the pro-choice movement was OK with getting all of its people worked up so long as they won. As Live Action showed–no one was seriously scared that birth control would be outlawed.

So now the pro-life movement will think on what they can do next time to win. That‘s what’s important–spending time and energy to win a “personhood” election even though it will be struck down later. We don’t live in a pro-life country–we live in a narrowly divided country which can be swayed by pro-choice scare tactics.

My buddy Patrick tweeted me a question: What would need to be included/excluded in future “personhood” bills so that moderates & conservatives would vote for it?

Honestly, that’s not my focus at all. My focus is almost 100% on the prevention of pregnancy in the first place. Until there are really no reasons to abort, we can’t keep claiming that there are none and shake our fingers at the selfish woman who gets an abortion because, oh my god, she’s worried she can’t feed her other children. Totally selfish.

One thing many pro-lifers don’t typically stop to ask themselves is this: is a fertilized egg a person? Are a few cells really worth as much as a fetus, a child or an adult? Perhaps we would all benefit from reflection upon this question, instead of frantically asking ourselves what we can do differently next time to win. We are now placing the focus on fertilized eggs and 8-celled humans, instead of fetuses and women who feel like they have no other choice.

40 Days for Life manages to make the pro-life movement even more religious.

Secondly, 40 Days for Life has finally ended, with various pro-life blogs lauding the fact that supposedly 508 babies were saved. Now I’m not saying that that’s not a great thing, but as long as we’re giving God the credit–and not the people going out and making their presence known as a resource– let’s take a look at God’s track record.

If there are 1.4 million abortions per year, then God managed to save a whopping .03% of them. No, not three percent–one-third of one percent. This isn’t something to praise God about–it’s a clear sign that relying on him to save babies is, at best, very ineffective.

I think I may participate in next year’s 40 Days for Life. Then, at the end, LifeSiteNews can report that “God saves 500 babies, Nate Sheets saves 1.”

I’m really not trying to sound like an asshole here, but my entire schtick is that pro-lifers are doing things that are ineffective. If we grant the God does not exist, then the reality is that, even with concentrated effort, pro-lifers managed to save only one-third of one percent of otherwise-aborted babies over the past 40 days. That’s great for those kids who now won’t be killed, but is there something else that we could be doing that would be a lot more effective?

Pro-life movement: “Yes! More abstinence-only sex education!”

Nate: *facepalm*

For years I prayed, read books and had “accountability groups” with various other people. I thought that, somehow, God would heal me of homosexuality and that I would be a poster child for a successful conversion story. I think, in a way, that I wanted to become straight so badly because it would be a proof of God being there, loving me and doing things in my life.

But of course, things didn’t happen the way I had hoped. As I’ve mentioned, I did not leave religion because of the gay thing. I actually left my faith first and then, naturally, stopped attending Exodus.

Ex-gay philosophy can be damaging. I personally consider myself fairly unscathed by it–I tend to believe that mere religion screwed me up more. But many who have done Exodus, have done reparative therapy or have even simply harbored religious-induced shame can come out of it (or not come out of it) with shame, feelings of worthlessness or even mental health issues which lead to some severe consequences.

For the Christian, spouting off about “God’s love”, they don’t need to have anything to back up a statement of “God can change you”. They can hear about some dude who “did it” who now works for Focus on the Family, or they can trust the Exodus International figures which claim “thousands” of people who come out of Exodus leave “changed”.

That’s not how it works. Because homosexuality is not a spiritual condition, it cannot be changed through spiritual therapies,  just like a tumor can’t be removed with prayer. Oh wait.

Christians who want to be against homosexuality can do so–it’s their choice to be ignorant. But if you have a child who is gay, or if you encourage a person who is gay to do an Exodus-type program, you are encouraging them to undergo a risky process that can damage them.

Pro-lifers say that they are “pro-science”, and yet they ignore what science has to say on most issues that contradict their beliefs. We do not know for sure why people are gay, but we’re closer to knowing. What are Christians going to do if we discover that homosexuality is genetic or, at the very least, that it is not the person’s choice or something that prayer can fix? My guess: ignore it and continue to claim that it’s a choice and that their loving God will heal you.

November is National Adoption Month, and adoption has several special meanings for me. Firstly, both my younger brother and sister were adopted by my parents well after they were born.

Additionally, I work in social services with children, some of whom need to be adopted–so I care about them.

Lastly, if I were able to, I’d probably adopt a child right now so I can start my own family. Maybe in a couple more years…

I want to emphasize to anyone reading this blog that many children need to be adopted. Babies are overrated, in my opinion, and currently if you want to adopt a baby you may have to wait a long time.

But there are children “in the system” who need your help. Most often they are there because of abuse (physical, emotional, sexual) and neglect. In some cases their parents have passed away. For others, their special needs are so great that they were placed in the system. Whatever the reason, if you are a fit parent you should consider adoption. A good way to “practice” is to do foster care with your local state program.

Photo credit Heart Gallery Alabama (heartgalleryalabama.com)

Meet Amon, Forrell and Forrest, three brothers from Alabama who are looking for an adoptive home. (Video here.) Friendly, full of life and close to each other, they need stability and a family.

“Amon, Forrell and Forrest would be a delightful addition to a young family who can keep up with three young, energetic boys. The boys very much need loving parents who will be firm and structured, yet very nurturing. Adults in their lives must be consistent with their words and actions, as they have difficulty handling disappointment and fully expect people to follow through on what they say they will do. Amon, Forrell and Forrest are all very sweet, respectful little boys who are very loyal to one another, and very much want to live all together as one family.”

Find out more about the boys here, and visit AdoptUSKids to see kiddos in your area, and to find out how you can begin the process to adopt who will be one of the most important people in your life.

Religion: Atheism

Political Affiliation: Republican (will be registering Democrat after Republican primaries)

Social Issues Worldview: Left

Fiscal Issues Worldview: Undecided

I have identified as an atheist for two years this month! It’s becoming less and less hard to believe as time goes on. What I mean is: after first leaving fundamentalist Christian faith around three years ago, I still didn’t consider myself an atheist. After I admitted to myself that, yes, I do not believe that God exists, it was still an odd thing for me to think about, and very intriguing to watch.

While I was first going to simply write about religion, I decided to also include my thoughts on ethics, in that I believe that, while my morality has changed,  my personal code of ethics have essentially stayed the same.

Recently I dealt with an ethical dilemma at work. Because I do not believe in absolute morality, I honestly could have made a choice either way in this matter and it would have not compromised my morals, or rather my view of morals.

I am not a rule-follower in that because of my personality, I will do what is most efficient or what is best for those involved. If I find a rule that is ridiculous (and working in bureaucracy is crazy-making for me) I tend to ignore it, because I do not place any moral value on law, rules or, more applicably, annoying work policies.

Even regarding work policies, however, my personal code of ethics will typically prevent me from lying or not letting someone else know what I am doing to break the policy. Because Nate’s Logic is typically more logical than a policy, it usually doesn’t even matter as the people I must persuade typically see the reason why I would want to deviate from established rules.

Recently though I came down on the “wrong side” of an issue, which I later identified as an ethical dilemma. I did not do anything wrong, but in my mind I thought I knew what I was going to do. Morally, in my mind, there was no “right” or “wrong” answer.

However, very soon after I settled the issue in my mind, I began to question my ethics and a sense of guilt began to creep in. Very similar (and possibly due to) religious guilt, I decided to actively do the opposite of what I had originally decided. Even though I personally had no moral issues with the decision I had originally made, I found that after I psychologically put it into play (and got some good advice from my dad) it totally rubbed me the wrong way.

Do you think I am splitting hairs with my definitions of “ethics” and “morality”? Has anyone had similar situations?

Several blogs, both pro-choice and pro-life, have thoughts on the most recent personhood initiative attempt in Mississippi. You have roughly three stakeholders in the debate with various positions:

Firstly, you have pro-choicers who are, of course, against it.

Secondly, you have pro-lifers who are against it because they fear that such a bill will be struck down when challenged in the courts, further cementing Roe vs. Wade stare decisis.

Then of course you have the pro-lifers who are for it, because they are, quite understandably so, tired of doing what the pro-life movement has been doing since Roe: which is preaching that we must vote for insane (but pro-life!) Presidential candidates who will stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

But they miss the point as well. The Personhood movement is the epitome of rigid principles and lack of compromise. Such bills will cause the pro-choice movement to continue to push back.

Believe it or not, pro-choicers also view the abortion issue as a life issue–and they want fewer (women’s) lives to be lost.

Despite the mainstream pro-choice movement’s general lack of compromise on legislation or really anything that doesn’t involve dismissing any pro-lifer ever as being an “extremest”, the pro-life movement may begin to find unexpected friends if we moved our focus from legislation over to prevention. As I mentioned before, how can pro-choicers oppose pro-lifers who are making contraception available and accessible, and who are educating men and women alike on healthy ways to prevent pregnancy?

Personhood bills move the pro-life movement further in the wrong direction. Besides the almost-certain fact that they will be struck down, it further creates division over an issue where women, children and fetuses are counting on us to make progress

I’ll be blogging more regularly there, but my Facebook page will have more status updates and, unlike here, I will respond to your comments!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Gay-Pro-Lifer/280602041970740

If you’re more of a Twitter person, you’ll also find me there @natewillsheets

My goals for this blog and my other pro-life projects are pretty simple: I want to show the pro-life movement that a different approach to ending abortion is needed.

Since 1973, pro-lifers, fueled mostly by the religious, have been doing the same thing over and over again, namely trying to legislate abortion out of the county. While the pro-life movement talks about “changing hearts”–certainly a noble ambition–people’s hearts don’t typically change because we force them to do something.

There is and always will be opposition. But how can pro-choicers oppose pro-lifers who work to make contraception more available? How can they oppose pro-life laws that will help women after their children are born? Indeed–should the pro-life movement begin to do this, we may find partners we never suspected we’d be working with.

Thanks for reading my blog! I hope to continue to write more regularly after a break and time to work on an additional project, The Pro-Talk Podcast. Visit the website and take a few listens!

Please also take a look and consider donating to SecularProlife.org. They are currently doing many great projects, but my favorite is the promotion of the philosophy that the pro-life movement should use secular arguments whenever possible.