A man named Patrick Barrett didn’t like what his common law wife was getting up to. She was planning to have an abortion (except she wasn’t even pregnant). She was kicking him out. Whichever it was (or maybe it was both), he decided that the appropriate response was to go get a hammer and beat her with it. His rage still unassuaged, he went to get his Bible.–Oh yes, his Bible, because he’s a Christian. They even met in church.–But you know what goes good with the Bible? A knife. He tore a page from Jeremiah out of the book, put it on his wife’s chest and stabbed her with the knife. He then took her bank card, withdrew some cash, and went to his girlfriend’s.

“I was cursing God, ‘God f— you, you betrayed me.’ I begged you to give me someone to love, to be a good parent and a husband and this is what happens.”

Right. Cause it’s all God’s fault that you are such an evil asshole a nice guy but all the women are so unappreciative.

But hey, it’s all okay because he’s apologised and repents now.


Motion 312 is defeated

September 26, 2012

That’s the good news. Also good news? The vote wasn’t even close: 203 Nays to 91 Yeas, or 69% to 31%.

The bad news? 4 Liberal MPs–John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood), Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan), Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North), and Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt)–voted in support of the motion.

More bad news? Rona Ambrose, the Minister for the Status of Women Chattel also voted to keep women barefoot and pregnant by force if necessary. I think she should resign out of shame. I also suggest that Canadians who care about women’s freedom might consider contributing to the campaigns of her opponents in the next election.

Not anti-abortion either

September 24, 2012

Libby Anne of Love, Joy, Feminism has a post highlighting a couple of comments about the reproductive rights debate (they’re good, go read them). In the comments thread, a sub-discussion is going on about the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Libby Anne makes the following observation:

Those who say they are pro-choice really are pro-choice, but those who say they are pro-life are not consistently so (they generally favor the death penalty and military intervention abroad). I think the term “anti-abortion” would be more accurate, since that is, quite simply, what they are.

Though she’s right that the term “pro-life” would be a sick joke if it weren’t so revoltingly inaccurate, I disagree with Libby Anne’s last statement here.  I wouldn’t say that the other side is anti-abortion. Because if they were, they’d do whatever was necessary to reduce the number of abortions: early and thorough sex education, free access to contraception and Plan B, encouragement of and funding for vasectomies for men who don’t want children or anymore children than they already have, free or at least subsidised child care up to the age of 6, and universal health insurance for (at least) pregnant women and new mothers as well as children up to the age of 18.

They are not pro-life. They are not anti-abortion. They are anti-choice. They are anti-women. They are, in effect, pro-slavery. They want to strip women of their rights to bodily autonomy, free will, security of person, privacy, religious freedom, and even life.

My Atheism Plus logo design

September 8, 2012

Atheism Plus logo

If you like it and want to use it, let me know and I’ll upload a high res version.