autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Jun 18, 2010 23:04:12 GMT -5
I understand Cindy. I figured you weren't upset with me...
Even Pro choice me gets where you wouldn't want to deal with the docs who preformed abortion if you are opposed to the elective procedure. I have an issue with a local OB who's blown our c-section rate sky high. I dislike dealing with him.
VF and such don't seem to care about facts though. Maybe that's why they're so ready willing and able to lie with statistics. Their message is more important than their flock, especially more important than the women and girls in their flock.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 19, 2010 2:34:53 GMT -5
[ Basically. I'm thinking of Kant's "murderer at the door" scenario in which Kant argues that it is morally indefensible to lie to a "murderer at the door" who seeks to kill an innocent friend who is hiding in your home. According to Kant, you are morally obligated to tell the murderer where your friend hides. He never really acknowledges the morally indefensible nature of delivering your friend over to a violent and premature death. Now see, I as a Christian would not feel morally obligated to turn in the Jews or friend hiding under the floor. In my view, those who are bent on doing evil are not to be assisted in the execution of that evil. They don't deserve the truth if it means that an even greater evil will result from it. To do so would make one an accesory to the crime. Again, the doctrine of double effects would come into play where you would lie (bad) for the purpose of preserving an innocent life (good) rather than tell the truth (good) with the result that someone is unjustly slain (bad).
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 19, 2010 2:48:56 GMT -5
These people are manipulating statistics to get women to reject clearly necessary medical treatment. They have to be aware on some level, that they are doing this. They can't possibly completely ignore the fact that without treatment, a woman's chance of survival is very slim. And yet they persist. Why? The last church/cult I was in was radically QF in that they would discipline to the point of excommunication if they knew of members using birth control. In the case of women's lives being put in jeopardy by a pregnancy, their position was that if she died, this was "suffering i the cause of Christ." That's how they justified this and other abusive and abnormal behaviors. They also told me personally that any loss I experienced in this life would be made up in the next one. I don't know if Phillips is using this kind of reasoning or not, but it sure wreaked havoc on the women in my former church.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 19, 2010 8:41:46 GMT -5
Cindy, thanks for your amazing work here digging up all these statistics-- they are sometimes confusing to me even as someone with a math degree lol. I also appreciate you attempting to track down clear language protecting women's lives and health from major pro-life organizations in the country. I hope they come through with what you're expecting.
I am curious about the one statistic about historic ectopic pregnancy-- when you say 5 in 35 women who were operated on survived, while 2 in 3 who were not operated on survived. Why is this? Was ectopic pregnancy perhaps misdiagnosed then to up the survival rate? This seems like an unlikely statistic given what we know with today's diagnostic tools. Or did women use herbal methods to flush out the pregnancy, and survive that way compared to the unsterilized operating conditions? It just seems beyond belief that 2 out of 3 women with true ectopic pregnancy could survive with no intervention whatsoever before the advent of modern medicine-- and I'm just curious what's going on.
I'm also afraid that without any additional clarification of that number, people like the vision forum will consider it "what happens" if you don't go to the doctor at all, and focus on that statistic rather than the more modern statistics with better diagnostic imaging and better documentation of all interventions attempted. This is because it seems there is a kind of veneration of the "traditional" in QF, traditional gender roles, a great focus on pioneer behavior, etc. If it looks like pioneer communities could just watch women with ectopic pregnancy and do nothing at all about it and get a 60% survival rate, I'm afraid this will encourage these agencies to stay their course-- and not pay attention to the more modern stats.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 19, 2010 9:26:46 GMT -5
I also know nothing about hospitals dissembling or failing to provide care that they think is inappropriate. I once quit a recovery room job after three days because I had no clue that they did abortions and went back to work in critical care (though the hours are tougher). I was told that I could refuse to care for those patients which was not really my issue. They thought I was odd when I said that I would have more trouble being okay around the doctors. The profession is bound to give informed consent. Now that might mean that I might cry with you the whole way as I transported you to another facility that provided services that I could not ethically perform myself, but I would be duty bound to you to inform you and get you to the care you needed. I have no knowledge of any kind of problematic pro-life decision-making, except for medically ill OB patients who landed in my ICU, and doctors were walking the fine line of trying to keep the woman stable until the baby was viable enough to make it. Several experiences with the NICU team invading my own medical unit... And the doctors worked with the families and were as pro-life committed as the families -- and those doctors were not necessarily pro-life personally. Once again, you are in Canada and not subject to the laws around reproduction that we have in the US.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 19, 2010 9:29:28 GMT -5
If we were talking about some surgery that might cost a man's life-- might cost Doug Phillips' own life-- I feel certain he would be singing an entirely different tune. But in the very core of his thinking, a woman's life is simply not worth saving. He'd rather take the miniscule chance that one baby (it might be a boy!) might in one obscure instance make it through, than face the looming FACT that the woman is facing nearly certain death. Yeah, I mean, hell, if we were talking about the provision of something as "elective" as Viagra... How many physicians and pharmacists have refused that in the name of the conscience laws? *doubts the existence of any*
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jun 19, 2010 11:36:50 GMT -5
Yeah, I mean, hell, if we were talking about the provision of something as "elective" as Viagra... How many physicians and pharmacists have refused that in the name of the conscience laws? *doubts the existence of any* *snort* I recently heard/read a cluster of reports about the research into a "female viagra" to make us all more "happy to see you". So, that without the BC - patriarch's paradise! Priorities and all ya know!
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 13:53:51 GMT -5
[ Basically. I'm thinking of Kant's "murderer at the door" scenario in which Kant argues that it is morally indefensible to lie to a "murderer at the door" who seeks to kill an innocent friend who is hiding in your home. According to Kant, you are morally obligated to tell the murderer where your friend hides. He never really acknowledges the morally indefensible nature of delivering your friend over to a violent and premature death. Now see, I as a Christian would not feel morally obligated to turn in the Jews or friend hiding under the floor. In my view, those who are bent on doing evil are not to be assisted in the execution of that evil. They don't deserve the truth if it means that an even greater evil will result from it. To do so would make one an accesory to the crime. Again, the doctrine of double effects would come into play where you would lie (bad) for the purpose of preserving an innocent life (good) rather than tell the truth (good) with the result that someone is unjustly slain (bad). To discuss this matter with someone in patriarchy becomes problematic for two at least three reasons: 1.) Many people in this religious movement follow what has been termed the "Rahab's Clause," though I think only that arrogant Doug Wilson was the only one with stones enough to write about it. (I have a vague sense that I may have already mentioned this in this discussion here. Sorry if it's redundant.) Rahab the harlot lied to her own government and hid the Israelite spies in her house when they were doing surveillance before they attacked her city (when they began their first their conquest of the Promised Land). So in times of war, these guys teach that it is perfectly permissible for a Christian to lie. THIS IS NOT AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN TEACHING, BTW. And as often as these people talk about the their culture war regarding gender and as Phillips has framed the war between the culture of death against their would-be culture of life (smirk), I would think that the Rahab Clause would give them and any of their people impunity. You just can't lie to your patriarch. Many people in this movement deny using Rahab's Lie as a practice, but with the high degree of poor ethics demonstrated among the leadership and their parachurch systems which show accountability to no one, they have to use some principle to justify their behavior. Maybe "rank and file" members don't get to enjoy the Rahab Clause, and there are two sets of standards for members vs. leadership. 2.) The people in the group seem to prefer a very poor example of a foundationalist style of epistemology. (I'm a coherentist.) This refers to how a person understands and validates truth and reality (epistemology). No style is right or wrong, and each perspective has its strengths and pitfalls. Personality type tends to determine one's preferred style of epistemology. Most of these patriarchalists prefer foundationalism and see all truth as axiomatic -- "truth must be first derived from the Bible." A foundationalist takes basic truth concepts that they identify and comprehend to be truth, and they lay it into the foundation of everything else they believe. Among other things, those foundational concepts for them become "incorrigible." And this system works well if the person has actually correctly assessed, identified and esteemed truth as truth. If they put a misconception into their foundations, it is really tough to adjust the whole of the rest of their ideas, just like it would be to replace a chunk of a building's foundation underground. But most other foundationalists have common sense and use common wisdom through a great respect for things tangible as well as intangible. I think that for many who prefer this style, they identified lots of cultural things and philosophies as Biblical when they had nothing to do with the Bible at all. I believe that this is true for many ideas of "complementarianism" such as the interpretation that all women are out to displace men in every setting because we are evil and want power. (All people, in general, have equal potential for evil according to Scripture. I could defend this from Scripture if the venue were appropriate.) There also seems to be an assumption among this group that all mystery can be discerned by man at this point in history. They know it all. That makes hard complementarians very difficult to communicate with, because when you challenge their beliefs, they not only identify them as expressly Biblical, you challenge the foundation of everything they know as truth (or it feels that way to them). If they love the truth enough, they will think about it, but it is tremendously hard for them. (And note that not all complementarians are foundationalists, so this isn't a blanket statement for everyone.) Patriarchy becomes neoplatonic in terms of epistemology, above and beyond what I see in the comp only camp. All truth to be truth must derive from intangible principle as determined by the Bible. The Bible is generating the ideal images that they see and it is their job to make that ideal also happen in the physical world. But this group tends to also deny the veracity of truth that derives from the physical world. And they get ridiculous about it in terms of common sense. In fact, I'm surprised that many patriarchalists use indoor plumbing because it's not specifically written about in the Bible. I don't know what they do when their indoor plumbing fails, because there is no Biblical guide to plumbing. Maybe someone is writing one. I think this is the source of the Luddite mentality in the group as well as the tendency to overspiritualize anything having to do with gender and procreation. They see it as the rightful preference of axiomatic truth, though they don't realize that they have swung so far in their zeal that they have defined the empirical world as basically evil. And I think the group's outlook of suspicion and conspiracy also originates here. True foundationalism is not like this, but mixed with the extremes preferred by the group, their version of foundationalism goes south. I'm a coherentist, and I believe that data from both the nontangible realm (ethics, thought, etc.) and the empirical physical realm can be true but that it corresponds. If I can't make it correspond logically, that just means that I am limited in my perspective as a mortal. Life is full of mystery. But that is the way and the only way that I seem to be able to make sense of the world. I am at peace with mystery and with not knowing everything. I can be winsome and learn that way, and I love to learn. 3.) I have used a couple of Kantian principles in some of these patriarchal discussions though I am not any kind of a follower of Kant (though I do have independent ideas that do correspond to his concepts). The analogy of being is terrific for talking about the ontological issue of how complemenatarianism defines women. But not my point. Because of the way they interpret and apply Biblical truth through such a strong denial of the physical world combined with foundationalism (at least among most of the leaders -- Wilson is not a foundationalist), if you bring up Kant or any argument from a source that is not pre-approved by them, because of their black and white thinking, they will label the argument evil based on what they call a Biblical Worldview. ---- All that to explain why it is so difficult to reason with people in patriarchy. The people that I know who do get out of the group and leave do so for a few reasons, though I hope that there are more. 1.) They experience too much direct abuse, either from leadership or within their family. 2.) They run out of internal resources which allow them to cope with the demands of the group. (A woman with one too many kids, failing adrenals, etc.) 3.) They get away from the group long enough for their critical thinking to click on. 4.) They are natural coherentists in terms of epistemology, and their arguments and teachings are not cogent enough to keep them hooked long-term.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 14:02:23 GMT -5
For the uptight, neoplatonic foundationalist, any argument can be thrown right out the window. The Doctrine of Double Effect is entirely evil. Worse than that, these so-called Reformed folk will get offended at it because it is Catholic and therefore evil. That evil Aquinas! Kant is evil and though Christian, was a poor example of a Christian because he capitulated to a secular humnaist worldview. Statistics and medical facts are basically evil because everyone knows that the establishment is evil and doctors are all taught evolution. They interpret facts through their entirely evil worldview and twist things so that people will kill their babies and the elderly. Patriarchy prefers only good and healthy stock. They only like producers. So they objectify the ill and use the ill as a source of making themselves feel stronger. Producerism is one of their strongest ideals: www.publiceye.org/tooclose/index.html
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 14:19:28 GMT -5
Cindy, thanks for your amazing work here digging up all these statistics-- they are sometimes confusing to me even as someone with a math degree lol. I also appreciate you attempting to track down clear language protecting women's lives and health from major pro-life organizations in the country. I hope they come through with what you're expecting. I am curious about the one statistic about historic ectopic pregnancy-- when you say 5 in 35 women who were operated on survived, while 2 in 3 who were not operated on survived. Why is this? Was ectopic pregnancy perhaps misdiagnosed then to up the survival rate? This seems like an unlikely statistic given what we know with today's diagnostic tools. Or did women use herbal methods to flush out the pregnancy, and survive that way compared to the unsterilized operating conditions? It just seems beyond belief that 2 out of 3 women with true ectopic pregnancy could survive with no intervention whatsoever before the advent of modern medicine-- and I'm just curious what's going on. I'm also afraid that without any additional clarification of that number, people like the vision forum will consider it "what happens" if you don't go to the doctor at all, and focus on that statistic rather than the more modern statistics with better diagnostic imaging and better documentation of all interventions attempted. This is because it seems there is a kind of veneration of the "traditional" in QF, traditional gender roles, a great focus on pioneer behavior, etc. If it looks like pioneer communities could just watch women with ectopic pregnancy and do nothing at all about it and get a 60% survival rate, I'm afraid this will encourage these agencies to stay their course-- and not pay attention to the more modern stats. Jemand, There was so much wrong with that "in a shoe" article that Samaritan Ministries reproduced, and the whole topic was so personally painful for me, its taken me two years to be able to deal with the specifics of it. Manipulators that are good at what they do rely on overwhelm. They throw facts at you and, if you are there at a social gathering, they use social pressure, too. They throw so much at you at once, by way of emotional argument, ambiguous statements that don't really make sense, special cult language with only implied meaning to convey specifics, etc... The ambiguity shuts off even the best critical thinker's brain under those conditions, and then they provide you with all the answers. Under the stress that has been created from the confusion, the ready-made answers are easy to accept. That is what they've done with is issue. Distort the truth and then provide 30 distortions all at once, and even the smartest and brightest will think favorably of the group. Add the appeal of authority to it, and it becomes more potent. People have to take for granted that someone surely screened the material in the SM newsletter, right. And if it's in print and a lawyer believes it, it must be true. Intelligence, training, and even knowledge of the Bible doesn't provide a shield against good manipulation tactics. What does is knowledge about how manipulation tactics work. >>>>>>> I am curious about the one statistic about historic ectopic pregnancy-- when you say 5 in 35 women who were operated on survived, while 2 in 3 who were not operated on survived. Why is this? Was ectopic pregnancy perhaps misdiagnosed then to up the survival rate?<<<<<< ABOUT those stats -- those were the statistics from the mid 1800s, and I found them in one of the articles included in the Bibliography in the Samaritan Ministries article. Considering the preference for natural health alternatives and home births, in combination with the Luddite preferences, I thought it was a good comparison. From the article: History of the Procedure
Ectopic pregnancy was first described in the 11th century, and, until the middle of the 18th century, it was usually fatal. John Bard reported the first successful surgical intervention to treat an ectopic pregnancy in New York City in 1759.
The survival rate in the early 19th century was dismal. One report demonstrated only 5 patients of 30 surviving the abdominal operation. Interestingly, the survival rate in patients who were left untreated was 1 of 3.
In the beginning of the 20th century, great improvements in anesthesia, antibiotics, and blood transfusion contributed to the decrease in the maternal mortality rate. In the early half of the 20th century, 200-400 deaths per 10,000 cases were attributed to ectopic pregnancy. In 1970, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began to record the statistics regarding ectopic pregnancy, reporting 17,800 cases. By 1992, the number of ectopic pregnancies had increased to 108,800. Concurrently, however, the case-fatality rate decreased from 35.5 deaths per 10,000 cases in 1970 to 2.6 per 10,000 cases in 1992.
emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-overview
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 14:35:14 GMT -5
See I'm having a problem understanding where you're coming from. If a woman presents in an ER with an acute abdomen and a positive HCG a secular hospital & OB will decide what to do next based on the location of the ectopic and how advanced it is. The priorities might vary a little depending on the woman but her overall well being is the focus of the treatment. This would change in a radically pro life institution where the survivability of the embryo seems to trump the mother's survivability. What I'm looking for is a statistical picture of how dangerous this is to the woman. How else to get across the idea that a bad outcome is so much more likely than a happy ending? Autumn, While pulling up this article that had a nice summation of the history of ectopic pregnancy treatment, I thought of your comment from yesterday. You were looking for the statistical picture of the danger to the mother. This article is fairly representative of most professional articles on the topic, and if I recall correctly without re-reading it now, I believe that it makes no mention of at all of live births and has little if nothing to say about viable pregnancies resutling from ectopic implantation. emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-overviewIf you look at the article, note the focus from the beginning (with my emphasis added) from the very first two paragraphs of the article:
Ectopic pregnancy presents a major health problem for women of childbearing age. It is the result of a flaw in human reproductive physiology that allows the conceptus to implant and mature outside the endometrial cavity, which ultimately ends in death of the fetus. Without timely diagnosis and treatment, ectopic pregnancy can become a life-threatening situation.
Ectopic pregnancy currently is the leading cause of pregnancy-related death during the first trimester in the United States, accounting for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths. In addition to the immediate morbidity caused by ectopic pregnancy, the woman's future ability to reproduce may be adversely affected as well.It appears that only Vision Forum, Samaritan Ministries and their affiliates believe that ectopic pregnancy is not a major health risk for pregnant women. They define medicine's concern to be "alarmist." Mortality stats of 9% in any population concerning any health problem is something to get alarmed about. A 3% mortality statistic is seen as very significant! But these people are not medical professionals, so how would they know. But people are paying money to attend their conference to have them teach them about medical ethics??? Again note that Vision Forum and Samaritan Ministries listed this article in their bibliography.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 19, 2010 14:42:15 GMT -5
ok I found another source: www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/ectopicpreg.htmlIt looks like roughly half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve on their own as the fetus begins to burrow into the tube, causing bleeding that flushes the fetus out of the tube and ending the pregnancy. About half the time, this isn't fatal, which would explain the numbers from the 1800's. Methotrexate can end an ectopic pregnancy non-invasively before it progresses to that point. This and other modern treatment has gotten the death rate down to, as they say here, "rare" though it's still a fair chunk of maternal deaths.
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 19, 2010 14:52:02 GMT -5
To discuss this matter with someone in patriarchy becomes problematic for two at least three reasons: 1.) Many people in this religious movement follow what has been termed the "Rahab's Clause," though I think only that arrogant Doug Wilson was the only one with stones enough to write about it. (I have a vague sense that I may have already mentioned this in this discussion here. Sorry if it's redundant.) Gosh, Cindy, I hope you don't whomp me if I confess that Douglas Wilson is one of the few Reformed people I can tolerate. <grin> I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say, but in the past I have found much of his stuff to be a good mix of practicality mixed with wisdom. For instance his stance on birth control (Christians should generally be fruitful but just because you have a high regard for apples doesn't mean you have to plant your apple tress a foot and a half apart), is far more reasonable than those who are both Reformed and QF. You've used some terms I am going to need to look and study so I can fully understand what you are saying. Thanks for stretching my brain! WRT Rahab and some other instances of what appears to be questionable ethics that shows up in Scripture, the temptation to use this sort of reasoning to justify any number of things is great. Some conclusions one could come to is that she was not unethical because she was seeking to serve Jehovah and therefore his claims take precedence over loyalty to her citystate or that somehow God's ways are mysterious. I'm also thinking the story of the Hebrew midwives not killing the Israelite babies at the command of Pharoah might also fall into the same grey area. I'm going to give this some more thought.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 15:43:11 GMT -5
To discuss this matter with someone in patriarchy becomes problematic for two at least three reasons: 1.) Many people in this religious movement follow what has been termed the "Rahab's Clause," though I think only that arrogant Doug Wilson was the only one with stones enough to write about it. (I have a vague sense that I may have already mentioned this in this discussion here. Sorry if it's redundant.) Gosh, Cindy, I hope you don't whomp me if I confess that Douglas Wilson is one of the few Reformed people I can tolerate. <grin> I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say, but in the past I have found much of his stuff to be a good mix of practicality mixed with wisdom. For instance his stance on birth control (Christians should generally be fruitful but just because you have a high regard for apples doesn't mean you have to plant your apple tress a foot and a half apart), is far more reasonable than those who are both Reformed and QF. You've used some terms I am going to need to look and study so I can fully understand what you are saying. Thanks for stretching my brain! Wilson is very unique among those who advocate patriarchy. He is not a foundationalist -- I can tell by his notable coherentist style -- one that I share. I think that many people within the patriarchy mindset find him more refreshing because he is rigid and not fearful of so much. He processes information differently. For that and other reasons, the Vision Forum types find him more worldly and likely "contaminated." But if you don't think in terms of all or nothing about everything, I think that Wilson has much to offer, apart from his patriarchal ideas. (I don't particularly care for his writing style, but I don't like writing style of Jane Austen or Mark Twain, either.) My biggest problem with Wilson is his sense of competitiveness. He's said too many cruel things about the utter worthlessness of the non-elect, and I never get past that to see more in his work. And then there's the style issue.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 15:59:14 GMT -5
ok I found another source: www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/ectopicpreg.htmlIt looks like roughly half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve on their own as the fetus begins to burrow into the tube, causing bleeding that flushes the fetus out of the tube and ending the pregnancy. About half the time, this isn't fatal, which would explain the numbers from the 1800's. Methotrexate can end an ectopic pregnancy non-invasively before it progresses to that point. This and other modern treatment has gotten the death rate down to, as they say here, "rare" though it's still a fair chunk of maternal deaths. It all depends upon your objective and the purpose of applying information. If the question is a matter of the health risk to women, you have to look at morbidity and mortality. If there was no morbidity or statistically insignificant morbidity associated with ectopic pregnancy, this whole discussion would not be a big deal. But the morbidity is high, even in terms of all pregnancy and particularly in the first trimester of pregnancy. Many ectopic pregnancies do resolve on their own, but it's a wild card, almost. When they self-correct, it's mild, but when they go bad, they really go bad and are often deadly. But if you are running an operation that treats all matters of gender as some kind of sacrament, pregnancy is seen as a symbol of status, AND women are of lesser essence and are objects created for men to use, the significance of the death of the woman becomes rather nominal. They are pro-life but only for certain life and some life. And not all of those lives are equally valuable, even within their own system. Dying while birthing in a fertility cult is martyrdom, so they can tell themselves that they actually have GREATER respect for life than everyone else. The secular world ends up actually being more pro-life in this case because each person is endowed with inalienable rights to life. What did that Jefferson know anyway? He was an evil Unitarian deist and a child brainwashed by Enlightenment thought. (Yet somehow, Adam Smith doesn't classify as an Enlightenment thinker??)
|
|
|
Post by cherylannhannah on Jun 19, 2010 16:07:58 GMT -5
And then there's the style issue. When I was churchless and huddling at home with my kids, I would often listen to Wilson's sermons with them. I still download the podcasts and listen to them when I am driving long distances to work. I am currently attending a fellowship baptist church here that functionally is more like a non-denominational church and it has been a very healing place for me and my kids. But I still miss the liturgy of the reformed tradition which is one of the reasons why I listen to Wilson's sermons. I never fail to tear up after the prayerful confession of personal and national sins when I hear the declaration of forgiveness through Christ. It breaks me afresh in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 16:43:39 GMT -5
And then there's the style issue. When I was churchless and huddling at home with my kids, I would often listen to Wilson's sermons with them. I still download the podcasts and listen to them when I am driving long distances to work. I am currently attending a fellowship baptist church here that functionally is more like a non-denominational church and it has been a very healing place for me and my kids. But I still miss the liturgy of the reformed tradition which is one of the reasons why I listen to Wilson's sermons. I never fail to tear up after the prayerful confession of personal and national sins when I hear the declaration of forgiveness through Christ. It breaks me afresh in a good way. Cherylannahanna, I can relate to this from the opposite direction! I've been attending liturgical churches for the past few years, still not sure where I want to plant roots or if I do want to do so. I feel very safe in the liturgy, but I miss aspects of the non-denominational church. A few years ago, an important elder at my cult died -- actually the elder that cursed us and said we would get cancer and die for leaving the church against their will. They have a video of the whole big histrionic service online, and it naturally includes the elder lineup, talking about how wonderful this guy was. And what they said of him was true stuff. I loved him as a friend and I did respect him. The pastor then delivered a beautiful sermon, as he so often did. I knew how much I'd really healed when I was able to watch that online and really see the things that I'd so loved about his preaching and some of the people there. It makes sense that we became involved with some of these groups because, despite all the abuse that comes later, there are often really good things also going on in many such patriarchal churches. It is reckoning the difficult stuff with the good stuff in their mix of extremes which becomes difficult. I think that it is very important that people find healing, and there is no set way to do that. First, even on a physical level, you have to feel at peace with feeling good, in and of yourself. If you came out of a war zone, this can be a difficult thing. That doesn't mean that you should go out and sin! But do things that make you feel good and whole and human. Then you have to get connected with God, and this can be really difficult when you feel alienated from Him. If the liturgy does that, or if former Catholics feel like they want to go back to the Catholic church, if that helps you get through that sense of alienation, then do that. (I would say that for the person who accepts more protestant ideas, this is probably not where you'd want to STAY, so for all my critics out there, I am not saying that people should convert to Catholicism.) I think of this in terms of my own experience watching the funeral service for my former cult elder. In its own way, it was quite healing, and I felt very connected to the Lord, to Christendom, and from a very safe distance, to those at that church who are believers -- even if they are following a wacko system. I also don't have a paternalistic attitude. I think that truth is transcendent and that the Bible and God do provide what they say they offer -- help, guidance, and healing. But I believe that people can figure that out when they really want to do so, with God's help.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jun 19, 2010 17:07:03 GMT -5
Thinking more about jemand's question==
This is a little redundant, but I want to make sure I've said this clearly.
A physician has a primary interest in limiting both morbidity and mortality. They have a host of tools they can choose, and they must choose the best possible combination for the best possible outcome. That involves the weighing of risks against benefits.
Most physicians forget what we all learn in our first lecture on medications in healthcare (and if we don't, we should): All medications are poisons with beneficial side effects. Even the prescription of medicine involves a utilitarian decision as to whether the beneficial side effects of a particular poison will be outweighed by the benefit that it will bring. Whether a drug comes to market depends on scrutiny (using statistical analysis) of its benefits as opposed to risk.
In tubal pregnancy, two things can generally happen. The pregnancy can not be harmful or it can be painful and potentially deadly. We really don't know which way the condition will go.
But physicians weigh the risks, and in the case of tubal pregnancy and with the consideration that the woman's life is very valuable, it is more ethical to intervene because to "watch and wait" is like playing Russian Roulette with their patient's life. If the sakes were not so high and if tubal rupture did not pose a deadly risk, then it would make sense to not intervene. Ethics demand that the life of the woman be honored through aggressive means because the risks are so aggressive when they do go wrong. The risk and the deadly concequences are too great. So medicine established a standard of care to intervene, based on the ethics of the risk/benefit ratio. And all standards of medical care are utilitarian in this way. That doesn't make all of medicine evil in the sense that VF interprets it, making "utilitarian" a code word with a connotation which is understood as 100% evil all the time.
But given Vision Forum's problem with women (made for man's use, women are a means to extend your family influence, gender as a sacrament, childbirth as a sacrament), their ethics don't value the mother's life as much as the idol they've made out of an unborn baby.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 19, 2010 17:14:20 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that it is Geoff Botkin who will be speaking on embryology. Seriously? /sigh
Regarding the whole Rahab clause - the Children of God believed it was a greater good to deceive by sending members out to bars and clubs to flirt with the unsaved and have sex with them in order to win them to Christ. That whole rule is a slippery slope that is ripe for abuse when in the hands of abusive people.
Speaking of the martyrdom of women in the fertility cult...
After some frustration with my husband, I asked him to describe for me a scene that he himself would find romantic. The definition of 'romance' was at issue, and I didn't seem to be getting through. His response? Seriously and with absolute sincerity: my death in childbirth. That was the most romantic scene he could imagine. The melodrama, the tears, the dying declarations of love as I gave my life while giving him a child... Stunned doesn't even begin to describe my reaction to that piece of the marriage puzzle.
I hadn't thought of that in years, but after reading some of VF's speaker blurbs about the topics in the Baby Conference I was reminded of it suddenly. These men have a romanticized view of women and their place as human beings in the world. Look at the pictures of women and children and especially of daughters that they use to illustrate their books and articles - the females are straight out of old fashioned romantic literature. They are not dynamic beings but vaguely passive creatures who brush each other's hair and hold equally passive babies and young children. If they smile at all it is with an unearthly, otherworldly light in their eyes, as though they were on a different plane of existence entirely. I am reminded of the quotation:
"Before women voted and smoked and stayed with whom they pleased, they were so inaccessible, without mountainous difficulties, that men naturally began to look upon them as spooks." Jack Woodford
These people don't understand real women and girls because they have replaced the real with the idealized and are basing their interpretation of scriptures/rules and all their interactions with them upon that idealized 'reality'.
In other words, we're just a bunch of spooky scary creatures that must be put safely in our place so that their world can be orderly and safe again. They look at us and they don't even see us, they just see their representation of who they think we are.
And how do you break through that?
Edited because Rehab is not the same thing as Rahab.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jun 20, 2010 1:07:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I don't care how wonderful other things Doug Wilson may say are-- to me his stance on the position and value of women renders the rest of it unpalatable. This is what he says: www.reformedsingles.com/not-where-she-should-be-douglas-wilsonHe put it in terms of responsibility rather than power, but what he's really saying is that the husband should have all the power in the marriage, and the wife should have none; that it's not only the husband's right, but his JOB, to make sure his wife serves him according to his standards-- and if she doesn't, he should call in the church to discipline her. If a white supremacist had good things to say in non race-related matters, I still would find that his white supremacism poisoned everything else he might say. A male supremacist is in the same situation, in my book.
|
|
|
Post by nikita on Jun 20, 2010 2:20:30 GMT -5
Although I fully understand where Cheylannhannah is coming from, every time I read something that Douglas Wilson has written I tumble into a visceral rage. A deep down, from the gut fury. There is so much scirpturally and spritually wrong with almost every point he makes on the nature of our position before God as women it's hard to know where to begin.
After he advises that the man's sin may be in the 'initial decision to marry her' (great family values, that) he then goes on to list the symptoms a 'problem wife' might have:
She spends more or differently than he approves. She gained some weight. She wants to watch a TV show he doesn't like. She doesn't clean the house to his 'standards'.
And my personal favorite:
She shows a 'lack of responsiveness to sexual advances.' Whatever the hell that could turn out to mean in a given relationship.
This is all infuriating on so many levels. But once again the part that gives me that visceral reaction is the explanation of the 'public office' of the husband. They aren't just a married couple, he stands before God for the entire family (she is counted among the children in this regard) and to the outside world (the elders of the church and beyond),she has no personhood or voice as an individual, she is 'under him'. And the outside world (the church and their leaders beyond the local level) have now entered the marriage and will determine what shall be done with the rebellious wife who may simply have gained twenty pounds he doesn't like, or doesn't feel like having sex all the time between the yearly pregnancies he burdens her with, or God forbid she might want to watch a little TV now and again. 'The elders need to be brought in! She failed to do the dishes on time after I told her I wouldn't put up with that anymore!' That is such an affront to both wife and marriage, to treat these kinds of 'rebellions' as though they were sin worthy of bringing the elders over for official church discipline. Is she an adulterer? Is she abusing the children? Is she an addict or alcoholic? No, she is just an ordinary woman trying her best to live her life within a merciless system of rules that almost guarantees her failure. And he recommends church discipline for a woman whose only 'sin' is failing to be the perfect woman for all eternity for her husband's every desire and whim.
And the angels weep...
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jun 20, 2010 6:40:52 GMT -5
Speaking of the martyrdom of women in the fertility cult... After some frustration with my husband, I asked him to describe for me a scene that he himself would find romantic. The definition of 'romance' was at issue, and I didn't seem to be getting through. His response? Seriously and with absolute sincerity: my death in childbirth. That was the most romantic scene he could imagine. The melodrama, the tears, the dying declarations of love as I gave my life while giving him a child... Stunned doesn't even begin to describe my reaction to that piece of the marriage puzzle. Astonishing. I read this last night and had no idea how to respond. Still don't, but... astonishing. I'd probably have been like, oh? guess what I think is romantic. Serving you divorce papers! lol. I'm mostly speechless though.
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 20, 2010 18:37:53 GMT -5
Gosh, Cindy, I hope you don't whomp me if I confess that Douglas Wilson is one of the few Reformed people I can tolerate. <grin> I don't necessarily agree with everything he has to say, but in the past I have found much of his stuff to be a good mix of practicality mixed with wisdom. For instance his stance on birth control (Christians should generally be fruitful but just because you have a high regard for apples doesn't mean you have to plant your apple tress a foot and a half apart), is far more reasonable than those who are both Reformed and QF. I do not understand the analogy. Why can't people like Doug Wilson just talk in frakking human terms. So, is one and a half feet apart unreasonably close together for apple trees? Or does one and a half feet apart constitute family planning in Wilson's analogy?
|
|
|
Post by km on Jun 20, 2010 18:43:44 GMT -5
Speaking of the martyrdom of women in the fertility cult... After some frustration with my husband, I asked him to describe for me a scene that he himself would find romantic. The definition of 'romance' was at issue, and I didn't seem to be getting through. His response? Seriously and with absolute sincerity: my death in childbirth. That was the most romantic scene he could imagine. The melodrama, the tears, the dying declarations of love as I gave my life while giving him a child... Stunned doesn't even begin to describe my reaction to that piece of the marriage puzzle. Astonishing. I read this last night and had no idea how to respond. Still don't, but... astonishing. I'd probably have been like, oh? guess what I think is romantic. Serving you divorce papers! lol. I'm mostly speechless though. Me too. I hope he's changed his tune since then.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Jun 20, 2010 19:02:05 GMT -5
After some frustration with my husband, I asked him to describe for me a scene that he himself would find romantic. The definition of 'romance' was at issue, and I didn't seem to be getting through. His response? Seriously and with absolute sincerity: my death in childbirth. That was the most romantic scene he could imagine. The melodrama, the tears, the dying declarations of love as I gave my life while giving him a child... Stunned doesn't even begin to describe my reaction to that piece of the marriage puzzle. I hadn't thought of that in years, but after reading some of VF's speaker blurbs about the topics in the Baby Conference I was reminded of it suddenly. These men have a romanticized view of women and their place as human beings in the world. Look at the pictures of women and children and especially of daughters that they use to illustrate their books and articles - the females are straight out of old fashioned romantic literature. They are not dynamic beings but vaguely passive creatures who brush each other's hair and hold equally passive babies and young children. If they smile at all it is with an unearthly, otherworldly light in their eyes, as though they were on a different plane of existence entirely. Holy moley. That is bizarre, and yeah, so Victorian in the worst, sickest sense. Like all those novels where the heroine dies of tuburculosis, wasting away and becoming ever more ethereal and angelic--she's most romantic and feminine when she's dying. I don't know much about Douglas Wilson, but I read a book of his about education once, and he approvingly quoted his FIL as calling babies "little bundles of sin." Apparently this was meant to be loving, but I was horrified. That was enough for me.
|
|