|
Post by cindy on Jun 22, 2010 18:11:11 GMT -5
Oh, Jemand!
My skin is crawling. How fitting and appropriate for this discussion.
My husband and I have a deal regarding my re-reading of either 1984 or Brave New World. I have to make sure that we plan to do happy things because I get depressed thereafter.
Needless to say, it's been awhile since I read the book. What a comparison!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 23, 2010 11:04:32 GMT -5
Little Update:
I am waiting to hear from the National Right to Life Committee in DC about a formal statement. Sent off a letter a few minutes ago...
I'll call later today and will call tomorrow if I don't get through.
Another organization referred me to another pro-life organization, and I am waiting to hear back from them.
If I hear nothing further, I'm going to start calling people and being a pain. If that fails, maybe we can start a letter writing campaign?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 11:49:05 GMT -5
Oh, Jemand! My skin is crawling. How fitting and appropriate for this discussion. My husband and I have a deal regarding my re-reading of either 1984 or Brave New World. I have to make sure that we plan to do happy things because I get depressed thereafter. Needless to say, it's been awhile since I read the book. What a comparison! Speaking of Orwell... I expect Margaret Atwood's take on 1984, called The Handmaid's Tale, would interest lots of people here. It's about a Big Brother-y society governed by Dominionist ideology. It's been many years since I read it, but there's definitely an emphasis on valuing women only for their reproductive capacity.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 23, 2010 12:38:47 GMT -5
Oh, Jemand! My skin is crawling. How fitting and appropriate for this discussion. My husband and I have a deal regarding my re-reading of either 1984 or Brave New World. I have to make sure that we plan to do happy things because I get depressed thereafter. Needless to say, it's been awhile since I read the book. What a comparison! Speaking of Orwell... I expect Margaret Atwood's take on 1984, called The Handmaid's Tale, would interest lots of people here. It's about a Big Brother-y society governed by Dominionist ideology. It's been many years since I read it, but there's definitely an emphasis on valuing women only for their reproductive capacity. Vyckie recommended it or raffled one off at some point. I bought a copy but haven't read it yet. (I think it's in hubby's car?) It might have been the prize for a pole dancer creed question or something?! ;D
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 23, 2010 12:44:30 GMT -5
I'm very excited. I just heard from a Pro-Life guy of some note after trying to pick his brain two years ago on this issue.
I am so grateful to all of you here for your encouragement. I don't know if anyone will make any big declarations or position statements or anything, but there is a change in the climate from the last time I tried to advance this cause.
When you drop a pebble in a pond, you never really see where all the ripples go, but the whole surface of the pond is affected in some way. You can't always see the affect of that and the ripples that bounce off of other things and create new ripples... And things change. And I see things changing.
I'm encouraged!
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 23, 2010 12:55:27 GMT -5
Little Update: I am waiting to hear from the National Right to Life Committee in DC about a formal statement. Sent off a letter a few minutes ago... I'll call later today and will call tomorrow if I don't get through. Another organization referred me to another pro-life organization, and I am waiting to hear back from them. If I hear nothing further, I'm going to start calling people and being a pain. If that fails, maybe we can start a letter writing campaign? Hey, Cindy, kudos for all you're doing. I do have one question, though... Why are you only in dialogue with pro-life groups over this? Why not pro-choice groups as well as groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State (or its equivalent in Canada)? It doesn't make sense to me to only deal with this issue within the pro-life community.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 23, 2010 14:23:48 GMT -5
Little Update: I am waiting to hear from the National Right to Life Committee in DC about a formal statement. Sent off a letter a few minutes ago... I'll call later today and will call tomorrow if I don't get through. Another organization referred me to another pro-life organization, and I am waiting to hear back from them. If I hear nothing further, I'm going to start calling people and being a pain. If that fails, maybe we can start a letter writing campaign? Hey, Cindy, kudos for all you're doing. I do have one question, though... Why are you only in dialogue with pro-life groups over this? Why not pro-choice groups as well as groups like Americans for Separation of Church and State (or its equivalent in Canada)? It doesn't make sense to me to only deal with this issue within the pro-life community. Km, I've got a couple of good reasons for concentrating on the Christian Pro-Life and Bioethics groups. First, consider who the population of at-risk individuals really is. It is QF women in "families of Biblical patriarchy" who are staunchly pro-life. They will hear pro-life people (maybe, if they have not been maligned too badly in their eyes as lukewarm folks who aren't as pro-life as Vision Forum). I hope that people in these circles will hear and understand what a grossly distorted message they've been sold through what look more and more like outright lies to me and will consider scrapping Vision Forum's moral mandate. Going to a pro-choice group would only polarize followers of Vision Forum in their belief system. I'm sure that I've already hardened some of them by becoming active here, but I also know that with all of this discussion there are people throughout the Christian community that have heard the comparison of sacrificing 25,000 people worldwide in a year to bank on and hope for a viable birth from an ectopic pregnancy that comes along once in ten years worldwide. In other words, who cares what a pro-abortion group thinks if you're a faithful QFer? In fact, if a pro-abortion group recommends a thing, a QF person is very likely to do the opposite out of spite. If the goal were to eliminate the VF policy, then contacting some of these other secular people might be wise. But the primary goal here is to address things for the benefit of QF women who are placed at risk. My other interest is personal somewhat, in a way. I am staunchly pro-life, and as a part of the pro-life community, I think it is the pro-life community's responsibility to speak to address these matters that are a function of Christian belief. A tubal pregnancy is also a "crisis pregnancy." I approach my work in this area as a ministry to women to choose life by helping to support them, but for some, it seems that those unborn babes are of far greater value to them. I don't like that at all, and I want to see the people who minister to women stand up to set some standards and tell the truth, putting the truth on the misinformation that has been spread. They should be those champions. The other half of my reason stems from the idea that I'd like to see the Christian community hold itself accountable. When I first wrote to Vyckie about this matter, I mentioned an old song that was sung in the eighties. At the end of the refrain, it repeated "Judgment begins in the House of God." taken the Scripture that it echoed. Call me naive, but there is a part of me that believes this is still possible. We need to be responsible enough to hold one another accountable. If we do not judge ourselves as a Body, that evil old secular world will do it for us and God will be mocked in the process. I want to see the Christian community do it, not the world or the government. If that makes any sense to anyone. I might be a fool, but I want to be the right kind of fool, and a fool for that which lets me stand with confidence toward God.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 24, 2010 9:39:29 GMT -5
The conversation needs to be had within the right to life community because that's where the debate lies.
If someone already believes as I do, that nobody should be forced to have a baby, then ending a pregnancy that could physically hurt or even kill a woman becomes a no brainer. The legality and availability of abortion includes this.
FTR my dream world is one where information and contraception is so available, along with decent social support, that abortion becomes rare because most accidental pregnancies can be brought to term without too much sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 24, 2010 10:27:00 GMT -5
The conversation needs to be had within the right to life community because that's where the debate lies. If someone already believes as I do, that nobody should be forced to have a baby, then ending a pregnancy that could physically hurt or even kill a woman becomes a no brainer. The legality and availability of abortion includes this. FTR my dream world is one where information and contraception is so available, along with decent social support, that abortion becomes rare because most accidental pregnancies can be brought to term without too much sacrifice. See, I'm not sure I agree that it's a conversation that should be relegated to one community like this. Obviously, it's a no-brainer in the pro-choice community, but the pro-choice community could go a long way in shedding light on this practice and publicizing at least some contingencies within the pro-life community that are not, in fact, pro-life at all. And unlike the usual arguments about hypocrisy within that community (having to do with the majority's support for the death penalty and hawkish military practices), this example of hypocrisy is one that bears directly on reproduction. Ultimately, it would spread awareness of gross hypocrisy among a subset of people within that community. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around a justification for not doing this unless one simply wants to avoid shining a negative light on the pro-life community before a secular audience. Which is a decidedly political choice to make. I do take Cindy's point that people within the pro-life community are not likely to give a rat's ass what, say, NARAL thinks about this, and I'm impressed by the level of integrity with which she seems to be approaching this. That said, I'm curious whether this is really likely to be a liability if someone other than Cindy (i.e., someone who doesn't have relationships within the pro-life community) were to raise this to a more secular crowd?
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 24, 2010 10:54:10 GMT -5
The conversation needs to be had within the right to life community because that's where the debate lies. If someone already believes as I do, that nobody should be forced to have a baby, then ending a pregnancy that could physically hurt or even kill a woman becomes a no brainer. The legality and availability of abortion includes this. FTR my dream world is one where information and contraception is so available, along with decent social support, that abortion becomes rare because most accidental pregnancies can be brought to term without too much sacrifice. This.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 24, 2010 11:47:48 GMT -5
KM I'm not sure where to go with what you said. The issue is two fold, the target community doesn't really WANT to hear what the pro-choice movement has to say anyhow.
Confounding though it would seem, these folks oppose the kind of comprehensive and factual sex ed that reduces accidental pregnancy and frequently encourages teen to delay sex much longer than so called "purity rings" They also oppose most passive means of BC from hormonal to IUD, calling them "abortion" Somehow there also seems to be this opposition to social programs that would help women carry to term and raise children from accidental pregnancies.
That's why I say that the debate is truly on the pro-life side, because they need to hash out how far they are willing to sacrifice women's lives for a principal and any pushback has to come from within that community.
I always wind up asking myself if the mission is to save babies or control women. I think I know the answer!
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 24, 2010 12:08:35 GMT -5
KM I'm not sure where to go with what you said. The issue is two fold, the target community doesn't really WANT to hear what the pro-choice movement has to say anyhow. Confounding though it would seem, these folks oppose the kind of comprehensive and factual sex ed that reduces accidental pregnancy and frequently encourages teen to delay sex much longer than so called "purity rings" They also oppose most passive means of BC from hormonal to IUD, calling them "abortion" Somehow there also seems to be this opposition to social programs that would help women carry to term and raise children from accidental pregnancies. That's why I say that the debate is truly on the pro-life side, because they need to hash out how far they are willing to sacrifice women's lives for a principal and any pushback has to come from within that community. I always wind up asking myself if the mission is to save babies or control women. I think I know the answer! I understand that the debate is on the pro-life side. I just don't see why awareness-raising (about some of the worst practices on the pro-life side) shouldn't also happen among more secular people.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 24, 2010 12:19:05 GMT -5
Anyway, I'm just saying... I don't see why this should be only about winning a debate within the pro-life community. Because non-pro-life people are affected by stuff like this when we go to the doctor and are refused, say, birth control.
I sort of feel like I'm getting the message that it would be detrimental to the pro-life community if I were to, say, alert my acquaintances over at a pro-choice space like feministe about this issue. I think it's important for the secular community to know what's going on as well. I also think it's important for doctors to be educated in general. What happens when they get patients whose only form of "insurance" is something like Samaritan Ministries? Seems to me that everyone kinda needs to know how to navigate this worldview, especially in the US where it has so much more political power.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 24, 2010 12:41:28 GMT -5
I get your point about causing a stir in the pro-choice community but my fear would be that that ruckus would overwhelm and drown out the stir Cindy is trying to cause in the pro-life community. I know that when I hear anything that starts out 'NARAL states...' or 'Planned Parenthood says...' my head just immediately checks out of there. I just innately distrust them (long conditioning).
I realize that some of our purposes are at cross ends here as our beliefs are polar opposite on most pro-life/pro-choice issues that arise. The ectopic pregnancy issue is one of the few that we can embrace jointly and has made it easy to discuss. I'm not sure how to reconcile the rest of it, because once you get the folks whose entire life is about promoting pro-choice causes involved I don't think the issue is going to be treated like that, it's going to be 'look at all the stupid pro-life people we've been warning you about over there!' And the VF position just gets lumped in with the position of all pro-life people and no distinction will be made. And that makes it easier for pro-life people to simply dismiss the entire hoopla as propaganda and a hostile world view regarding pro-life issues in general. The voice that the people who need to hear this the most won't be loud and clear enough to penetrate all of that. And it will feed into the persecution complex folks in extreme religious movements inherently feel. VF and their ilk will use it to point out that the world hates truth, that they are being persecuted, etc. But if the traditional pro-life supporters come out against VF's ridiculous position that will have much more weight.
I guess what I'm saying is although what you wish to see happen is important for your purposes it goes against our purpose, so we're gonna have a different attitude about it.
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 24, 2010 12:50:39 GMT -5
I get what you're saying now. It seems to you like the larger community of women aren't aware of how radical some of the pro-life policies get, so Ramona Random is taken by surprise when her new health insurance policy steered her to an OB who won't write for the pill because Dr. Cross is MORALLY opposed to it and thinks she's justified in pushing her beliefs on Ramona.
I know I've been aware of this stuff for a while, The second Bush Administration really emboldened these people.
HOWEVER it's two different campaigns, one to find a compassionate and humane policy on the pro-life side, and another to make the general public aware that their reproductive freedoms are under attack and not just in "law" but also in insurance and in health care delivery. Here we're facing the apathy and denial that plagues the whole system.
"I can't change anything, so why bother" and "I live in XYZ, this can never happen to me." All the prescriptions for preven won't help you prevent disaster if you can't fill it anywhere but Wally World and the pharmacist on duty is taking full advantage of the conscience clause!
So yeah NARAL could work on exposing this stuff so people are aware...but it's a different part of the same elephant!
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 24, 2010 12:53:24 GMT -5
Wow Nikita, you nailed it better than I did.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 13:20:16 GMT -5
KM I'm not sure where to go with what you said. The issue is two fold, the target community doesn't really WANT to hear what the pro-choice movement has to say anyhow. Confounding though it would seem, these folks oppose the kind of comprehensive and factual sex ed that reduces accidental pregnancy and frequently encourages teen to delay sex much longer than so called "purity rings" They also oppose most passive means of BC from hormonal to IUD, calling them "abortion" Somehow there also seems to be this opposition to social programs that would help women carry to term and raise children from accidental pregnancies. That's why I say that the debate is truly on the pro-life side, because they need to hash out how far they are willing to sacrifice women's lives for a principal and any pushback has to come from within that community. I always wind up asking myself if the mission is to save babies or control women. I think I know the answer! Right-wing Christian fundamentalists want an ideal world, and they appear to think they can legislate it. By opposing abortion, birth control, sex education and social programs, they appear to want to make a world where young people are deterred from sexual activity through ignorance AND through fear of the horrible situation the unwed mother will find herself in. They want to make a world where sex only occurs (or is only acknowledged to occur) inside marriage– and by giving those who deviate, no viable options.* The result of which (which they don’t appear to think through) would be a return to the Victorian conditions in which unwed mothers froze to death with their babies on doorsteps, while the babies’ fathers drank in their gentlemen’s clubs or went shooting with their friends. *Fundamentalists do support unwed mothers giving their babies up for adoption, and they will take care of women– to a point– if they are willing to go that route. Childless married couples being able to adopt is part of their ideal, romanticized view of the world.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 24, 2010 13:33:33 GMT -5
Don't get me started on that subject. The pressure put on some young women to give up their babies can be quite extreme and some groups are not above lying to them to get them to do it. But that's another discussion. It is, however, one of the cornerstones of the right wing fundamentalist position: "If you get pregnant, have the baby then give it away forever to a 'good Christian home' and then go away forever and forget about it. (Slut)."
But yeah, the attitude seems to be if we make it impossible to live with the consequences of pre-marital sex (babies) then people won't do it anymore. As though that was EVER true. It's the resurgence of the Puritans, Esther Prinn included in the package deal. I get the impression that they'd bring back stocks and stoning if they thought they could get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 13:40:40 GMT -5
I get your point about causing a stir in the pro-choice community but my fear would be that that ruckus would overwhelm and drown out the stir Cindy is trying to cause in the pro-life community. I know that when I hear anything that starts out 'NARAL states...' or 'Planned Parenthood says...' my head just immediately checks out of there. I just innately distrust them (long conditioning). I realize that some of our purposes are at cross ends here as our beliefs are polar opposite on most pro-life/pro-choice issues that arise. The ectopic pregnancy issue is one of the few that we can embrace jointly and has made it easy to discuss. I'm not sure how to reconcile the rest of it, because once you get the folks whose entire life is about promoting pro-choice causes involved I don't think the issue is going to be treated like that, it's going to be 'look at all the stupid pro-life people we've been warning you about over there!' And the VF position just gets lumped in with the position of all pro-life people and no distinction will be made. And that makes it easier for pro-life people to simply dismiss the entire hoopla as propaganda and a hostile world view regarding pro-life issues in general. The voice that the people who need to hear this the most won't be loud and clear enough to penetrate all of that. And it will feed into the persecution complex folks in extreme religious movements inherently feel. VF and their ilk will use it to point out that the world hates truth, that they are being persecuted, etc. But if the traditional pro-life supporters come out against VF's ridiculous position that will have much more weight. I guess what I'm saying is although what you wish to see happen is important for your purposes it goes against our purpose, so we're gonna have a different attitude about it. Right. The Christian pro-life position is, "Whatever NARAL loves, we hate. Whatever NARAL hates, we love." So if NARAL comes out with a public statement decrying the VF stance, VF will be in a position to say to the more sane pro-life groups, "You're compromising your pro-life position by allying yourself with NARAL on this matter." For the sake of the women involved, the best thing NARAL could do is continue to ignore Vision Forum.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 24, 2010 13:47:38 GMT -5
So if NARAL comes out with a public statement decrying the VF stance, VF will be in a position to say to the more sane pro-life groups, "You're compromising your pro-life position by allying yourself with NARAL on this matter." Ah, okay, I see.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 24, 2010 13:53:34 GMT -5
So if NARAL comes out with a public statement decrying the VF stance, VF will be in a position to say to the more sane pro-life groups, "You're compromising your pro-life position by allying yourself with NARAL on this matter." Ah, okay, I see. I see, but I do not understand. This kind of black and white thinking is problematic-- hitler breathed air, so we should all drown? NARAL doesn't want women to die, so "sane" "pro-life" groups should join with those opposing lifesaving medicine? I end up questioning both the sane and pro-life elements of these supposed groups.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 24, 2010 14:04:52 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't get it either, Jemand. But it's the way things are.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 24, 2010 14:42:01 GMT -5
I see, but I do not understand. This kind of black and white thinking is problematic-- hitler breathed air, so we should all drown? NARAL doesn't want women to die, so "sane" "pro-life" groups should join with those opposing lifesaving medicine? I end up questioning both the sane and pro-life elements of these supposed groups. Oh, I know. Me too. ETA: Me, I equate NARAL with, well, white middle class feminism, which isn't exactly my favorite kind, and certainly nothing I'd call "extremist" in any way... I forget the kind of meaning it has in much of evangelical Christian subculture.
|
|
|
Post by usotsuki on Jun 24, 2010 15:26:27 GMT -5
Don't get me started on that subject. The pressure put on some young women to give up their babies can be quite extreme and some groups are not above lying to them to get them to do it. But that's another discussion. It is, however, one of the cornerstones of the right wing fundamentalist position: "If you get pregnant, have the baby then give it away forever to a 'good Christian home' and then go away forever and forget about it. (Slut)." I suspect that is part of the reason why I didn't live with my parents. (That, and my father's side of the family hated my mother.)
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 24, 2010 16:09:29 GMT -5
I look forward to coming back to the comments here in more depth which I have just only have had a chance to skim right now. I don't think that the debate should be limited to only the pro-life arena, and I think that the broader the discussion is, the more ultimate good it will do. I enjoy the challenge. I want to also state here that I've had much gracious feedback privately from atheists and people in the pro-choice camps concerning this discussion. I consider that a high honor, and I am really deeply touched by this. Ideally, what I would like to see and is thus my personal objective involves the pro-life side of things. I am a part of the Bioethics community as a nurse, I have been a Birthright volunteer coordinator, and I've been a big supporter of crisis pregnancy clinic efforts. I am very much a part of these areas, so this is where I want to act as a change agent. I want to see my own focus areas get right before I branch out into these other arenas. I also think that input from these types of agencies will have the most influence with people in the QF camp, if indeed, anything will. They are the focus and group at risk.
Some time from now, I may choose to pursue other approaches. And if other people want to make the effort to take this issue to other arenas like secular ones, that's terrific. Said another way, if this area of Christendom will not hold itself accountable, it should be shamed in a public forum. Give criticism where criticism is due. Frankly if people will not show themselves accountable to God, given the mortality risk, maybe that accountability will only come when they are forced by "Caesar" to do what is ethical or shamed into it by the secular world. (I'd just rather see the Christian community address the matter first, but then I tend to be a die hard idealist.)
Good news though --
Two Christian groups (in addition to Don Veinot's input last Thursday) are paying attention to this issue. A pro-life physicians' association will have a position on ectopic pregnancy prepared and ready for the public in about a month as a result of the attention we've all brought to this. !!!!!! I just was contacted today and will post more about it later.
I also heard back from another pro-life advocate group that is connected to a well-known REFORMED Christian teaching ministry, and they intend to offer input. (They are overwhelmed right now, too, and it's prime vacation time.) Anything they put out has to be run by their board, etc.
There are also several other agencies and individuals that I've found to contact that were not on my original list. I'm waiting on the National Right to Life Committee's response, too. We will also have more content to address after this Baby Conference takes place, as I'm sure that Vision Forum will sell the audio or perhaps the video from the conference to make a buck.
All that said, Vyckie may be discouraged today, but I am more encouraged about this issue than I have been in two whole years!
And if anyone wants the open letter I'm preparing to post or any of my materials so that they can contact secular or other agencies, let me know. I am happy to share what I have with whoever wants the material. Anyone is welcome to contact me and I'd be happy to share this with them.
More power to you if someone wants to work on these other areas to address this ectopic pregnancy issue. I'm not saying that it's wrong to do so. I'm just doing what is before me and what I feel is my best role. It's also my desire to affect change in my own areas first, those areas with which I most strongly identify.
The truth is the truth, and advancing that is never wrong. Only good can come, as far as I'm concerned. (If any interested wants to read more of my babblings on this, read my "Robert Conrad" approach to the subject of challenge: undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/08/everready-apologetics.html) I believe that only good will work from the pursuit of truth when it is done ethically and for ethical reasons. This is certainly an ethical cause.
Addendum EDIT:
I just wanted to make clear that I'm working on my focus area, and I still have plenty to do. My personal efforts or focus should certainly not be taken to mean that I think that it's "wrong" to limit that to a pro-life approach or that this is the only approach that should be taken.
I'm just taking this focus, and its provided me with plenty to do.
Now I'm off to read my new copy of "Quivering Daughters!"
|
|