|
Post by rosiegirl on May 25, 2010 23:15:18 GMT -5
It doesn't matter to me whether allying with PP is bad or not, I haven't gotten that far in the argument. Why would taking BC ally a person with PP? Somehow, women being in control of their lives and fertility is a bad thing, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on May 25, 2010 23:44:31 GMT -5
I would like to reply to some of the points raised by Seekingtruth-- but tonight I got kind of derailed by discovering that my younger kid was sick enough to need to go to immediate care, and there having him diagnosed with strep throat. And then it took me an hour at the pharmacy to get his prescriptions filled, and then a delicate balancing act to get them all down him without triggering his nausea. . .
I hope to have some time soon to get back to this. In the meantime, thanks to all of you for your comments!
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 26, 2010 1:22:19 GMT -5
This is very interesting. I appreciate SeekingTruth for saying what she believes even though I don't agree with her, because IMO, she lays out her own beliefs clearly without threats or whinging. That is, although there are implications that are ultimately negative toward my own beliefs, there's no "I'm better than you sinners" undertone that I can detect.
What I would ask is how a child is a blessing for a person who does not want a child. Isn't it agape love in a marital context to respect the desires of your partner? That could certainly include birth control or sterilization if having a child is not a desire that you or he has.
It's common even in secular circles to talk about those who don't want children as "selfish" and you, SeekingTruth, extend that to worldly sex, whatever that means. However, you as a Christian should realize that the Bible indicates that not all people are called to the same things. Paul believed that it was better for the unmarried and widowed to remain unmarried so that they could dedicate themselves to god. (I believe that he also thought that the world was ending soon, but that's neither here nor there). A married person might also be called to something that is unselfish but does not give them the resources or desire to take care of children in the way that children should be taken care of.
For example, I knew several missionary children while growing up. For some of them, their parents believed that they'd been called by god to a dangerous or remote place. As a result, their children went to boarding school. This always troubled me. Why did they have children that they would only see a few weeks a year? Were they mistaken about their missionary calling (well, of course I'd say yes to that, lol), or mistaken that they should have children, or did they believe that it was Biblical to have children and not raise them? I can't judge that, but perhaps in that example, you can see reason why making a decision about children isn't a one size fits all mandate.
I think that if a woman doesn't want children, it's primarily her own responsibility to prevent it. If she's in a stable marriage, her prevention could be that her husband decides to have a vasectomy. However, I wouldn't presume to suggest that if a woman doesn't want children, then a man should have surgery to make that a reality for her. In my relationship, I was the instigator in making it known that I didn't want children. I don't see it as my place to tell someone that he needs to change his body because of that. If it were the other way around, I would find it inappropriate for the man to tell me that I should get sterilized for a decision that he feels more strongly about.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 26, 2010 9:05:48 GMT -5
Thanks for all the comments here ~ I was planning to write some responses this a.m. ~ but while in the middle of setting up a post (starting a new story series ~ yay!), my laptop died So ~ I am using the kid's computer to let you all know that I can't do much here or on the blog until I get my laptop fixed since it has all my files on it. Fun, huh? I just wanted to say real quick ~ KR, so sorry to hear about your son. Hope he gets better soon. Also ~ atheist, I really appreciate your response to "seekingtruth" ~ I agree that her comments are invaluable as they will help us to improve the quality of this FAQ in response to the ideas and challenges she presents. Seekingtruth ~ welcome to NLQ. Now ~ to get the laptop running again ....
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 26, 2010 11:42:56 GMT -5
But that's assuming that pharmaceutical companies, ever mindful of underserved groups they can make money off of, wouldn't have come out with the pill on their own. It might have taken longer, but I have no doubt that the pill would exist with or without PP (or a similar organization)
I got a very different tone than you did (between PP being “evil”, the mention of the “murder of innocent babies”, assuming that not wanting to have kids makes you “anti-baby me-first”, implying “worldly sex” is selfish while “holy sex’ is unselfish (all without actually defining what either of those means), and stating the supposed dangers of BC and sterilizations without also pointing out the dangers of having a child when you’re physically or mentally not ready (and that NFP has a fairly high fail rate)) But, as always, YMMV.
I also had a big problem with SeekingTruth repeating the incorrect view that vasectomies are “easily” reversed later on in life if someone changes their mind. No one should have a vasectomy unless they are 100% certain they don’t want future children. Though it is reversible, there’s a relatively low success rate when it comes to getting pregnant afterward, not to mention they tend to occlude again after a few years, and it also tends to lower sperm count. To act like vasectomy is the male version of an IUD is dishonest.
Kr, I hope your son recovers soon and well.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 26, 2010 12:15:33 GMT -5
I really liked your post, KR. Great job!
Birth control has done great things for me physically and emotionally (no more mood swings, devastating cry-under-the-table-for-hours periods, acne, etc.), and Planned Parenthood was a lifesaver for me last year when I had no health insurance and could not afford the pill on my own. (As an aside, I actually once had health insurance that refused to cover it, so I was looking at $60/month for birth control.) In my experience, PP doesn't promote a lifestyle at all - they didn't ask me a single question about mine (which is quite mundane, I assure you! ;D). I asked for BC, got it, and left. They were lovely.
I also find it a very strange perspective that spouses can't love each other unselfishly while using birth control. Love is not conception. Love is the daily practice of caring for one's partner's needs and desires. Conception is the creation of a third party - it has nothing to do with whether or not the parents love each other. My partner and I are 23. Part of our love for one another is taking responsibility for not creating a third party while we're both in school!
My mother once tried to tell me that the Bible verse that says 'two shall become one flesh' actually meant I was the one flesh made out of their two! I felt very disturbed by this interpretation. I'm not a symbol of their relationship; I'm a person in my own right. So are all children.
Edited for grammar and clarity.
|
|
|
Post by rosiegirl on May 26, 2010 15:49:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree with valsa and Sierra. Seekingtruth's post was very condescending.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on May 26, 2010 16:21:36 GMT -5
I hate playing devil's advocate, but at least she was honest about her views.
And to be fair, they seem to be fairly typical views of the fundie-QF background.
You've got any form of BC as evil, because it's abortofacient - even if it isn't directly, because you're not HAVING a potential baby, so you're killing them indirectly by not giving them a chance. I always want to ask what about all those eggs that never have a chance during each menstrual period I don't get preggers in - are those potentially fertilized therefore unborn children supposed to be on my conscience as well? (If so, I'm in luck. IUDs stop your periods. No eggs dropping for me!)
You've got the view of sex for procreation alone - that's the holy sex idea. The thinking there is we're not doing it for fun and recreation, we're doing it to advance the kingdom by having lots of babies. This view makes it easier to condemn 'deviant' sexual orientations and practices, because anything that can't lead directly to children isn't holy sexual practice. If it isn't holy, it's therefore unholy, which is sinful, and therefore you're an evil sinner.
You've finally got the idea of PP as evil, because they are promoting (and actively providing the means) that a women 'take control' of her fertility - well, who is she taking that control from? God, obviously. So she's in rebellion against God - trying to take control. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and therefore PP is Satan, leading women into witchcraft.
It all makes sense, in a really sad, thought-limiting sort of way.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 26, 2010 16:31:43 GMT -5
Also playing devil's advocate... that post had a lot of Bible in it, more than a lot of the responses to the article and a lot of responses to that comment.
Now, I know MY response would basically be, see? Inhumanity of requiring amputation for aiding a lover? Not a message from any god worth worshiping.
But, that isn't really the kind of response that we're really trying to go for, which is a *biblical* understanding...
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on May 26, 2010 17:02:06 GMT -5
I really wasn't trying to condemn seekingtruth for her opinion. It is for people like her that NLQ exists. As odious as I might find fundamentalist opinions in general, I don't find her sanctimonious or proselytizing. I was just offering my own take on things, because I am opinionated ;D and I felt that KR had already done an excellent job of the Biblical exegesis.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 26, 2010 18:35:56 GMT -5
I don’t mean any disrespect but I have to say, I’ve never felt the need to give someone credit just for being honest. Honesty is very, very easy. Even the people at the Westboro Church (who I find so disgustingly hate-filled that I cringe to even think of them as fellow human beings) are honest about their views. Honesty is cheap. I think discretion is far rarer and more precious.
That being said, I’m very pro-choice. Not only regarding reproductive rights, but pretty much all the choices we have in life. I would never attempt to take away seekingtruth’s choice to believe as she wishes. However, I will point out if I find her opinions dishonest, ill-informed, or just plain reprehensible.
|
|
ladyh
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by ladyh on May 27, 2010 0:37:58 GMT -5
seekingtruthor more rather, shorter seeking truth. . . "I want to use the bible to shame others for not doing what I think they should (or should not) be doing." Calling PP evil just for helping women with their reproductive situations is dishonest at best, and I'm sorry, but this last thing: "We are incapable of making a baby, only He is, but we are able to deny Him the option, " is the most hillarious thing I have ever heard. Babies most definitely happen without god. All you have to do is forget about the BC. I really dont' know why anyone lets a 2000-4000 year old hand me down book run their lives.
|
|
nimue
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by nimue on May 27, 2010 0:58:49 GMT -5
I used to be on the pill. One of the things that struck me most about birth control was that being involved with it was aligning myself with an evil organization, Planned Parenthood, that promotes promiscuous behavior, virtually insuring that there will be consequences of plenteous unintended pregnancies ending them by the murder of the innocent babies as well as rampant STDs. I did not want to be a part of this. I don't see anything to be admired by her posts. She is trying to influence people by lying about Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has probably done more than almost any other organization in the US to prevent STDs and unplanned pregnancies (and thus abortions). They provide complete GYN services (including things like breast exams, pap tests, prenatal care and treatment for urinary and vaginal infections ) for women who might not be able to afford them elsewhere. They do not promote promiscuous behavior - they promote responsible behavior. Whereas, SeekingTruth is encouraging people to bring children into the world as an accessory to their marriage or proof that they trust god- not because they actually want them and will be good parents.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 27, 2010 1:34:16 GMT -5
I'm not sure that insulting people's religion is what we are really about here. Is it? I didn't think it was. I mean, we can argue the merits of the original poster's assumptions pro and con, even be passionate about the subject, whether it's PP or something else, without ridiculing all of Christianity (or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Muslim-ism, for that matter) as an aside.
Since one of the alleged purposes of NLQ, I thought, was to assist women leaving abusive spiritual situations to work out their feelings and thoughts and futures I also thought it was a place where such women could come and not be attacked for thoughts and beliefs that are not overtly atheist or radical feminist or whatever 'ist' another poster might personally profess.
The wonder of this particular forum, to me, was that it had such a large variety of women of different worldviews and belief systems sharing and communicating with each other pretty respectfully overall.
Seekingtruth has a particular worldview that many of us held at one time, and I don't know about anyone else but I could completely follow her entire line of reasoning easily because I knew it inside out and backwards myself. It is the teaching, it is the party line. She is buying into it. Many of us bought into it. To this day I have a hard time not having a knee jerk reaction to PP. It goes back with me. It isn't rational or based on anything I know about it or have experienced with it, it is just how many years I was told they were the enemy and somehow 'evil'. Rationally I know now that it isn't the case, but I understand where it comes from. I can reason with people like Seekingtruth about the origin and validity of her post without throwing stones as though I had no idea where such an idea would come from.
Anyway, my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 27, 2010 1:44:11 GMT -5
Oh! And appropros of nothing, that was the post that propelled me into Junior Member!! And does anyone else see anything ironic about a forum where so many are working out past religious abuse issues having as the ultimate forum designation 'God'? That really cracked me up. We are all posting our way into Godhood.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on May 27, 2010 2:23:01 GMT -5
Seekingtruth has a particular worldview that many of us held at one time, and I don't know about anyone else but I could completely follow her entire line of reasoning easily because I knew it inside out and backwards myself. It is the teaching, it is the party line. She is buying into it. Many of us bought into it. THIS. I feel that while we should all feel free to express disagreement, we need to be careful not to shut down people for coming here with a Quiverfull belief system. There's a difference between people who've come here to be nasty, and those who want to talk about their beliefs. For those who've been hurt by QF principles, it can seem like a person who believes those things is being judgmental by the act of believing them. But talking through things, holding things up to reason or the Bible or personal life experience is going to result in better communication than accusing the person of lying or dishonesty. If you truly believe something, then you're making a good faith effort to be truthful and not choosing to lie. If you want to show that something is wrong, demonstrate the reasons.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 27, 2010 7:21:36 GMT -5
no; without feminism, there would have never been a pill. See, even the biggest capitalists and Big Pharma bosses are merely human. Male humans, no less, and at that time 100% not interested in women's health whatsoever. It wouldn't have occurred to them to sink money into R&D for something that women (not a target market, unless for household items) might want, but their husbands might not. Certainly, many doctors either refused or made it very difficult for women (even married women) to get the pill.
Controlling fertility just never was on the mind of men, since they already controlled women's fertility without thinking much about it, and women controlling it themselves was such a strange concept, it would never have occured to these men.
|
|
|
Post by jadehawk on May 27, 2010 7:28:29 GMT -5
(or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Muslim-ism, for that matter) The word you were looking for here is Islam ;-)
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 27, 2010 8:03:53 GMT -5
Thank you! I know it, but I could not get it to come to me to save my life. So frustrating when the brain hiccups like that.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on May 27, 2010 10:10:30 GMT -5
I want to step in here and do a bit of moderating ~ please read this before posting in this thread. These FAQs which KR is preparing for NLQ are attempting to address Quiverfull teachings using the bible and Christian prinicples ~ the goal is to develop resources for the Take Heart Project which will enable questioning QFers to examine the ideas ~ ideas which they've accepted, embraced, and based major life decisions upon ~ in a different and hopefully, less burdensome light ~ without presenting the unthinkable challenge of giving up their very personal relationship with God and their trust in the bible as an effective guide to daily living. All discussion on this FAQ thread needs to keep this goal in mind ~ this "Bible and Birth Control" FAQ is addressed to practicing QFers. It assumes the existence of God, the legitimacy of the bible, and the "truth" of the Christian faith. With that in mind ~ I am very glad for ~ and welcome wholeheartedly ~ seekingtruth's input in the discussion. Her post spelled out very clearly the QF objections which we neglected to address in the FAQ ~ probably because it's been a while since those of us who are former adherents have thought through all the details of the belief system ~ and so I appreciate the reminder from seekingtruth since it will help us to improve the FAQ. Also ~ I hope that seekingtruth will continue in the discussion here ~ from her post, I can see that she is trying to seek a balanced approach ~ from a biblical standpoint ~ and I really do hope that she and others who read the FAQ can feel comfortable ~ respected and supported ~ as she participates in the discussion here. Bottom line ~ if you are unwilling to discuss this topic within the perimeters which our goal necessitates ~ that is, from a biblical perspective and that means assuming God exists and the bible is true ~ then please leave the interaction here to those (such as KR, nikita, etc) who are trying to reach out to QFers without insisting that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks for your help in keeping this FAQ discussion "Christian-friendly" ~ or at least not overtly anti-god or anti-bible.
|
|
valsa
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by valsa on May 27, 2010 11:12:15 GMT -5
Question about that. I only addressed the part of seekingtruth's posts that dealt with non-Biblical issues (PP being "evil", despite the fact that, by providing free health care for people, they're actually acting in quite a Jesus-like manner, and it being inappropriate to use vasectomies as temporary methods of birth control) Is that okay or verboten?
Also, since I may not get a chance to go any further in this discussion, I would like to address this-
Nikita, while I agree the poster you quoted was being very inappropriate, please just come out and say if you have a problem with that. I feel your entire post was extremely passive-aggressive, which I believe impedes dialog just as much ladyh’s comment. I also feel this particular comment is only playing right into the “all or nothing” extremist beliefs that have hurt so many of the women here. Someone does not have to be “overtly atheist” or a “radical feminist” to object to beliefs such as seekingtruth’s and the QF movement's.
|
|
ladyh
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by ladyh on May 27, 2010 11:46:34 GMT -5
I'm sorry if my remarks offended. What I really think I meant to say is that I did not get out of that kind of thinking until I stopped letting the bible provide my worldview. Arguing with others using the bible only perpetuates the idea that it is worth something to our daily lives, when clearly all it is used for is control. I realize that my remarks are not for this particular forum (sorry KR) so I'll stop just my two cents tho
|
|
|
Post by nikita on May 27, 2010 13:06:21 GMT -5
I completely and unequivocally reject the allegation of being passive-aggressive. Seriously though, how was my post passive-aggressive or somehow evidencing the same 'either/or' stance of the QF'rs? I was trying for a) a polite request for tolerance of those who have a religious belief system and b) to sincerely ask if my understanding of the purpose of this was correct or not. My post was not meant to be read in any other way or to shut anyone up. The problem here is really that there are two worldviews at work and they don't necessarily cross lines. If you believe in the bible and the Christian God/religion, and wish to continue to do so, then you are not going to be convinced by anyone who reasons with you from a purely non-religious place. And if you are not religious at all - especially if you are not familiar with the religious reasoning involved in a question like birth control - then you are not going to find any religious/biblical reasoning on the matter acceptable to you. It is all going to sound like a bunch of hooey to the non-religious person. There is what I consider to be a serious sickness in the protestant church world right now that is becoming alarmingly prevalent and at its most extreme end are the QF/P teachers, and the Calvinist/Reformed group that are getting a stranglehold on the seminaries and infiltrating more and more denominations all the time. They twist scripture and proof-text and tie people up in knots with their teachings. It is insidious and very destructive. Talking to people who are trying to come to grips with leaving such a system and saying 'back up a bit, that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does' is a lot different than saying to that person 'why do you believe all that bible crap?'. That doesn't mean that those who don't believe at all have nothing to say to such a person, far from it. But if the discussion starts with 'you are obviously lying/an idiot/not sincere etc for believing what you believe then that discussion is going to end pretty quickly. PP for instance. PP does many wonderful things. But it also supports (performs?) abortions. That is non-negotiable to certain Christians. It would not matter how much good PP does as long as abortion is part of their menu of services. That's just the way that line of thought is going to go. And if you are a QF'r then you throw in birth control on top of that and PP becomes even more maligned. For a QF'r the idea of 'planning parenthood' is anathema. So when someone asks such a person, how can you possibly not like PP... Of course they don't like PP. It flows naturally from the underlying religious belief system. And just saying, 'that's stupid, don't think that' is not going to get you very far. Anyway, that is the perspective I was coming from. But I do think the non-Christian perspective is very important in this thread to help inform that part of the discussion. I didn't know PP did all of those things posters here have talked about. That is good information to have. I'm glad I heard about that. Just my point of view, not trying to upset anyone or shut anyone down.
|
|
ladyh
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by ladyh on May 27, 2010 13:45:06 GMT -5
"PP for instance. PP does many wonderful things. But it also supports (performs?) abortions. That is non-negotiable to certain Christians. It would not matter how much good PP does as long as abortion is part of their menu of services."
For what it's worth, those other services are what makes abortions less needed. Sex education, BC and family planning are essential to reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Abstinance only education and illegalizing abortion have certainly not worked. If less abortions is your goal, then you need to go with what works.
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Adriel on May 27, 2010 15:41:44 GMT -5
If less abortions is your goal, then you need to go with what works. But fewer abortions is NOT the goal. For fundamental or patriarchal christians, NO abortions is the goal. To them, any service which offers them, regardless of the intent, regardless of the other services, is perverting the ultimate goal = accepting that every conception leads to birth, and is from God, and should be treated as holy. The stance is that abortions are totally, always, irredeemably evil, and (often but not always) that contraception is likewise evil. There is no "slightly less evil" or "what works to reduce evil slowly." Evil is something to be stood against every inch of the way, as firmly as can be, to prevent it from becoming an accepted part of society. The "slippery slope" if you will. This is one my mother was really active on - I was picketing abortion clinics and working in crisis pregnancy centers from birth. I had all the little plastic feti, and when I was old enough to speak, could tell you when heartbeats and eyeballs started. I was a master manipulator and convinced that I was saving babies for God. Anyone who tried to convince me otherwise had been duped by Satan, and was no longer fighting the good fight. It didn't matter to me what the circumstances were - I was in Absolute Truth, and mere human circumstances did not ever change Absolute Truth - if it hurt individuals, it was obviously because they either deserved it, or were being tested like Job. Either way, there was no need to make exceptions or be lax about sinful behavior. I am very sad when I think of the pain my childhood self must have caused people. But that's the thing - as a child, I was convinced of my rectitude! I had all the verses, and I was ready to play "dueling scripture" with any lukewarm christian who tried to sway me from my God-given purpose. There were verses for everything! There were sermons and taped lectures and tracts supporting us! We had to be right! I remember plastering Chick Tracts on windshields of cars parked in catholic church lots while my mother prayed in tongues the whole time for the poor deluded souls to escape the Demon Mary and come to Jesus. It can be hard to reason with faith. I don't know that anyone can be persuaded not to believe. What can happen is that when someone has a crisis of faith, other resources can then be a huge help to see that it doesn't have to be so extreme - it doesn't have to be quite so black and white and harsh. It can be very helpful then to see other's thoughts and meditations on different 'flavors' of christianity. This seems a bit rambly - I'm sorry. I hope it made sense...
|
|