At this point it’s worth pointing out that I’m a bit naive sometimes, and I genuinely expect everyone to be intellectually honest and civil when they’re having a discussion. Unfortunately that’s not always the case of conservatives like Shorty (in fact, it’s rarely the case), but I still go into the discussion thinking that if I’m civil to them, they might be civil back. After all, I’ve always said that I wish that there were more civil, adult-like conservatives out there, because a strong opposition party forces my party to be more creative, and prove that they’re better – that they deserve the offices they hold. I also think there are some legitimate concerns about Obama’s foreign policy (specifically his use of drones). If Shorty would have engaged me in a civil manner, we probably could have had a good discussion about it. But I was missing one very pertinent piece of information about Susan Shannon: she’s an evangelical Christian.

And so what ended up happening was not the civil discussion I’d been naively hoping for. No, instead I was told that I was going to hell, called ‘fat’ and ‘soft’ and told that I had ‘ignored my health and think I’m a victim’. Most of my posts were deleted or blocked automatically because of certain keywords that Shorty doesn’t like (one such example is ‘cognitive dissonance’… the irony almost hurts). Of course, when Brett got word that someone had called me fat, he immediately went over to her page to see what was up, and shortly thereafter was also told he was going to hell, called stupid, and promptly blocked as well, all the while Shorty is yelling at both of us for posts that no one but she can see because she’s not letting them post publicly. I assume she does this because it’s easy to win an argument when your audience can’t see what one side is saying.

My point in all of this, though, is not so much to point out that Shorty is wrong and I’m right, but to point out a big reason why I absolutely can’t stand 95% of the Christians that I come into contact with. My family excluded, most Christians, upon learning that I’m an atheist, attack me with the vehemence of a cornered raccoon, and then say that I deserve it because I dared to challenge their beliefs about how the world works. Newsflash for the Susan Shannons of the world: challenging your beliefs is not disrespectful. If you can’t handle someone challenging your beliefs, then your beliefs must be incredibly weak, and when you respond by deleting posts, and calling people names, then you’re earning whatever disrespect and scorn I heap on you. 

Of course, there’s another issue, and that is the hypocrisy of it all. I was raised a Christian, I know the Bible well, and frankly I think Jesus was a pretty cool guy (aside from that whole ‘cursing the fig tree’ thing. That was kinda strange, it wasn’t even fig season.). When I was in high school I identified as a communist, and my main basis for doing so was the parts of the Bible that made it clear that the early Christian church functioned like a commune, with everyone sharing freely so that no one had any needs. I pointed this out to Shorty, along with all the other verses in the Bible where Jesus makes it clear that he’s not a huge fan of immense personal wealth. I also reminded her that the meek shall inherit the earth, and wondered if Jesus would find it very meek to call someone fat for voicing an unrelated political opinion. In response I was simply told I couldn’t use the Bible to argue with her because I’m an atheist, and that means I don’t deserve respect. Interestingly enough, I never actually said anything about being an atheist, or even mentioned religion at all, just contradicted her political views in a way that she couldn’t argue against with a well-reasoned argument.

All this makes me really sad, because if Christians lived their lives the way that Jesus did, the world would probably be an awesome place. Instead what we’ve got is this strange mixture of nationalism and rabid fanaticism that’s ideologically indistinguishable from the Taliban. It all reminds me of the oft-relevant Ghandi quote: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

And so the conversation begins again. Democrats and Republicans, pro-choice and anti-choice commentators, news pundits and everyone else will go back and forth about what ‘reasonable’ people should include as exceptions in laws restricting access to abortion.

I have an idea. How about we stop talking about it? How about, instead of arguing the finer points of restricting women’s access to a basic medical procedure, we take up the offensive, and accept no exceptions in allowing women to make their own health care decisions?

You see, when we start arguing over this exception, or that, what we’re doing is saying that those seeking to restrict abortion access have ground to stand on. We’re ceding the war in favor of winning a single battle. The problem is, they don’t have any ground to stand on. Those who seek to limit access to abortions are wrong, and their policies are bad for women. So why are we arguing about exceptions to the law, when the whole law is bad?

The fact of the matter is that women do not stop having abortions when abortions are illegal. This was reported by the World Health Organization, which found that, in areas where access to abortion is restricted, women did not stop having abortions, but instead opted to seek help from risky, untrained practitioners, or self-abort. Both of these are dangerous, and result in women dying. The meme of ‘back alley abortionists’ is not just something feminists spout off to scare people. It’s a real threat, and making abortions illegal will have a very real, tangible result in the form of women dying.

I grew up in a very anti-choice household. Surprisingly, I understand my mother’s feelings about abortions, because I know her story, and I know she struggled with infertility. She and my father adopted my brother and I as a result of that struggle. When explaining to her why my views on abortion had changed, and further, why I was actively campaigning to keep abortion legal in my home state of Louisiana, I explained to her that I don’t like abortion. No one does. But the way to stop abortion is not to make it illegal, because that won’t stop it. Anti-choice activists often cite instances of women dying as a result of abortions, and claim they are just concerned for women. While I’m sure that there are instances of malpractice by abortion doctors (as there are in every field of medicine), these arguments don’t hold water. Anyone concerned about women would look at the statistics and agree that making abortion illegal will harm far more women. Instead, I told her, the solution to stopping abortion is better sex education, easy access to birth control, and a shift in the attitude towards sex in this country. Surprisingly, she agreed with me. She’s still resolutely anti-choice, but I’d like to think that I actually made her think a bit, and that’s always the first step in changing minds.

So back to those pesky exception arguments. It’s so tempting to get into them, because it’s easy to think that if you can just find one bit of common ground with someone who is resolutely anti-choice, then maybe you can get them to think about their entire position. I know this all too well. I’ve tried it several times, though, and it never works. In fact, it has the opposite affect of making you look defensive, and suggesting that the person you are arguing with is partially right. This is partially how we’ve ended up where we are now. We spend so much time arguing about the exceptions, while protections the women who don’t fall into those exceptions are eroded away more and more every year.

So instead of arguing about exceptions, let’s throw the anti-choice argument right back in the face of those who are making it. If they’re so worried about women, they need to put up or shut up. Want to keep women safe from harm? Keep abortion a safe, legal, regulated procedure. Institute comprehensive sex education in schools, and provide easy access to contraceptives for anyone who wants to use them. We have real-world proof that this works, including, ironically enough, a study from Massachusetts which shows that Romneycare (the law signed by Mitt Romney, which was the model for Obamacare, and which made contraception readily available to women in that state) reduced the abortion rate in Massachusetts.

Having to get an abortion is not a good thing. It’s a hard decision for any woman who finds herself having to make it. Anti-choice groups often refer to those of us who are pro-choice as ‘pro-abortion,’ but that could not be further from the truth. No one likes abortion, and I for one would love to see a day where abortions are not needed except in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. And I believe that day can come. However, making something illegal doesn’t reduce the need for it. In the case of abortion, there are very clear steps we can take to reduce the need, but we have to stop arguing about exceptions, and start having a real conversation about things that will actually make a difference.