|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 21:08:44 GMT -5
By the way, what do you think people like me should do if we get pregnant, consensually or otherwise? I have a septate uterus and a flattened, malformed cervix that could not hold for the duration of a pregnancy. Without some very expensive surgeries, a pregnancy for me would be quite life-threatening. I don't believe that it would be morally right for me to attempt to carry a child to term when there are other options should I decide to raise a child. The expenses are more than I can handle, and I am not interested in having multiple surgeries in order to increase the possibility of bringing a child to term with both of us intact. FWIW, I NOW have difficulty in upholding principle over lives. As I stated elsewhere, principles are to serve us, not the other way around. My thoughts on your situation: I would support whatever you decided to do. The link to the philosophical essay on abortion that was posted on another thread has caused me to do a lot of thinking about the difficult situations where it appears you have, through no fault of their own, one life pitted against another. It is easy to be rigid in one's views and black and white because then you don't have to think. Just apply principle A to situation B and damn the torpedos! It's things like this that make me thankful for God's mercy that would cover even a situation where there is no clearly defined answer about what to do. I don't think it would be sinful either way, and if you opted for carrying a baby as far as you could, I would think you a heroine in the face of some very big odds! The thing is... There are exceptions everywhere, aren't there? When you start upholding a doctor/border-guard's right to lie to you about the facts, you get into some very slippery moral territory that very quickly puts a lot of people at risk. Unfortunately, ethics are never as cut and dried as we would like them. I'm thinking of the case of Rahab in the OT who lied in order to protect the Israelite spies and then was rewarded by God for it. In fact, the whole profession of spying raises some interesting ethical questions because it is based on deceit. A couple quote tag fixes (that actually took more than I thought lol. Complexity!)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 19:48:09 GMT -5
I'm curious though, how many people have actually run into these types of practitioners? Are there any stats or studies demonstrating that this is a significant problem in your medical system? I don't know of any pro-life doctors here who would stand by and allow a woman to die from an ectopic pregnancy. Something like this would surely hit the news especially since Canada has a very liberal abortion law. It is the opposite here. A woman's life was recently saved in a Catholic hospital in Arizona under this very situation-- and the nun who approved the surgery was excommunicated. THAT made the news. A woman's life was saved and people are pissed! www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/05/17/roundup-saving-mothers-life-gets-excommunicatedThat isn't the first news article I read about it, or the most detailed. Her status was so bad she *could not be moved* to another hospital, and was rapidly deteriorating. The normal thing, the thing that wouldn't have hit the news, is that she would be just another statistic in the US's shamefully high maternal mortality stats. And yes, the US has an ABYSMAL record on maternal mortality compared to pretty much every other developed country. The mortality rate in Austria is 4 per 100,000, but in the US it is 11. Many things contribute... but I don't doubt that conscience clause laws certainly help inch that up. here are two unicef pages: www.unicef.org/infobycountry/canada_statistics.htmlwww.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.htmlA woman in Canada has a 1 in 11,000 chance of dying of maternal related causes, the same stat in the US is 1 in 4,800. More than twice as likely. The pro-choice camp would go ballistic if something like this ever cropped up. We are talking about easily avoidable, gratuitous DEATH here for no benefit whatsoever... shouldn't the so-called "pro-LIFE" camp be the one that's MORE ballistic?? But no... it's the camp causing the problem. Anyway, this last bit is probably just another jab at the hypocrisy of these people who would write and support and take advantage of these laws.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 17, 2010 12:08:50 GMT -5
[ Whenever I hear someone say that we don't need universal health care because people can always get treatment in the emergency room, I wish they could spend a day in my friend's shoes. Slowly dying of a curable disease. I'm in Canada and all I can say is that though we do have some waiting for some medical procedures, the universal health care system works very well. I am currently recovering from a surgery to donate a kidney to a dear friend who wouldn't have been able to afford it in the US due to costs. Both of our surgeries and hospital stays were covered by universal medicare. Yes, there is waste in the system, but overall it works fairly well. Someone who cannot under any circumstances perform an abortion because of religious beliefs has no business going into OB/GYN. Someone who cannot under any circumstances issue birth control or Plan B has no business becoming a pharmacist. Unfortunately, you would end up getting rid of a lot of really fine doctors, nurses, midwives, doulas, etc., who don't believe that they should participate in procuring abortions and that it runs contrary to their beliefs to do no harm and to preserve and protect life. I used to work as a second attendant for a midwife and a doula. I had to quit because of lack of support from my husband and because the hours were too irregular for everything else I had to do in my life. I often worked with women who had beliefs that ran contrary to mine, but I didn't judge them and I did my best to serve them with compassion and love. I have really good relations with them to this day. Also, accomodation also needs to be made for those people who want to know that their caregiver is pro-life. Fact is, if your caregiver isn't willing to help you with an abortion, there are plenty of other resources out there who will and the information isn't lacking if you really want to find it. No. You are not reading the words on the page. The point is *under ANY circumstances.* If your patient is going to die barring immediate surgery which will result in the death of a fetus, (ectopic pregnancy disaster or some other similar disaster) and you sit on your hands because of your faith, you do not belong as an OB-GYN. Declining to abort a healthy pregnancy is not the same thing. But saying that a doctor MUST NOT stand by while their patient DIES would not get rid of any health care provider who could remotely be described as a "good" one. There are NO "really fine doctors, nurses, etc" who would behave that way. Unfortunately, there are some not-so-fine ones who would. As for birth control, it is often used to regulate extremely painful menstrual cramps in women who may be celibate! A pharmacist is not a doctor, does not write prescriptions, and by getting a license to practice, should be required to fill all legal prescriptions that a doctor orders under a doctor's care. A pharmacist DOES NOT KNOW that a girl filling a birth control prescription is even sexually active! There is no need to deny care which could greatly improve quality of life, just because you are making assumptions about your customer's lifestyle. Not your business. ESPECIALLY as a pharmacist doesn't really get into that when filling a prescription.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 16, 2010 12:27:10 GMT -5
FWIW, I was travelling in the Southern States in the early 80's when I was told stories by people there about being turned away from hospitals. If things have changed since then, I am glad to hear of it. You know, I can understand the rage some of you feel about a Catholic hospital refusing to do certain procedures. But do we really want the alternative? Freedom of conscience is a very important liberty, not to be given up lightly by individuals or institutions. While I might not agree with the restrictions that Seventh Day Adventists, or vegans or Roman Catholics have in their lives, I respect their right to make those choices, especially when alternatives to those choices exist. Life is messy. There is no magic silver bullet that covers everyone. Freedom means that mistakes can and will be made. But the alternative is far far worse, if you ask me. I understand that. But birth control pills come with specific warnings that they may possibly, in some rare instances, act as an abortificant. Why are the warnings there? Because we live in a pluralistic society! The provider can't assume the consumer shares his or her ethics, and thus provides all the information that the other person needs in order to make an informed choice in their own personal ethic. Even in a very rare instance which may or may not ever even happen. Also, places offering abortions are required to give information about alternatives and resources in order to get those alternatives, i.e., mention adoption, answer questions about adoption procedures to the best of their ability, etc. That is what we *should* pay to live in a pluralistic society! Respect your own values, but acknowledge that other people might have different beliefs, and give them ALL the information possible in order that they may make their own choice. However, that is NOT protected. Only the pro-choice, birth control options are required to respect the beliefs of others. Catholic and other "pro-life" hospitals are NOT required to honestly state the situation, state the pros and cons of all treatment options, list which ones are available there, and where to go if you want something not available there. These kinds of things are *BASIC* respect necessary in a pluralistic society. I am all for religious liberty. But you need to be HONEST to your patients about your own limitations, why you have them, and give your patients an informed choice to go elsewhere if the situation allows and their ethic differs from yours. Our society maintains a double standard that privileges a certain religious system of beliefs and ethics over the alternatives, and that should not stand. We really should *all* be unhappy about this, because it actually IS a freedom of religion, free practice, etc. issue. Freedom should mean that coercion through engineered ignorance is *not* allowed.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 16, 2010 8:41:10 GMT -5
Sorry for the off-topic post, but that really needed to be cleared up. Is it true that Catholic hospitals won't even tell you that you would have other options that they don't offer if you sought care elsewhere? Are there any locations that a Catholic hospital would be your only option? And the biggie no one here can answer if they wanted to: why is a potential life more important than an actual life?!?!?! And another, why is the pro-life crowd so doctrine over person? My Catholic bff and I have always had the same beliefs, but in the end she votes pro-choice and I voted "pro"-life. I am voting pro-choice from now on, because it is plain that "pro-life" doesn't mean politically what it means to me. I have been so duped for so long. All that damning of feminism from the pulpit, plus my own goodwill, kept me from seeing the kind of viscous power plays the religious right was intent on making our country live under. Grrrr. I am not their patsy anymore. Look at the text of these conscience laws: www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Laws-USA/Conscience-Laws-USA.htmlNote especially the section that protects the "right" to refuse to refer for abortion services "For ANY Reason." That would, of course, include rape victims and plan B, women with ectopic pregnancies and methotrexate, etc. That is not just providing or doing them, but simply referring-- informing the patient of the option and giving them the name of a different hospital. There is also a section protecting the right not to counsel on any treatment the provider believes contradicts the provider's conscience. In Oklahoma the law is even crazier, www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100428_17_0_hrimgs790797"The law went into effect a day earlier, when the state Senate overrode Gov. Brad Henry's veto of that measure and one that prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy." also here: www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/28/carr.abortion.oklahoma/index.htmlDoctors can just out and out LIE to patients if they think the truth might prompt them to seek an abortion... So yes, some hospitals do behave like that, and their behavior is protected to the fullest extent of the law. Given these secular laws, and Catholic religious law, wouldn't the astonishing thing be if a Catholic hospital DIDN'T occasionally mislead patients?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 22:19:20 GMT -5
yes, but it should be WIDELY advertised that this is the fact. If it was, these corporate ethics would never have come to dominate about 20% of the market (or whatever substantial subset it is)-- including almost all of the hospitals serving particular groups or regions, or getting as much governmental support as they do. Our nation has corporate ethics as well-- and one of them should be not encouraging or supporting groups which do not serve the entire population but only a subset, and only with inferior care. Most people are not self aware of either their own or others worldview presuppositons. When you live in a nation that allows for a multiplicity of worldviews within its borders and the freedom to live them out to a large degree, then you just have to expect that this sort of thing is going to occur. There is no perfect answer that fits every situation and ethics can often be very convoluted. Perhaps much of our frustration comes from the fact that the results we get don't match the expectations we have of "the way things oughta be." Perhaps so, my frustrations rise from the fact that a group that advertises as a *hospital,* a place to heal the body, to fix PHYSICAL bodies up as much as possible, advertises itself as that, but then promotes care that increases scarring, increases side effects, ignores patient choice, etc, for SPIRITUAL reasons. For that, you go to a church. For physical things, you go to a hospital. I don't mind that there are people who view spiritual things as important, I DO mind that they don't make it clear to the community and the world at large that care for physical ailments will always play second fiddle to interpretations of spiritual maladies-- to the detriment of physical outcomes, and clearly point people to other sources of care if necessary. How are people SUPPOSED to become self aware when such things are never talked about, not freely divulged to patients and the community at large, as important things people need to know before they elect to go there? Where it becomes a revenue generating stream as well-- and getting patients there becomes more important than telling them they might be better served elsewhere. It took me a lot of digging and paying attention to specific blogs watching these sorts of issues figure this out, why? Why *should* an organization which limits physical care but advertises itself as an organization to heal the physical body retreat behind "well, most people don't know their own world views anyway, so no big deal they don't know how ours will affect their prognosis." I dunno... we are all justifiably horrified at Samaritan ministries. How do those of you who are Catholic (and view the hierarchy's pronouncements as authoritative) reconcile that horror with what's happening in your hospitals? Your institutions are doing pretty much the same thing, more negative outcomes than the alternatives, simply to a more mild degree, with exactly the same outcome to the fetus and more risk to the mother. Wouldn't you be upset if, due to hidden marketing, Samaritan managed to eat up a very large portion of the insurance market, to the extent that some patients literally had no choice of another provider? In fact, it is perhaps worse to me than Samaritan ministries. It is the nature of insurance that you can buy it under less duress. If I am wheeled unconscious into a Catholic hospital with severe HELLP in some hypothetical future requiring immediate abortion, I could DIE due to these policies. And I did not even voluntarily sign up for the service or even remotely share the ethical world view!
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 20:29:27 GMT -5
The doctrine of double effect may be all well and good as a personal ethic-- but it does mean that some of the easiest and most effective remedies are sometimes passed over for more invasive and damaging procedures. i.e., a quick and effective abortion pill that could flush the fetus out of the fallopian tube in some cases is not allowed, instead, a procedure to cut out the entire fallopian tube and permanently reduce the woman's fertility and all the concordant risks of surgery is required, because in that case the 'primary purpose is the removal of the tube, the death of the fetus is a secondary unintended effect.' that is all fine and good as a personal ethic, I *don't care.* But most (maybe all??) catholic hospitals force that ethic on all of their patients, no matter their personal beliefs. The simple and safer option is just *not available.* Here's the thing though, ethics are not merely personal; they can also be corporate. Philosopher Cornelius Van Til said that there is no such things as "just a fact." All facts in the universe are interpreted facts and they are interpreted according to the worldview that one holds either as an individual or corporately as an institution. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect a Roman Catholic institution, or a Jehovah Witness institution for that matter, to act corporately in accordance with their worldview when deciding how to deal with a particular circumstance. If you don't want Roman Catholic based ethics as applied to medical care, then avoid their hospitals. yes, but it should be WIDELY advertised that this is the fact. If it was, these corporate ethics would never have come to dominate about 20% of the market (or whatever substantial subset it is)-- including almost all of the hospitals serving particular groups or regions, or getting as much governmental support as they do. Our nation has corporate ethics as well-- and one of them should be not encouraging or supporting groups which do not serve the entire population but only a subset, and only with inferior care. That can be done *entirely* privately. With no encouragements or breaks. We would NEVER stand for the Jehovah's witnesses to run that many hospitals under their ethics-- as long as we knew about it, and I think if more people knew about the fact that legal end of life documents could be completely thrown out the window of a catholic hospital-- ignored completely, that the range of care for women is limited and inferior unless you are following a particular personal ethic, these hospitals would NEVER have gotten the following or popularity that they enjoy today. It is not the ethic itself I have a problem with, but what I see as a sort of subversive way of promoting it, which leaves others with little choice but to fall in line. This kind of coercive force I believe is wrong. Once again, I have *nothing* against the personal catholic ethic, or even that it goes to a corporate structure, but I am *very* troubled when there are situations where people in a given area have no other choices-- a monopoly situation as it were, and the fact that they are limited isn't even obvious or well known. I'm also troubled when all emergency care requiring immediate work and when a person is in no state to be safely moved isn't available. And I'm also troubled when a hospital *won't even refer* or even admit the *existence* of other options or other care centers which can do procedures they don't wish to do. Those things I think any corporation should do, regardless of it's own corporate ethics. Otherwise, it is behaving coercively and abusively.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 15, 2010 19:51:14 GMT -5
The doctrine of double effect may be all well and good as a personal ethic-- but it does mean that some of the easiest and most effective remedies are sometimes passed over for more invasive and damaging procedures.
i.e., a quick and effective abortion pill that could flush the fetus out of the fallopian tube in some cases is not allowed, instead, a procedure to cut out the entire fallopian tube and permanently reduce the woman's fertility and all the concordant risks of surgery is required, because in that case the 'primary purpose is the removal of the tube, the death of the fetus is a secondary unintended effect.'
that is all fine and good as a personal ethic, I *don't care.*
But most (maybe all??) catholic hospitals force that ethic on all of their patients, no matter their personal beliefs. The simple and safer option is just *not available.*
And sure, maybe it's contraindicated in a few cases, but that decision should be up to the *patient* with expert medical advice-- not medical advice that hides safe and effective possibilities from the patient.
It makes me very angry. Like if Jehovah's witnesses ran 20% of the nation's hospitals, and not only did they elect to avoid blood transfusion, but they refused it to every single patient, including up to not even mentioning it as a possible medically preferred technique. Sure, many blood substitutes are very effective today, and low-blood-loss surgeries are quite good these days, but the decision should be up to the patient!!
*Any* increased risk is unethical if it is imposed on a patient without their ability to consent to that external ethic which prefers the more dangerous course for their personal health care.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 14, 2010 17:28:03 GMT -5
ETA: Wow... So, I'm reading more of their documents. They have...some weird rules for membership. You have to attend church at least three out of four weeks per month, and submit a letter to Samaritan Ministries if extenuating circumstances prevent this. Further, you have to sign on to the belief that Christians shouldn't sue each other--and essentially promise never to sue them. The more I read, the more this organization sounds like a scam, not a charity. We used to run ads for Samaritan Ministries in our newspaper for quite a number of years. I can't remember now if we ever actually joined the program or not ~ but I do remember the application process. It was through Samaritan Ministries that I was encouraged to find a lay midwife and attempt VBAC at home in order to keep the medical costs down. I remember talking to someone on the phone about my birthing history (three c-sections at the time) and being told that since I'd already had c-sections, my bills would not be covered if I had another cesarean ~ but if I had a VBAC, it would be covered. After that conversation, it seemed to me that VBAC must be relatively safe even for a woman who has already had three c-sections, otherwise this ministry would not be encouraging me to give it a try. That is when I started digging for more pro-VBAC info (had to order books through inter-library loan) ~ and ended up consulting with Judy Jones ... you all know how disastrously that story ended, so I won't repeat the details here. well... I DO suppose that if your patients often die, you'll save money in follow up care... They sound like they are generally promoting very dangerous medical "advice."
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 14, 2010 10:57:19 GMT -5
FWIW, I present the following: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/443373.stmwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3294090www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823368... From these it appears that not every ectopic pregnancy proves fatal to mother or child. So maybe there is some room for a judicious wait and see stance. I think it is like so many other things where it could be a calculatled risk. I, for one, would hesitate to call anyone a murderer for either dealing with it medically early in the game, or for waiting to see what happens and ending up with a bad outcome. Regarding the "spanking" death of that little girl, I'm concerned that the logical fallacy of "argument from abuse" may be used to paint anyone who uses any form of corporeal punishment with the same brush. I would be very surprised to learn that Vision Forum, Samaritan Ministries, or the Pearls approved of what happened in that little girl's death. And just in case anyone is wondering, I may spank my younger children maybe once a year using my hand, so I'm not over the top with it. I prefer the "super nanny" approach and have also learned that the more self governed I am, the more inherent authority I carry so that it often only requires a look or a few words of caution to correct my kids now. I heard ectopic pregnancy compared to a gunshot in the gut, with respect to the damage caused by rupturing the fallopian tube. I still think that's quite an apt description, since I bet you could find even more examples of people surviving gunshots to the gut than those two stories. (third link wasn't working for me.) Not to say it's never going to work, but would the "pro-life" groups refuse treatment for a gunshot wound saying god would fix it? If so, why not here? I don't really have much of a point here, just saying we don't really focus on 1 in 60 million odds of life over death in pretty much any other case, just ones which only affect women (and might create men!).
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 6, 2010 11:38:56 GMT -5
To protect the public one is marketing a product or service to. No one inspects your private kitchen to make sure your own dinner on Tuesday evening meets federal food preparation safety standards. You're comparing apples to basketballs. not exactly-- having an educated citizenry is a *public* good, that's what all the truancy laws and public schools are *for* in the first place. I will say though... that are those things, boarders rooms, home kitchens, inspected every year like has been suggested for homeschooling? Or is it basically just a complaint based/some lottery based thing? If so, why should homeschooling be different, and more strict?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 4, 2010 11:37:16 GMT -5
That seems a little far-fetched. I know a bunch of second generation homeschoolers that would disagree with you. Everyone I know is just as likely to report an abusive homeschool family as we are an abusive public school family. And if your claim is that there are all these "homeschooled" kids that never see the light of day then where are they now that they are adults? Well, I *would* guess the vast majority of abusive parents are never reported as abusive, and many children will internalize it and not realize it was abusive until much later.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 4, 2010 4:44:13 GMT -5
I've got nothing against criticism (I can criticize anything). I'm just not keen on blanket generalizations whether it is all homeschooling is cultic/abuse or all public school is inferior. I disagree with both those ideas. No one's keen on blanket generalizations because normal people realize that there's more than one way of looking at things, more than one way of being. Notice I said, "normal" people, moderate people, people who just want to live their own life in the best way possible and let others live their life too. These are not traits of religious fundamentalists (especially Dominionists and Reconstructionists) who have the belief of "My way or the highway." I edited my post at the bottom. Hope that helps. I don't think it was for mags. I think it was for the many other homeschooling parents that post on here, and are NOT abusive. The uncritical generalizations were targeting them, and it was primarily for them that people responded. (at least in my understanding)
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 3, 2010 18:39:42 GMT -5
And I'm sure these men all worked out in the fields to grow the food they ate, without benefit of tools, right? Cause that was Adam's curse, and... Eh, you know the rest. Yes, the rank hypocrisy is outrageous. Men could do anything they liked to remove weeds and thorns from their crops, but women were supposed to just submit to pain in childbirth. Disgusting. Sierra, are Branhamites mostly agricultural? Do they allow the use of weedkillers, fertilizers, harrowers and the like? oh here's another one, it *CLEARLY* says, "by the sweat of their brow." So how many corporate offices do YOU know that are un air-conditioned?
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 28, 2010 18:06:28 GMT -5
on... racism and eugenics and such...
There is a difference between an *explanation* and an *excuse.* The line is hard to draw, but pointing out that someone is progressive for their time but can't do everything is much closer to the explanation side of the spectrum.
Saying that to be racist was ok then, because most people were, would be on the excuse side and I don't see how that is helpful.
But we can say that it wasn't ok to be racist, but people are complicated, and nobody is perfect, and people doing very good things may do a few bad things, and people doing very bad things might also do a few good things-- we can learn from them but we shouldn't try to unthinkingly emulate everything anyone did without reflection.
From my perspective, what I've read here in this thread is on the explanation side, but I don't think reminders that excuses aren't acceptable are out of place either.
|
|
|
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 jemand on May 25, 2010 19:01:26 GMT -5
I dont understand why it would be a bad thing to ally yourself with PP anyway; they do so much good for low income, not as well off women. "Well, they encourage promiscuity!" Actually, there's been studies that those who are armed with sex education and protection are no more sexually active, it just arms them to defend themselves against situations they could otherwise avoid. This reminds me of my earlier exchange with valsa... sometimes when you are pointing out the flaws in wrong conclusions there are problems *both* with the premise AND the logic. premise: Aligning with PP is bad. logic: BC is bad because it's aligning with PP. Neither of those seems to follow or be sound. premise: children are tools logic: you want as many arrow-tools as possible. Again, the premise is bad and the logic *also* bad. Bad logic is more diffuse, would apply to more topics in one's life, so in a way one could argue it was worse, but on the other hand, having an unsound premise means it's impossible to get *anywhere* on a particular subject at all, so one could argue it was worse too. In any case, sometimes arguments fail badly on all levels... However, I'm not using supertight logic theory here. I just think that just pointing out one hole doesn't mean the poster believes everything else is sound.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 25, 2010 16:44:34 GMT -5
And I know a woman who has been on artificial BC for YEARS and it has never done harm to her body. ALL women are different. But all you hear about is the women whose bodies have been harmfully affected, because they're the ones that scream the loudest. Well... yes... but you can't hardly blame someone who's been hurt being upset at what hurt them. BUT, I do think there is more than just that, I think there is a social amplifying effect going, promoting voices backing a traditional "safe" feeling mentality, or something that feels nostalgic a bit and thus nicer. Literally billions of women have been harmed by childbearing, many of them without actually WANTING to have children all that much, and many more unnecessarily harmed because while children were wanted, care to reduce risks was considered unnecessary or frivolous. Those voices by rights should be just as loud, maybe even louder than those who have bad reactions to hormonal birth control! But no, instead of a social loudspeaker effect, there's a hush, hush dampening effect. So... I don't think it's the fault of the women themselves for being upset, or even for screaming, heck without some of that screaming nobody would have researched to get more options, some with fewer side effects and others which fit different physiologies much better! But I do wish there were more BC options for men... some women don't react well to pregnancy OR any current birth control options, but there aren't really many options for men. Secondly, I don't see why in principle a man wouldn't be interested in taking responsibility for his own fertility just like any woman might, and the empowering effect of BC for women, while possibly muted for men due to biological differences of pregnancy, would still I think grant a measure of psychological peace that would definitely be worth it. But this is a rather parenthetical discussion to the main topic here I think.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 25, 2010 13:46:15 GMT -5
So clearly wealth is good, but too much wealth is bad. And the same can certainly apply to children. The number of children that are "too many" will vary within each family, but it's certainly not always better to have more. I can't remember whether I read it on this site or another one related to the Duggars, but a poster once pointed out something that I thought was pretty brilliant. A friend of their's was involved with archery and, when the poster explained the whole "arrows=children/quiverfull" thing to him, he pointed out that if you had too many arrows jammed in your quiver, you'd be unable to get any of them out. I thought that was a beautiful way to, using QF's own arrow analogy, point out that while having a quiver full of arrows is good, having too many prevents you from utilizing those arrows for the whole purpose you had them for. That's a nice analogy as far as it goes... but children aren't really tools to fulfill the purposes of the parents either, they are their own selves. Still, turning QF imagery on itself is a nice trick.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 19, 2010 18:24:18 GMT -5
I don't think Angelia was trying to tell you what Christians believe. I think she was talking about what she believes. I can understand your being offended if someone says that as a Christian you believe that God will kill your children if you offend God. I think what Angelia was saying is that as a pagan she sees El as a vengeful, jealous God, not that she thinks you do. I agree. But it came across as "Because I believe this, you have to do the following to prevent catastrophe." It did not acknowledge the fact that there are people of various beliefs on the site, including those who do not believe in any god. Or the fact that Vyckie herself has said that she does not believe in the Christian god at this point. As an agnostic pagan myself, it is kind of like when someone accuses me of being a satanist and my response is "I don't believe in Satan. You have to believe in something in order to worship it. In fact, in order to be a Satanist, you first have to be Christian. You have to admit that the Christian god is good and that you are rebelling by worshiping Satan. I do not believe in either the Christian god or Satan." Granted, this hasn't happened in a while because these days I am more apathetic agnostic than pagan. Is that bit true about having to believe the Christian god was good as a satanist? I thought it was at least one belief that satan was the good one and the portrayal was warped by the bad god, el, or whatever. Or, alternatively, both paths were valid and good but for different people, which would posit that parts of Christianity that state Satan was evil or there only being one way weren't correct but that other parts could be valid for other people... But I may be way out of my depth here.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 19, 2010 16:02:25 GMT -5
Thank you, Sierra. I'm pretty sure that's pagan, kr. Yes, I was pretty sure it was pagan, Jemand, but I was still pretty floored by it. Though I do think that the version of God as presented by coercive, fundamentalist cults like The Message is an evil, twisted version, it's not fun to have someone say that the religion I practice is no different. I wasn't aware that some forms of paganism present all of Christianity in this light. It makes me sort of understand how a Muslim might feel when Christians insist that Islam is a religion of terrorism. It's hard to have someone tell you what your beliefs are and have them bear no resemblance to what you actually believe. It upsets me, but I still want to respond without judgment towards Angelina, as best I can, because I don't fully know where she's coming from, and I do know how much pain the malpractice of my faith has caused and continues to cause. Yeah, clearly the comment was uncalled for and Sierra described a lot of things wrong with it... Honestly though I find it not all that triggering personally, paganism today has no large cultural support behind it, no assumption of truth or awesomeness operating as a cover for abusive or traumatic fringes of it. I react much worse to someone who is espousing beliefs that are off the wall AND covered by large and powerful social enforcement mechanisms. Kind of the difference between time-cube guy and the global warming deniers, for example... My comment here is mostly parenthetical though.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on May 19, 2010 14:34:19 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that's pagan, kr.
|
|
|
Signs
May 18, 2010 10:11:35 GMT -5
Post by jemand on May 18, 2010 10:11:35 GMT -5
Welcome whitestone! Great post on the history of rapture eschatology. This blog: slacktivist.typepad.com/ has an awesome take on the left behind books that I think you'd enjoy. The only thing I am uncomfortable with is the subtle implication that Sierra or the rest of us who have rejected Christianity have done so just because we're unaware of all it's different flavors... I'm sensitive to such language precisely because modern US culture is literally marinating in christianities, dozens of varieties of christianities... and it's irritating to me that people act as if I could have lived this long and what... completely never run across any of it? Or be aware of it's variety? I know you didn't mean it that way, but I just wanted to point out that you probably should be careful not to post things that make it look like you haven't considered what it would be like to live in the US (where Sierra is from) while having a non-christian perspective. Welcome to the forum And I hope you enjoy the link to Slactivist, it's probably a Christianity you'd like a lot
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 28, 2010 8:42:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Apr 25, 2010 19:57:59 GMT -5
musicmom see quote from here: nolongerquivering.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pearl&action=display&thread=765&page=6I wrote a bit on the post in relation to today's story on the blog about why I choose to write the way I do, I don't go by rules, I am strictly non-conformist, I relay why there and don't want to repeat, if I was writing for professional I would write with yes proper grammar, [... ]I stopped bowing to that elitist garbage years ago, so sorry if my writing is hard to follow. When someone admits that what they are doing is making communication more difficult, because they insist on using a style of writing for political ends which gums up the works and is most emphatically NOT suited for the audience, it is as rude and obnoxious as some entitled person visiting another country and acting shocked, SHOCKED that the people there would deign not to speak *the visitor's* language. Spending not one iota of energy on the communication from her part, ALL the time energy MUST be expended to decode the mess on the listener's part. That's controlling and monopolizing behavior to use in a conversation. It is not gracious or helpful or useful or any of the other things we use language for *other* than a hammer to beat someone else with. And yes, random capitalizations and HUGE posts... multiple huge posts in a row, is *completely* disruptive, and disruptive for some personal political end which apparently is at odds to constructive dialogue. Sorry if I'm not going to bend over backwards and take it without expressing my annoyance.
|
|