Posted by Helen on: 02.24.2007 /
I posted about a TIME article last week which mentioned an unnamed anti-abortion activist. Evidently this person is Meredith Eugene Hunt. Meredith posted the following comment here yesterday:
“The group developed from a meeting the clinic leader, Lorrie, set up with church members, to talk with them about inappropriate behavior of one member towards clinic staff.”
–From Helen’s introductory remarks.
How do you know that the one member’s behavior was inappropriate? Do you completely believe Time? Or the abortionist? (A sideline: What is the appropriate behavior towards a person who kills 50 innocent children every week?) Pastor Hutchinson criticized creating cartoon images of one’s opposite on an issue, but he and the article made the anonymous member of the church into a straw man, a non person, easily knocked down. I know this well, because I was that person. If you wish, Google search my name and the word -abortion- and read more about who I am and what I think. You likely will be surprised. There certainly is another side to this story that Time did not tell. For instance, my organization runs a Pregnancy Helpline and does Sidewalk Counseling outside -Lorrie’s- abortion business. (She is not just the clinic leader.) The letter I sent to her neighbors asked them to pray for her. And so on…
lifeadvocates@earthlink.net
Here’s my response:
Meredith, I appreciate you taking time to post this and I take your point about my use of the word ‘inappropriate’, since it’s a value-judgment, not an ‘absolute’. I edited the original post a little to clarify (I hope) that certain people found your behavior inappropriate.
I also took your suggestion and googled your name and ‘abortion’. Here’s an excerpt from one article I found:
Where is Eric Rudolph? by Meredith Eugene Hunt
The Asheville Citizen-Times has devoted a great number of stories to covering the search for Eric Rudolph, wanted by the FBI as a suspect in the Birmingham abortion place bombing. From a cursory count I estimate that the Citizen-Times printed six dozen stories related to the bombing, many of those with banner headlines. Some of the stories were about the two victims of the bombing.
Two human beings were harmed-one killed and one wounded. And yet every abortion also kills one human being-the baby-and wounds another-the mother. So, where is the mammoth news coverage about this, with full pages of color photographs? This question is not to dismiss the suffering of those harmed by the bombing, but to put it into the perspective of 4,000 bombing equivalents happening every day in the U.S. How many times did the babies receive mention in the thousands of words in the Citizen-Times bombing related stories? Three scant times. How many times were abortionists mentioned as suspected murderers?
Not once.[...]
When two FBI agents came to my office for a visit I told them that abortionists were killing people at that very moment in Asheville and they should be investigating abortionists.
So should the press. So should we all.
I also found a few letters/comments by you. In fact I wasn’t surprised by anything I read. Maybe that’s because I’ve been around conservative Christians a lot and have already come across some people arguing against abortion using similar language and resources (graphic photos, etc - not that I looked at them).
You said the letter you sent you asked people to pray for Lorrie (the woman in charge of the abortion clinic). Actually I don’t think it’s appropriate to send out a letter asking people to pray for a named neighbor without asking the neighbor’s permission. I would say that’s an invasion of privacy. (However I realize I’m making a value-judgment in saying that)
Could you tell me more about ’sidewalk counseling’? How do you get the attention of people you are offering counseling to? Do you stop them on their way to have an abortion and try to engage them in conversation? If so then I would probably consider that inappropriately invasive too. Even though I expect that from your point of view, if you can save a baby’s life by doing it, it’s justifiable.
Comment by: trissa
1 02/24/07 8:55 AM | Comment Link |I grew up in a very conservative Christian home. I remember my mother having me listen to a book on tape by Frank Peretti (a man who has a very interesting world view) called Tilly when I was about eight years old. It’s a very sad book about a woman who has an abortion and is haunted by it. I can clearly remember listening to it on my parents’ couch and sobbing. In the mind of a well cared for, healthy, average middle class, Christian girl, I couldn’t understand how someone could take the life of an unborn child. Fast forward a few years later. My parents had me participate in an anti-abortion rally. I remember other church members participated and it was so large that we even made headlines with what my father calls the “liberal” Seattle new media. I remember my mom explaining that we were pro-life and while the other group called themselves pro-choice, they were really about killing babies.
Abortion is still a very sensitive issue in this country and I can understand why. These two things stick with me. Now in my mid-twenties, these memories impact my thoughts on abortion today. However, they impact in a different way than they did ten years ago…
When I was about 19-years-old, I volunteered for the American Red Cross as a CPR instructor. I was asked to do a CPR class at the only abortion clinic in the small town, somewhat rural town in which I lived. Even though I was still anti-abortion, out of curiosity I went. When I arrived, the building had no address labeled on it and there was no sign. I rang the bell at the front door and a security guard opened the door a bit and asked who I was. I identified myself and he let me in. I noticed that many of the women who worked there were young and had crosses around their neck. I was shocked and a bit appalled. I didn’t understand how one could believe in Jesus and work in an abortion clinic. The staff wasn’t ready to do the CPR class, as something had come up. Instead I spent an hour talking with the manager of the clinic. We talked about the threats they receive often, hence the need for the security guard. We talked about the young women who they serve. I told her I had once heard that many women had mental health issues after an abortion. She stated that many statistics put forth by the pro-life lobby were very skewed and that like their clinic, most abortion clinics only perform abortions when the women has been counseled and is absolutely sure that abortion is the choice she wants to make. She further stated that if a women who was under aged came to the clinic with a parent who was demanding she have an abortion, they would only go forward if their on-staff counselor was sure that it was the young woman’s choice and not her parent’s choice. We talked about sex education in this country and how it’s so inadequate, we talked about the disadvantaged who simply feel they cannot raise a child and we talked about those were victims of rape or incest.
The clinic manager was very kind and patient. She answered each of my questions in a very thoughtful manner. She and her staff very much showed me another side to what I had always been taught. They showed me the human side. They showed me that women who seek abortion often feel it is their only choice and they, as a staff, attempt to care for these women as they make that choice.
Today, I would consider myself pro-choice and I have four things to say about the anti-abortion lobby. 1) I think the tactics that are used to indoctrinate Christians, into believing that they must be pro-life to be good Christians, are inappropriate (and yes I am making a value judgment, but I am also speaking from experience). 2) I think that many pro-lifers need to sit back and realize that those fetuses that they are trying to protect will someday be people. Here’s a question, do you have a plan to care for these children when they are born? Are you going to help a single mother or a victim of incest or a woman on crack once that fetus becomes a living, breathing human being? Probably not, because most pro-lifers vote for politicians who cut back public funding to support these women once their child has entered the world. As a caseworker for Child Welfare in my state I know this to be true. I’ve seen the crack babies and the abused and neglected children, I’ve held them in my arms, and I’ve seen their abused and battered bodies. I’ve seen their broken souls. 3) Those two individuals who were killed in the bombing were two living, breathing adult human beings. They had families and friends who deeply mourn their loss. They will never get to see their children grow up and their children will never get to have their parent around for guidance and support as they grow. It’s ridiculous to compare abortion and the actual murders of two people. 4) Not to say all pro-life people do this, but to hold the position of pro-life and then to vote for an administration that lied its way into war is contradictory and hypocritical. 3,000+ Americans and countless Iraqis have been killed because of our bogus war. I can’t fathom how one can so adamantly fight against abortion, but support an administration that has sacrificed thousands and thousands of people for an unjust cause.
So, these are my thoughts. I realize it’s a bit inflammatory, but I had to get it out anyway.
Comment by: Rev. Spitz
2 02/24/07 9:05 AM | Comment Link |Note from Helen: I’ve removed the live link to www dot ArmyofGod dot com under Rev. Spitz name because there was no warning it went to a page containing very graphic, quite possibly disturbing, photos related to abortion.
Eric Rudolph is not a terrorist, but an anti-terrorist fighter. Those who have killed babykilling abortionists have done so to protect the innocent. People use force everyday to protect the innocent and no one has a problem with it, except when it comes to protecting unborn human beings, then they go ballistic. It’s very simple, the unborn deserve the same protection as the born. Born people are protected with force quite often. Force that you would be glad if it was to protect your children against a murderer. Force that you yourself might use to protect your own children from being murdered. The unborn deserve the same protection.
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.
Comment by: Helen
3 02/24/07 9:43 AM | Comment Link |Trissa, I heard Tilly some years ago and actually bought the book. For what it’s worth I have quite a few Peretti books. I’m not sure I could read most of them any more.
What I would say about Tilly is - if a woman is feeling guilty over abortion then it would be best for her to address that.
If Tilly was written to try to put them off through emotional manipulation then I’m uncomfortable with that.
If Tilly was written to help women process having had an abortion, then I can at least respect that as a good motive. Although it still is very emotionally manipulative.
These days I’m very wary of people who liberally employ emotional manipulation, period.
Comment by: jim henderson
4 02/24/07 9:52 AM | Comment Link |Wow Welcome to reality
Eric Rudolph is a murderer and anyone who says different it deluded, brainwashed and demonized (IMNSHO)
Trissa Beautifully articulated. It obviously comes from first hand experience. Jesus entered the “gray” world you describe and brough light, hope and life.
Meredith and Rev Spitz think the world is still flat and want to threaten the rest of us who are already spinning around at 25K mph (and upside down at that) with eternal dammnation.
Since we are already living dangerously (and surviving) that isn’t much of a threat
Comment by: Marty SB
5 02/24/07 10:17 AM | Comment Link |Trissa: Thank you for your thoughtful and transparent sharing on this controversial and difficult issue. I remember a similar, very insightful discussion of this topic by Eliza - who is a doctor - maybe someone can repost that link.
Rev. Spitz - I could not disagree with you more - both in tone and content.
Comment by: Rachel
6 02/24/07 10:43 AM | Comment Link |Thank you so much for your honest, thoughtful and beautifully written post, Trissa. I relate to much of what you had to say. I’ve tried several times since this discussion topic began on CatE to type a post expressing my own thoughts about abortion and then deleted it. It is such an emotional topic and I feel so deeply conflicted about it. On the one hand, it seems clear to me that a fetus growing in its mother’s womb is a life and I want to reject violence and discrimination in all its forms. At the same time, I understand that abortion is a desperate and heart wrenching choice. My great-grandmother died of a back alley abortion during the Great Depression and I never want us to go back to those days. So while I want to see more women given the resources to make a different choice, I could never support the criminalization of abortion.
As a teenager attending a fundamentalist Christian school, I participated in picketing outside an abortion clinic several times and now I feel both ashamed of my actions and angry at those who manipulated me. Several months ago, I had a deeply emotional conversation with a friend of mine who has experienced abortion. As she told me about her desperation as a teenager in a crisis pregnancy and I told her about my experiences as a clinic protester, we responded to one another without judgment and with total love and acceptance. My friend shared how deeply she is wounded each time she sees an angry anti-abortion bumper sticker. She asked, “Do they really want to remind me again and again of the worst day of my life?” This is such an emotional and complex issue. It is very tempting to demean or objectify or caricature the “opposing” side. I believe that the way forward must begin with people on all sides of the issue choosing listen, to look into the face of the other, to hear their story and to seek to understand.
Comment by: jim henderson
7 02/24/07 12:04 PM | Comment Link |Rachel - I’m interested in knowing what practical steps you have taken or think could be taken.
From my limited perspective I have wondered why adoption isn’t made easier and more affordable(free or even subsidized) by the federal government.
How about a movement among local churches to advocate adopting as “fashionable” or something God wants us to seriously consider.
What if all Christians were known for was that “those are the people that adopt kids”
Of course there will be the cynics who say we are just setting them up to convert them later but all we would have to say is- Feel free to compete - it’s a pretty wide open marketplace
Anyway - what are your thoughts
Comment by: Eliza
8 02/24/07 1:47 PM | Comment Link |The main conversation on the discussion board about abortion is here.
Part of the original message there was something that imo has to be at the root of any discussion about abortion:
And my late-night comment that Marty SB referred to above was this:
Comment by: benjamin ady
9 02/24/07 2:26 PM | Comment Link |…. Jim–wow
Comment by: benjamin ady
10 02/24/07 2:34 PM | Comment Link |Rev Spitz,
Actually there are those among us who feel that violence is really not that great a response to violence in any situation, whether it’s physical violence, verbal violence, or emotional violence. It seems plausible to us that the only way to win is to win the hearts of our enemies is by choosing to receive their violence and still love them, and to communicate in a respectful way toward them, helping them to come to the point where they can feel the pain they are causing, not by creating more pain, but by appealing to their humanity, their god-given ability to empathize and imagine. Not that I come anywhere close to achieving this ideal.
That is, we are into the idea of forgiveness, and ideally we think it’s better to be crucified than to crucify.
Comment by: Helen
11 02/24/07 2:46 PM | Comment Link |Rachel, I’m so sorry about your great-grandmother.
Well said.
Comment by: Rachel
12 02/24/07 5:39 PM | Comment Link |One group that has done some excellent work on this issue is The Common Ground Network for Life and Choice. They have facilitated dialogue between people who label themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Here are some of the common ground goals identified by people in both groups:
* Preventing teen pregnancy
* Making adoption more accessible as a choice
* Avoiding/preventing outbreaks of violence and rebuilding community, post-violence.
* Increasing options for women
* Reducing the conditions that lead to a high rate of abortion (e.g., conflict between work and family.)
* Working together in the legislative arena to support jointly supported measures (e.g., assistance for drug addicted women, sex education curricula in schools, welfare reform proposals reducing the impact on working mothers.)
Another group that has put together an agenda for reducing abortions is Democrats for Life. Their plan is called the 95-10 Initiative.
Here are links for some Congressional legislation focused on reducing abortions and supporting parents.
Personally I am a member of the group Feminists for Life and I appreciate their focus on addressing the root causes of abortion and seeking what they call “woman-centered solutions.”
Comment by: Rachel
13 02/24/07 5:51 PM | Comment Link |I think that would be great, Jim!
Eliza, I agree that is the important question we need to be asking.
Thank you, Helen.
Beautifully said, Benjamin. That message is at the heart of the gospel.
Comment by: Eliza
14 02/24/07 5:54 PM | Comment Link |Rachel - it’s nice to see that there are groups, including those in our government, working to address some of the factors contributing to unintended, unwanted pregnancies.
Comment by: Doreen
15 02/24/07 6:19 PM | Comment Link |This is a timely conversation for me. I’ve been re-thinking my views on abortion since that baby lived who was only in the womb for 22 weeks and 6 days.
At least in the US, raising the self-esteem of women and girls would go a long way in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.
As for Rev. Spitz and his ilk, all I can offer is prayer. God tests me in doing so, because:
When a gay UA student was stabbed at the Rainbow Planet coffee house Feb. 6, the UA campus experienced the shock of hate crimes first hand.
But according to the Reverend Donald Spitz, a Virginia evangelist who read about the stabbing, the student should feel lucky - not because he could have died from the stabbing, but because he would have gone to hell for being gay.
“The Bible says he should be put to death for being gay,” Spitz told the Wildcat. “Maybe God used this crazy guy (the attacker) to do it.”
Comment by: David H
16 02/24/07 6:43 PM | Comment Link |A non-Christian friend told me this joke recently. An Jew, a Catholic priest, and Pat Robertson died on the same day and went to heaven. They were stopped at the Pearly Gates and told they couldn’t enter until they had a talk with Jesus. The Jew went first and came out about 15 minutes later saying: “Wow, he really was the guy.” The Catholic Priest went next and emerged a couple of hours later saying: “Wow, finally I understand.” Pat Robertson went last and was gone for days. Finally, Jesus emerged from their meeting, scratching his head and saying: “Wow, how could I have been so wrong.”
Hope I didn’t offend anyone, my only point is there is none so blind as those who adamantly refuse to see.
For Rev. Spitz, ask yourself how many clinics Jesus would bomb. There is a short and simple answer. If you refuse to accept it, stop calling yourself a Christian — aka a follower of Jesus Christ.
Jesus made it all pretty clear. Murder is murder. None are justified and even an angry thought is the same as pulling the trigger.
When you stand before Jesus, will you proudly tell him those who you hated or killed in his name? Start practicing now. Then consider which condemnations and judgements could also be applied to you.
Rev. Spitz SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner just like everyone else. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and the sins of eveyone else. I didn’t do anything to earn this gift before it was given and there is nothing I can do now that will make me righteous in the eyes of God. I still need forgiveness, I still need grace, just like everybody else. Jesus, forgive me for not being more like you.
Comment by: Rachel
17 02/24/07 8:02 PM | Comment Link |Rev. Spitz and others like him are bringing shame upon the name of Christ.
Doreen, I admire you for choosing to pray for your enemies. You are setting a Christlike example for all of us.
Comment by: benjamin ady
18 02/24/07 9:48 PM | Comment Link |The “Say this prayer” track is potentially … entertaining and engaging. I’m thinking … especially if we bring some Bible into it.
Here’s Jesus entry:
Say this prayer: Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
what is that whole forgiveness thing anyway? Jesus is always going around speaking about mere impossibilities as if they were .. normal and common.
Comment by: SezMe
19 02/25/07 9:39 PM | Comment Link |What in the world is going on here? I’m swear gonna nominate this thread for the Wussiness of the Week Award (at tip of the hat to Colbert).
Helen opened (in part) with:
and later:
Helen, what’s wrong with making value judgements? You do it all the time. In fact, when you decide what the subject of your next thread is going to be, you are making a value judgement. When you decide put your ethics into practice, you are making value judgements. If you sit around waiting for an “absolute”, you’ll never get out of bed - and that is making a value judgement.
Call ‘em as you see ‘em and get on with life.
trissa, in her very fine Post #1 said:
See my above comments.
and closed her post with:
Inflammatory? INFLAMMATORY???? That was inflammatory? You have a very unusal perspective, having been on both sides of the fence. Your post was very well written and was simply a clear statement from someone who’s “been there, done that.” Stop apologizing. Oh, and read on and I’ll show you inflammatory.
Marty, showed us the high road, by writing:
and benjamin, in Post #10, followed along. Then Doreen and David H split off that very high road and took the even tougher Christian bypass.
Not me.
Spitz, you’re a bigot pig of the worst kind. Your attitude does more harm to young women, Christians and good people of every stripe than can be imagined. Your post was a steaming pile of prejudice, ignorance and sheer stupidity.
But in the spirit you posted, I’ve modified your prayer just a bit. I hope it works:
SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. Jesus, I ask you now to send me there as soon as possible. Amen.
Comment by: SezMe
20 02/25/07 9:42 PM | Comment Link |Helen, you may reject my post and for that I would understand. But sometimes you have to fight hard to win. Sure, being calm and praying for your enemies is one way.
And taking on idiocy with a frontal assualt is another.
Neither is inherently right…or wrong.
Comment by: Helen
21 02/26/07 4:04 AM | Comment Link |Yes, you’re right SezMe - I do make value judgments all the time.
What I really meant was, I was not intending to make that particular one in that post. The only value-judgements I was intending to make in there were that I was pleased to see people who disagree strongly over an issue doing their best to work together to further their common goals.
At present my value-judgment is not to ;-)
Comment by: benjamin ady
22 02/26/07 12:46 PM | Comment Link |… wondering what the range is for bigot pigs, from worst kind to best kind
… wondering how this sort of language fulfills the goal of CatE to “stay civil”
Comment by: Siamang
23 02/26/07 6:57 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin,
I wouldn’t call sez-me uncivil.
People coming in here defending white-supremisist terrorist coward murderers like the Atlanta Olympic bomber, now THAT’s uncivil.
Spitz, take the cue. You are unwelcome here.
Comment by: benjamin ady
24 02/26/07 9:57 PM | Comment Link |wow.
Can I just say I don’t like the way Mr. Bush’s phraseology has … propogated throughout the culture. Now anybody we (violently) disagree with is a terrorist…
And for what it’s worth, Eric Rudolph apparently is not a white supremacist.
Am I now being uncivil?
what, if any, culpability does … American Christian fundamentalism bear for the beliefs and acts of a man like Eric Rudolph?
Anyway, if were’ going to call Mr. Spitz names, can’t we at least be creative about it? Ron and Michelle’s “firebreathing raving godbag troll” is a lot more fun than “bigot pig”
Comment by: Jennifer
25 02/26/07 10:29 PM | Comment Link |Eliza, you strike me as such a smart woman, but here I think you drop the ball.
1. Downs Syndrome and other fetal problems that are not going to kill the fetus- if a woman knows she can’t parent a kid with certain disabilities, because its a long hard road that leads to no time to work, to form a relationship with another person, or total and complete stress- and to top it off, there are few people interested in adopting disabled children- are you really going to judge those women? Its an economic reality that disabled children are incredibly difficult to raise, especially if they need round-the-clock care.
2. Second or third trimester abortions just cause are simply not something that happens as often as the anti-abortion lobby would like you to think. The vast majority of second trimenster abortions are because women can’t afford a first trimester abortion- without that $400, they have save money for several months, then take time off of work and travel to the nearest state that will perform them. This is not a whim,m these are desperate women who couldn’t get the money together or had to leave bad relationships or whatever. These are not whims. Third trimester abortions for any other reason that fetal problems or life issues for the mother simply don’t happen.
3. Gender selection is a terrible reality in India, though hardly a US problem. The solution isn’t to ban abortion, but to get rid of the patriarcial mindset that makes daughters a burden.
It all comes down to, if you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?
I had an abortion. It wasn’t a shame, it was the best thing I could have done for myself and the father, and our families and friends and lives. Because I had an abortion, I got to get a fantastic education, have internships, and have the free time to care for my ailing grandmother. I got to get out of the toxic relationship I was in without being tethered to the jerk. Its a (secular) blessing.
Comment by: Paul
26 02/27/07 2:25 AM | Comment Link |I think this post highlights a wider Q which is what is a christian respone to ethical decisions. I started looking at this Q and for me it is about 3 things:
i. learn and listen to all sides, go and talk with real people who have real experiences - which is where this post orginated in christians doing just that.
ii. be contextual in applying the bible - which to me means we can’t be advocating violence, anger, retribution on whatever side we hold as beding the answer - we can’t violate ethics to achieve ethical solutions - unless we want to become an ism, like facism, nationalism etc…
iii. be part of the solution - so often we form a view as it is convenient/correct/gets approval of our peers and that does nothing to address the roots of the problem - if i think abortion is wrong what am i doing in terms of the systems and structures that actually encourage it to happen? How do i vote? how do i offer up my time? my own money? would i be willing to adopt a child instead etc?
Comment by: Helen
27 02/27/07 10:53 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin is right - I’d prefer no name-calling and especially if it’s not as creative as the names he comes up with ;-)
Jennifer, thanks for your comment.
Comment by: April Terry
28 02/27/07 12:16 PM | Comment Link |I rarely chime in on issues like abortion because I know that they usually eventually end with everyone disagreeing on some level.
However, I was reading over these posts and I was thinking that Benjamin really touched on something that we seem to have lost in the United States–a certain level of civility.
Somehow, we have convinced ourselves that if we encounter someone who disagrees with us, we need to convince them that our way is better.
I spent much of my own youth growing up in a household where that was done regularly and I can tell you that all that it accomplishes is alienation. It’s very much like playing a game of tic tac toe. Eventually, everyone learns how to play well enough for it to become pointless.
The original point of this post was to illustrate that it was certainly possible to find common ground in a controversial subject by seeking to understand the other side. That point is still true.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but abortion has already been decided in our courts. It has been put to the test and at least 75% of the American people disagree with me. To make it a polarizing political issue every election year, is a disservice to the American people and it detracts from many of the real issues that we face. It also divides us. The American people have become separated into two groups and each thinks that the other is evil, but in reality, we are all evil. Each of us has the capacity to commit terrible, horrible acts, but we are too busy trying to point out the error in our neighbor’s life that we have yet to consider our own.
There will always be those who use their Bibles as a weapon to wage war against those who disagree with them. These same people forget the message about loving your enemies and doing good to those who despitefully use you, but even so, they do not have to answer to us–only to God.
Abortion is here and we can’t force everyone to believe what we believe, but we can be there to love and support them when they live with the consequences of their actions.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
29 02/27/07 3:21 PM | Comment Link |Hello Everyone!
Though I am not happy with how the Blue Moon Group (as written about in Time magazine) has been proceeding, I do believe in talking with people whom I do not agree with, and I’m glad to have sparked conversation here.
A thought. Please do not lump me with Mr. Spitz, or Eric Rudolph either for that matter. The gist of my editorial that Helen posted was that I thought the press should give as much coverage at least, and more, to the aborting of children than it did to Eric Rudolph. As we are in Asheville, North Carolina, Rudolph was in our back yard.
My aim in discussions like these is to put forth the pro-life position as consistently and clearly as possible, logically and reasonably, without compromise. Calmly, too. And I keep in mind that many people have abortion in their history. Yet, it does not mean that the truth will be painless. Sometimes pain is good. It shows where harm has been done. Truth touching a sore spot shows that healing is incomplete.
One thing that does not go far with me is name calling and personal attacks, when those attacks are “supposed” to prove a point in the issue. In discussions I prefer to debate the issue, because hypocrisy and inconsistency abound on every side, and to feature them helps no one understand the issue. Anyway, enough conversation about conversation.
My first post was written in haste and I scarcely have more time now; however to extend the profile of that anonymous pro-life activist mentioned in Time, I will tell you that I run a 24-hour Pregnancy Helpline and that I often travel to university campuses with the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) of the Center for Bioethical Reform. I won’t try to put the link here, but if you find them, the images they carry are indeed very shocking. (The reason they are shocking is that abortion is shocking, but I won’t elaborate on that now.) Anyway, this GAP is a large display of these images juxtaposed with pictures of victims of other historical atrocities. In front of the display many intense discussions ensue. This tactic of the graphic imagery is similar to that of other reform movements. For example, read or study about the murder of Emmett Till in 1955 and how the widely disseminated pictures of his mutilated body sparked the whole civil rights movement. You may also read a brief commentary on a documentary film about the Holocaust at my (newly created today) blogsite http://www.lifeadvocates.blogspot.com .
Someone (Helen, I believe) asked about Sidewalk Counseling. When I tell you how we communicate to people entering the abortion building in Asheville you may imagine something horrible, but to be there and hear what our women are saying and how they say it, and if you consider that abortion does take the life of the human being, you may understand that our approach is kind and is compassionate. We use a battery powered speaker system and a microphone. The speaker allows for us to be heard without shouting, which we could well do, but the shouting would not be effective in communicating. We communicate that whatever the need is, we will find help to meet it so that they will be able to let their babies live. My belief is that women who abort are, like as not, victims of abortion too.
I have found that whatever arguments given to justify aborting a pre-born child can also be given to justify killing a born person. Recall the “parasite” statement in one of the posts here? It has been used before. It is a undisputed scientific fact than an individual human life begins at fertilization and the difference between born humans and pre-born humans are only a matter of degree, such as in dependence, size, development, and so on. The potential of a characteristic or ability (human speech, for example, or playing the violin) is a necessary and prerequisite form of that characteristic or ability.
Comment by: Siamang
30 02/27/07 5:17 PM | Comment Link |benjamin addy wrote:
Benjamin, I didn’t call Eric Rudolph a terrorist because I disagree with him. I called him a terrorist because he built and exploded bombs intended to cause mass terror at the olympics and other places. These bombs killed people.
That is terrorism, unless you have a different definition that I’m not aware of.
I called a terrorist a terrorist. If we err on the side of politeness when referring to people who wrap dynamite in nails and dentonate them in public places killing people, then what the hell?
Comment by: Karen
31 02/27/07 7:15 PM | Comment Link |Considering what women who have chosen abortion must go through emotionally, I don’t think it’s “kind and compassionate” at all when I’ve seen them have to run the gauntlet into a clinic while being bombarded by strangers over a speaker system and microphone.
If they want your advice and counsel, please let them seek it in private, in their own time, rather than harassing them publicly. I feel very sorry when I see that women have to go through this kind of emotional pressure just to make a personal choice that is their right in this country.
It’s not kind, it’s unkind.
Comment by: Helen
32 02/27/07 8:39 PM | Comment Link |Meredith wrote:
Yes, it was me who asked about the sidewalk counseling.
When I think of counseling I think of a situation in which the person doing the counseling is mostly listening. But that evidently isn’t how you use the word.
Comment by: benjamin ady
33 02/27/07 10:09 PM | Comment Link |Siamang, you’re right. That is, I should not have implied that you were calling him a terrorist just because you disagreed with him–I went too far.
However, I still don’t like the way that Bush and company have steered the entire dialogue of the nation in such a way that the word “terrorist” is now so much more common, and commonly used, than it previously was.
Here’s kind of what I meant, I guess
It seems to me that Bush and co have somehow grabbed hold of what happened on 9-11 and interpreted it, and from it interpreted the whole world (life, the universe, and everything), in such a way that we now more readily think “terrorist, fear, enemy, danger, … etc.” than we did previously, than we need to, and … than, for instance, they do in England or Australia. Jonathan Raban touched on this in My Holy War, a very readable take on the whole thing by a british journalist in Seattle.
Comment by: julie marie
34 02/27/07 10:16 PM | Comment Link |also, the person receiving the counseling usually has to seek it out; they percieve a problem in their lives they want to address.
rarely do people respond well to others coming up to them and advising them of their need for counseling - especially in a public street.
Comment by: benjamin ady
35 02/27/07 10:19 PM | Comment Link |I find myself torn over the whole abortion debate taking place in this thread. I agree with Helen and Karen and others that it’s completely out there unkind and disprespectful to women to … barge into their private life with unrequested counselling … etc.
On the other hand … I wonder about possible answers to questions about valueing, showing respect and kindness and so forth to children before they are born. At one level, it seems to me that there are people, like Helen and Karen, standing up for and working to respect these women. But who is standing up for and working to respect these children?
or maybe the only way *to* respect and love such young children is to respect and love their mothers? Can these young children receive such love and respect in any other way than through their mothers?
I feel trepidation to even comment on the whole issue because as best I can remember, and as best I can tell, both the pregnancy and the parenting demands a lot more, both emotionally and physically, from Meg than it does from me. A LOT more. So maybe I should leave it to the ladies to discuss.
Comment by: Helen
36 02/28/07 4:18 AM | Comment Link |Benjamin, I reposted comment #33 here:
Use and misuse of ‘terrorist’
From your other comment:
I appreciate the respect you’re showing here.
I think men do belong in the conversation too, even if their involvement is not the same as women, as you pointed out. Men can encourage other men to be more responsible at each stage they are involved. Men could encourage each other to be more responsible about contraception when they know there is no way they are ready/able to take care of a baby. And they could encourage each other to be more responsible if pregnancy does occur - not abandoning the woman or putting pressure on her to get an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father.
I see it as a big problem that women are probably pressured to get abortions in many situations. If they are, I can’t see how sidewalk counseling does anything but make them feel even angrier. If lack of material resources or lack of supportive relationships was pushing me into a decision, the last thing I need is someone saying “what you’re doing is wrong”, when I know they can’t sufficiently fix my circumstances to make a difficult choice possible.
Having said that I realize that other women - like Jennifer who posted here - do have choices, consider their options and make their own choice to have an abortion. Yes, the decision may be made based on circumstances, but it’s still a decision they got to make for themselves. I don’t suppose they like sidewalk counseling (as defined by Meredith) any more than women who feel they had no choice, though - since they have thought things through, made their decision and don’t need some stranger trying to stop them (using words - I think physically blocking the entrance is now illegal?) from going into the abortion clinic.
Comment by: Karen
37 02/28/07 8:14 AM | Comment Link |Here’s an idea for Meredith and others who feel very strongly about wanting to end abortion: Form groups who will financially support and encourage women who decide NOT to end their pregnancies.
Raise money to help them finish school and get started in good careers, organize safe, reliable, nurturing childcare centers so they can feel good about resuming their schooling or career path, make sure they have excellent health care for themselves and their children.
Many of the women who choose abortion are poor, single, drug-addicted women of color who despair about being forced into a lifelong cycle of poverty and ignorance by an unplanned pregnancy. If they were, instead, to find themselves and their children supported, admired and well-cared-for in this society, I think the great stigma would be off of them and they’d be much more likely not to choose abortion.
It’s about improving peoples’ circumstances and making having a child as a single mother NOT be taboo (which it has been for centuries). What does NOT help is yelling at them and humiliating them and invading their privacy over speaker systems on what’s probably one of the worst days of their lives - I don’t know if that’s what Meredith does, but that’s what I’ve seen go on at entrances to women’s health centers that perform abortion.
Of course, supporting women and their children throughout their lifetimes - and I don’t mean buying them baby clothes and diapers for a few months - takes a huge amount of time, money and commitment. I’d have a ton more respect for the anti-abortion movement if they did that instead of what they’re doing now, which is trying to impose their political views about morality on the rest of the country.
Comment by: HereandNow
38 02/28/07 8:44 AM | Comment Link |1. We often impose our moral views through politics in this country because we can. I think that in this whole discussion string, many have alluded to the political implications of abortion whether they are articulating pro or con, and I think that you have in the way you’ve spoken your mind about the issue Karen.
2. Many anti-abortionists do invest in single moms for the duration (not just passing out diapers for a couple of months). They do it quietly and through relationships in churches and communities. I’ve seen it often enough to be impressed by it as more than an anomily. It doesn’t get good media coverage because it is not shocking or devisive. There is nothing quiet about “counseling” outside of clinics, so that is what captures our public attention about the anti-abortionists. Incidently, whether or not it is appropriate to call the kind of work that Meredith does “counseling”, it is a hugely ineffective model for counseling. Successful counseling of anything isn’t guaranteed, but make it a public forum in which it is being forced on people instead of chosen by the individual is a recipe for failure.
If anyone doesn’t want abortion to happen in the world, they need to make the world a place where it isn’t an appealing option. I assume that this is essentially what you are saying Karen. What makes this difficult though, is that there are a great many abortions chosen out of convenience in addition to the many abortions that are chosen out of dire circumstances like the ones you describe. In this, the question “How do we make abortion unnecessary/unwanted?” becomes more challenging, and indeed quite confounding. In order to have the dialogue in a meaningful way though, we need to admit that the poor, single drug addicted women of color are not the only (and more than likely not the majority) of women getting abortions in this country. Personally, I also need to acknowledge that the long-term investment in the lives of women you describe does happen in many communities. I’ve seen it, participated in it, and I’ve been impressed with the compassion and commitment to life (beyond the narrow definition of the unborn) that these people have.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
39 02/28/07 9:57 AM | Comment Link |Good thoughts here, many of them.
I don’t suppose that anyone else in this discussion thinks that what we call sidewalk counseling is a good idea. “Yelling” of course is not what we want to do, but around our house even quiet intense monolog can feel like yelling.
Our sidewalk counseling doesn’t fit a classic counseling model, though most of our sidewalk counselors have been trained (for our Pregnancy Helpline) to some extent in counseling techniques that involve listening. Listening helps one understand, as does asking questions. As you would expect, we don’t often get the opportunity to listen to people going into the abortion place, but we would if we could and do when we can. And certainly you would agree that sometimes people need to be told what they don’t want to hear. From our perspective sidewalk counseling is like trying to talk people out of jumping off a bridge. Or, more graphically, (I will risk saying) from cutting the throat of their child.
Many arguments or appeals against sidewalk counseling or against campaigns to pass laws to protect children (and women) from abortion, and most “pro-choice” slogans, just go away in the face of the fact that abortion is a violent act that kills a baby. Even trying to pass a law does not in itself fully recognize the humanity of the child. Say for instance that the workers are neglecting my grandmother at a nursing home and I am only going to lobby the legislature to pass stricter laws on such places? Likewise, while making the world a better place is a noble and worthwhile enterprise (and I work at this in many ways), and while changing social conditions to make abortion less desirable, and helping different kinds of needy people are good things, these activities do not address the issue that a particular child will die at a particular time and place.
To tell the truth, I tire of talking about abortion, which is why I often pour myself into other activities, primarily musical or horticultural. Some of this follows my children’s interests. I have tried to instill in them the importance of finding the greatest need our there in the world and then helping to meet that need. I could tell you many stories of how my children—one especially—is doing that. One challenge for us is that my 21 year old son sometimes brings homeless people home with him for dinner, or to stay for a few days. Some homeless people are involved with crack cocaine and prostitution. Our young adult children (and well as our younger children) live at home and our house is not large. It has been a stretching experience for everyone.
Comment by: Helen
40 02/28/07 12:48 PM | Comment Link |Meredith, it’s neat to hear about your interests and your hospitality to homeless people. Thanks for sharing those things about your life with us.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
41 02/28/07 2:08 PM | Comment Link |Well, I jumped in here with both feet and inclining towards a head butting session (my first post). Now I am glad that other conversationalists did not really attack me and that has helped see what kind of place this is. I’ve looked around and found…well… nice people. And I also have just read the purpose of this website. Hmmmm. I should have listened first before I spoke too much.
I suppose I could be labeled as a radical conservative protestant Christian, but (partly because of my experience at the church mentioned in the Time story), I have become separated emotionally from the church as an organization. We as a family, most of us, presently attend a conservative Presbyterian church—in the same denomination as the church mentioned in Time—and I agree with the Apostle’s Creed and all that, but I must say, my heart is not there in that place. Perhaps my radicalness causes me to resist much that is formal and institutional.
Jesus said that whenever two or more gather in his name, he is there, and that, simply for me is what the church is. Two or more. An organized church is good for many reasons, including building a mutually supportive community, and sometimes the organization is not so good, but mainly I think that it has its limitations. The most important aspect to me is in the personal relationships within the community.
What I really want to say in this post is that I aim to incorporate in my life what is true and what is beautiful, and then share this with others. Truth cuts across all lines. Beauty, true beauty, is an embodiment of truth. Many times what happens in churches is ugly, and I don’t mean attitudes necessarily, but the physical environment. The music may be ugly for example. Or the air may be stale, quite literally. Many mega-churches are boxes that allow no natural light to enter. (This attests to my belief of truth and beauty found in nature, God’s creation, if you will, as in “Sermons in rocks and trees” in Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” or “The heavens declare the glory of God” from the Psalms.) And so, for example, I share with you Helen a love for classical music (though not all that might be considered classical is beautiful), and there are many kinds of beautiful music. I share with you playing the same joke in not clarifying to people for awhile about whether you are male or female, because my parents gave me a name that had not at the time been generally assigned to females. My doctor (who also is from England bye-the-bye) said that Meredith is a man’s name in Wales, and so my whole life has been full of fun misunderstandings, though I also have a nick-name to go by. I say this to move on to saying that my wife teaches and calls folk dancing and my children, all six, play musical instruments, among them piano and violin/fiddle, but also guitar, Irish bagpipes, concertina, and so on. We have a harp, but no one is playing that, not yet. (My trombone just doesn’t fit the mix.) Some of the Celtic music and Persian is among the most beautiful ever made. Some contemporary films (not many) contain much beauty and truth. The best contemporary film-maker of all now, in my opinion is M. Night Shyamalan of The Village, and Lady in the Water. Listen and enjoy the sound tracks of those films.
Giving and sacrificing also is beautiful, the best beauty.
All this to say that I identify with many who are disillusioned with what identifies itself as The Church. I don’t have a ready answer or solution or corrective agenda, except that part of me is not terribly troubled, because the true Church, that is, the body of Christ, exists outside of human action or invention, or corruption.
It is time to move on, I suppose. Farewell.
Comment by: Karen
42 02/28/07 5:44 PM | Comment Link |Yes. Where’s it’s not the ONLY option in some peoples’ minds, because of the legitimate difficulties in going ahead with an unwanted pregnancy.
That’s why we need (in addition to individual support that I agree is sometimes provided, but in scanty, piecemeal fashion and not enough): Systematic support for women and children, we need much improved education about and access to birth control, more support for adoption (including allowing all couples - including gay couples - to adopt), a public awareness campaign that’s frank and honest, and time for the changes in society to be absorbed.
Will there still be women who do not want to risk the health and emotional dangers of pregnancy and birth? Sure, but hopefully a positive campaign would greatly reduce the numbers of abortions. And those who continue to choose them must have their rights and their privacy respected. At least that’s how I see it.
Comment by: Helen
43 02/28/07 7:00 PM | Comment Link |Meredith, thanks for taking the time to read our responses to you and interacting with us a little.
Comment by: jim henderson
44 02/28/07 11:06 PM | Comment Link |Meredith
Thanks for expressing your heart
Comment by: Doyle Chadwick
45 03/1/07 7:15 AM | Comment Link |trissa, your comments can be said to be almost perfectly typical of those of prochoicers in general. Not a single word about the unfortunate victims of abortion, just stereotypical attacks on those who try to speak out on their behalf. Try this exercise: let’s stipulate that all your attacks are valid, and then ask: “How does that justify killing babies?”
Comment by: HereandNow
46 03/1/07 1:16 PM | Comment Link |Karen, depending on how you go about doing this, it sounds like you’re advocating for legislating your moral framework through political means. If it’s not ok for anti-abortionists why is it ok for pro-choice advocates?
What follows is not directed specifically at your comments, Karen, but a more general articulation of what can work instead of the legislation of morality. I rather like the kind of change that happens through community members investing in the people in their community who are in need, and the kind of thing that is happening in the community referenced in the Time article because in that case, it is two groups of people with strong convictions about the value of human life approaching each other as if they really do both want what’s best for mom’s and babies instead of assuming that one only wants to kill babies and the other only wants to oppress women. The kind of reconciliation that can come out of such an approach is quite powerful, and much more progressive than either side trying to use legistlation to accomplish their means. It takes longer to accomplish great things through such an approach, but doesn’t polarize nearly as much as our federal or state governments being the vehicle through which morality gets legislated. Government legislation has, so far, only been able to exclude one or the other group, initially saying that the human life of the unborn is more valuable, and now saying that the human life of the mother is more valuable. That kind of incoherence seems to be a grand example of how the legislation of morality fails. I think that the people who should be excluded from the conversation on either side are the mean-spirited and hateful people who can’t see that strong advocates of both sides of the issue really do love others and want what’s best for them. But, as I’ve engaged in debate and discussion with people on the issue over the years, I’ve come to see that most of the people on either side are not hateful and mean-spirited; they are usually just desperate to advocate for one or the other of two groups of people who they believe aren’t getting fair and just consideration in a system that can only have one or the other side be right instead of acknowledging that at present, both women and unborn babies are getting screwed by the system while we try to prove that “we’re right and their wrong” when in reality both unborn babies and women deserve a greater demonstration of love than exists.
Comment by: Doyle Chadwick
47 03/1/07 4:04 PM | Comment Link |HereandNow,
I think it’s an oversimplification and a major mistake to frame the abortion debate in terms of a dispute between ProLifers and ProChoicers.
The “war” is between the babies and the people killing them, including those who simply advocate permissive laws to facilitate killing them. ProLifers are simply trying to intervene on behalf of the babies.
Therefore I think it’s basically a distraction to focus on how we ProLifers can compromise with ProChoicers, while 4,000 babies a day are losing this “war”. We don’t need to make friends with them, or even find ways to work with them. We need to find ways to stop the killing that they support. There is no middle ground between a dead baby and a living baby. And those that insist on keeping abortion legal and available have no interest in live babies.
And finally, NO ProLifers says the baby’s life is “more valuable” than anyone else’s life, that’s slanderous. We say NO ONE should be killed for reasons of money and/or convenience, including the Mom.
Comment by: Jennifer
48 03/1/07 9:08 PM | Comment Link |Doyle Chadwick,
Seriously now. I had an abortion at 7 weeks. The mini fetus was smaller than the first pad on my pinky finger, and had barely seperated into a head and a body. My abortion was a medical abortion, which means biologically it was exactly the same as a miscarriage. I bled for three weeks, and nothing that came out of me looked anything like a baby, unless you think babies are tiny tiny lumps of blood.
A baby, on the other hand, can breathe on its own, takes its food from a breast or a bottle, is gaining awareness of the outside world, has skin, has nerves, can open its mouth and eyes.
I am pro choice, and I have never stopped a woman from having a baby. Nor do I go around killing babies- not yours, not anyones. I had a planned miscarriage.
You want to reduce the number of abortions? Give kids the tools to plan when they want to get pregnant- condoms, birth control, access to medically safe abortions- and educate them fairly about what each thing does so they can make informed descisions.
The latest polls suggest that 95% of people have sex before they are married. This includes people who go through abstinence only education, people who are Christians, people who tell you they are waiting but probably aren’t.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
49 03/1/07 10:39 PM | Comment Link |Dear Jennifer,
Though “pro-lifers” believe that abortion takes the life of a child, they also believe that there is forgiveness and healing.
I wish that you could watch the DVD video “the biology of Pre-natal Development” distributed by the National Geographic Society. The living seven-week human pre-born is anything but a tiny lump of blood. You can find information and extensive excerpts from this video at the website of those who produced it at http://www.ehd.org/ . The video has wide acclaim for its accuracy, both in the details and actual film of alive children in the womb.
This next link will take you to material about the amazing development achieved by the pre-born child by six and seven weeks. http://www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit7.php
As with all newborn mammals, humans breathe and nurse, and as pre-borns they take nutrition and oxygen through their umbilical chords, but these biological aspects and many others do not make a creature human, and they did not just begin suddenly at birth; rather they began developing much earlier.
Anyway Jennifer, I hope someday, when you are ready, that you will take a closer look. At this point, I can’t offer any other thoughts, except that…. I will pray for you. If anyone wants to talk to my wife or someone else on our Pregnancy Helpline about this subject, our number is 828-298-9898.
Comment by: NCxian
50 03/2/07 7:26 AM | Comment Link |Doyle Chadwick said:
Doyle, I have some sympathy for your position. If I knew in my heart that life began at conception, I don’t know how easy it would be for me to get past the “killing” issue either.
However, the fact is that before abortion was legal, plenty of abortions took place. And in addition, plenty of women were severly injured and died because they could not get a safe abortion. The women who carried their pregnancies to term for the sole reason that abortion was illegal were too poor to pay the cost of an illegal abortion and could not bring themselves to risk suicide doing it themselves.
The only way that abortion will ever end is when women no longer choose to have them. That is why I think it is critical that all people who want to reduce abortions come together to support public policies and private efforts to give women other options. We need laws and support systems for pregnant women and women with children far beyond what is available now. We need, as a society, to establish that we will not continue to tolerate the sexualization of children. In order for that to happen, you will have to find ways to work with people who don’t oppose abortion as murder. It is as simple as that. Unless you are willing to do that, you are simply spitting into the wind, IMO.
When we can say, “today, our society treats women and children in such a way that no woman (or female child) should want or need an abortion”, then I will lean toward severely restricting or outlawing them. In my opinion, we are very far from that place.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
51 03/2/07 8:33 AM | Comment Link |Hello NCxian,
I have no problem working with people who “don’t oppose abortion as murder”, but my problem is working with people who actually abort children as a profession. That’s a big subject that I have only touched upon here. We’d have to discuss exactly what “working with” means.
Check out the video “the biology of Pre-natal Development” that I mentioned above.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
52 03/2/07 8:35 AM | Comment Link |Hmm… the blockquote in the previous somehow mistakenly transferred to MY text.
Comment by: Helen
53 03/2/07 6:01 PM | Comment Link |Hi Meredith, I fixed the blockquote in comment #51.
(The easiest way to use blockquote is
1)cut-and-paste the quote into the comment box
2)highlight the quote with your mouse and click Block Quote)
Comment by: Jennifer
54 03/2/07 6:56 PM | Comment Link |Meredith, I have looked at the links, and all it did was reinforce my non-guilt towards my abortion. Yes, I have always realized that my abortion was not merely blood, but knowing specifically that there were itty bitty not-completely formed nasel passages is not going to make me fall to my knees and beg god for forgiveness.
I do appreciate that you did not send me to some sort of religious-why-aren’t-you-feeling-guilty site. I encourage you to check out http://imnotsorry.net. My own story is on there; feel free to read it and understand better.
What’s important to remember is that not all people feel guilty for having an abortion, any more than I would about another medical procedure. Where we differ, if that I think the right of the woman- who is obviously and surely a person- is more important than the rights of a fetus, who may or may not be a person.
To put it another way, why do you believe god would ensoul my aborted fetus? Surely you believe your god to know all, and if he knew that I was going to have an abortion, why would he cruely ensoul someone that wouldn’t live to see birth? That’s just mean. Why is your god mean?
Comment by: Helen
55 03/4/07 7:09 AM | Comment Link |Jennifer, could you give us the link for your story on that site? Or tell me which name you used on that site? I’d like to read it but I’m not sure which one it is. I didn’t find one under the exact name “Jennifer” but admittedly I didn’t search every archive page.
I’ve never been in the position of being pregnant when I didn’t want to have a child (I have two children now and I was excited about each pregnancy because I was hoping to get pregnant) - so I don’t feel like it’s appropriate for me to comment on the choices women make who find themselves in that situation.
Here’s something that bothers me - I feel like anti-abortion advocates push women into defending the decision they made. I would like women who had abortions to be completely free to say “Hey, maybe I did make a mistake” without feeling that if they do say that, anti-abortion advocates will take advantage of it and claim, see, they are right - women who have abortions know deep inside that they did something wrong in an ultimate sense and here is one more woman who has come out of denial about it.
Some women may never look back and be anything but convinced they made absolutely the right decision in having an abortion.
But some probably will have doubts about the decision they made and I would like them to be able to have those thoughts without anyone trying to turn them into more than they are and ‘prove’ anything in particular from them beyond: people make mistakes and people sometimes look back and think, maybe such-and-such wasn’t such a good decision after all.
If women are free to say “Yes I might have made a mistake/chosen unwisely” there are ways to be reconciled to that such as, we’re all human and they made the best choice they could with the information they had and in the circumstances they were in. To have peace about their past decision, they don’t necessarily (imo) need to a) believe in God b) believe abortion is always a sin against God c) repent before God. (This gets into much bigger questions of what is required for people to find peace and I’m well aware my views differ from some other peoples’ views about that.)
Comment by: Jennifer
56 03/4/07 9:08 AM | Comment Link |Helen, sorry, my story wasn’t linked off of the main page of stories for whatever reason.
See my story here: http://imnotsorry.net/jenB.htm
About my story: I do wish I could link to you a story about an abortion with my current boyfriend, because were I to have one, he would be loving and supportive and most importantly, though he is wonderful to me, I would still have the abortion. I don’t want to give the impression the only reason was because I was dating a jerk. I also just don’t want to be pregnant any time soon.
I would agree with you that some women do feel sad after their abortion. I know I did, if for no other reason than my boyfriend and best friend hated me afterwards. But this does not necessitate a mistake on my my part, and may not always be for most women. Some women will regret their abortions, just like they will regret choosing a specific college, or working at a fast food joint, or drinking too much last night- but regret does not mean that something should be illegal. There are a multitude of sites that offer regretful women the chance to weep and wail with the gnashing of teeth, and I think it is easy for women with slight regret (who still realize they made the correct choice) to fall in with these crowds of women, and from there accept the idea that, because I made a mistake, all women who choose this did, which is completely false.
Comment by: Helen
57 03/4/07 12:58 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Jennifer - actually I read that story and was wondering if it was yours.
I’m glad you have a supportive boyfriend now. As for impressions, I believe you when you say the abortion was your choice and you would have made it even if your boyfriend at the time hadn’t been a jerk. I don’t have preconceptions to defend which require me to ignore or change what you said.
I agree that “this is true for me” very often does not generalize to “therefore it’s true for everyone”.
Comment by: benjamin ady
58 03/4/07 7:00 PM | Comment Link |Jennifer,
Thankyou for sharing your story. I’m sorry you were treated *so* unsupportively and suckily. I’m really glad for you that you have a nicer boyfriend now.
I think the
is a damn good, very reasonable question. I’m wondering what Meredith and Doyle have to say to that?
Comment by: benjamin ady
59 03/4/07 7:03 PM | Comment Link |Jennifer, thankyou also for the
. That’s fascinating, and I see it’s from a peer reveiwed journal.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
60 03/5/07 7:55 AM | Comment Link |Yeah, Jennifer, god is so mean that, since he is in charge, he is ultimately responsible for killing every single soul who ever lived, young and old. Worse, he also cruelly killed his own son (with help) and sent the boy to hell, where god dumped the whole world’s punishment on him. But that’s a pretty negative spin to the story.
I think that it’s no more proven that born humans are persons than it is unborn humans are persons. What is a person? I have never heard a definition that excludes pre-born humans that does not also exclude some born humans, unless it’s an arbitrary criterion like: “a person is a born human.” Some born humans do not have fully formed nostrils, and some are amazingly small. But if a person is unsure of what is a person (you said the pre-born “may or may not be”), and if it is immoral to kill innocent persons, then how can it be moral to take a chance, assuming that morals are real.
Who or what said that persons are important? Belief in meaning or in the value of humanity could be an illusion or a fantasy. It seems to me that the final authority in play in this subject of abortion is who is the most powerful.
I did go to the “I’m not sorry” site, and read a lot there. What do I think about the stories and the site? Hmmm…. Given the nature of the site… it is likely that nothing I would say about it would be helpful to you. The stories did make me sad.
When I was in South Dakota last October on a university campus with the Genocide Awareness Project, I found myself engaged in a conversation on abortion with a young woman. She began by mentioning her own abortion, saying initially how little it bothered her and how good it was. She then brought up point after point about “choice” and “rights” and I gave responses. We debated for what may have been a half hour while others looked on or joined in from time to time. Mostly we were arguing in circles.
I realized that there was much more than logic and facts in play. The discussion was about her as a person. Her own integrity. I felt that under the present condition and her situation and frame of mind she was not persuadable. And I knew that she had come from the “pro-choice” table across the quad—remember, there was a big political campaign on abortion in the state at that time, so she had a wider agenda to represent, not only her own self. Anyway, I knew how to change the discussion and so I said,
“You have a lot invested in your position.”
“Why? What do you mean?”
Because, if you believed that you took the life of your child, you would be devastated, and you couldn’t live with that.”
At that point, she exploded in loud anger and stomped away, saying over her shoulder, “That proves my point. You are as horrible as I thought you were.”
Afterwards, when I thought over the conversation in evaluation I realized I should have began that last interchange with the words I began with you Jennifer in Comment Number 49. Then she may have understood that I was not condemning her.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
61 03/5/07 8:05 AM | Comment Link |benjamin ady is impressed with that question, saying it was “damn good” [an appropriate choice of words] and is curious to my response.
Legend has it that the Evil One asked a similar question. And in the Garden in tempting Eve to rebel against the Creator, the Evil One said to her. “You shall be as gods.”
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
62 03/5/07 9:03 AM | Comment Link |As to the question of why god is so mean.
Job asked the same question, as do many Jewish students of the Holocaust. I suggest studying Job.
Comment by: Helen
63 03/5/07 9:15 AM | Comment Link |I appreciate everyone who has stayed civil while discussing this topic.
Jennifer, I think you’re very brave to discuss your personal experience with people whose value-judgments about your choices may or may not agree with yours. If you decide at some point you’ve had enough of doing that, feel free to drop out of this conversation. I hope everyone who has read any of your posts about abortion will read your story also.
Meredith, I agree with you that people often have a lot invested in their position. For example, you probably have a lot invested in your belief in God. I expect it would change your life quite a bit if you came to believe there actually is no God, after all.
Do you believe in God because you have a lot invested that belief or because (as best you can tell) it’s true?
Perhaps people who think there is nothing wrong with their choice to have an abortion do have a lot invested in believing that, but perhaps the main reason they believe it is because (as best they can tell), the reasons you give for it being wrong are all invalid?
It might not have helped to have added onto what you said to that other person “…but there is healing and forgiveness”. Because I’m guessing she may well have interpreted what you said as “I think you’re a bad person”, whether you added those final words or not. That would explain her responding with, in effect “if there’s a bad person here it’s YOU”
Comment by: Helen
64 03/5/07 9:21 AM | Comment Link |Why is God mean?
I guess my own theory is that mean people invented any God who is mean. And the people who believe in a mean God today either are mean themselves, so they don’t notice; or they don’t realize they have permission to disagree with the belief which says he’s mean. If they notice and have no permission to disagree, then they rationalize away the meanness somehow by accepting theories like “what’s mean when humans do it is not mean when God does it”.
This is just my own theory - I could be wrong.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
65 03/5/07 10:06 AM | Comment Link |I believe in a personal-infinite Creator basically because the world, life and the universe, make more sense if he is there then if he is not there. You may be able to find some of my discussion on that subject at Salon.com .
I don’t think the Creator is mean. How can one make sense of human suffering?
Study Job.
I suppose I have a lot invested in a belief in such a Creator, but also my intension is to follow truth wherever it leads, however devastating it may be to me personally.
With almost every person I have listened to about abortion over the years, they show that it is inconsistent with their own ideals and beliefs, that they know it is a compromise (as they believe, a “lesser of two evils”), but that they decide other matters and things are more important to them, or that they feel desperately pressured or trapped. Reasons against abortion are not so much invalidated as overruled. Remember, it is a “choice.”
A bit of correction to what you said Helen: I wrote that I should have begun with the girl in SD with the part about forgiveness and healing. You are right, ending with it… I would not have been heard. It was too late then.
It really is time for me to say farewell, and I hope for the best to you all. If anyone wishes to continue in sincere discussion, write me at lifeadvocates@earthlink.net .
Comment by: Helen
66 03/5/07 11:30 AM | Comment Link |Meredith, thanks for joining in the discussion.
Comment by: Jennifer
67 03/5/07 1:34 PM | Comment Link |Hello Helen,
Thanks for letting me know I can drop out of the discussion, but Iam willing to stay and fight the good fight. Hell, I would love to have a thread to discuss my story, if people wanted to. I know its a lot easier for people to say, “That is so wrong to have abortions” when they are not actually faced with a person who has had one, or with an unwanted pregnancy of their own. I am not ashamed of my decision. I have also seen a lot worse directed at pro-choice women (even if they haven’t had abortion!) and I think that the people who are on this site are pretty respectful. I appreciate it, though again, I can really take it.
Ben ady,
Thanks for the support as well. I am not too into the theology, but I have never understood why something like a third of pregnancies end in miscarriage, but somehow its ok for “God” to do that. I especially hated that a priest, who will never go through what I was going through, was condeming me to hell over pasta when I was moments away from yet another round of vomit.
Meredith,
I don’t know if you have stuck around or not, but I will say this. Of course I am going to view “you can find healing and forgiveness” as “You did something wrong.” That is completely implied. I don’t agree with you, but the conclusion is hardly unfounded. You think I jumped off a bridge and on the way down, cut the throat of my own child.
In defining a living person verses a fetus, let’s look at the most obvious answer- the fetus requires a body to live inside, and a live person does not. Oh, of course its not the best description, because the fetus has nasel passages and some adult people have small ones or whatever, but there is a difference. Its like porn- you can tell the difference when you see it. My aborted fetus was seven weeks old. If I am going to decide between a grown woman’s life, and something that may or may not be a person, I am going to go with me, the absolutely by every definition person. Oh yes, I know, selfish women taking control of their own fertility and planning their families and voting and owning property these days, planning children for when it would be best for them and their loved ones, but those are what my morals (and I do have them) teach me is best.
Its a little silly that you think I haven’t read Job. Job would be one of the main reasons I just can’t buy the Bible. God sits around, playing poker with Satan, and then bets on his favorite person. He then proceeds to torture not only Job, but his family and servants, kills his animals, burns down his house, all over a bet. So why would a loving God do this not only to Job, but to all of his family and servants? And I am supposed to worship this being?
Comment by: benjamin ady
68 03/5/07 2:36 PM | Comment Link |Meredith,
I am also curious as to how Job teaches you of a god that isn’t mean? C.S. Lewis, I believe, points out that the problem with Job is that in the original culture where it was written, it was understood that Job was “in the dock”, that is to say, on trial. Now we tend to look at the story and we see god as being on trial. it seems to me that if job was on trial, he came out of it fairly well, and was treated rather unfairly–almost like big brother in 1984 might treat one. but if god is on trial, then he comes out looking rather bad.
That is, are you saying the point of all human suffering is for god to somehow humble us so that we see him as more glorious? I remember Anna telling Fynn about her problem with Sunday School. She said that the people at Sunday School were trying to make god bigger, but the only way they could find to do it was to make us, the people, smaller. Anna found this a totally unsatisfying way of making god bigger, and so do I.
Is there a tale that was written more recently, which more reflects our post enlightenment, and now post modern, and western take on the world which would help us to understand why you don’t see god as mean? I’d love a recommendation.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
69 03/5/07 7:24 PM | Comment Link |I may be silly, but I have not assumed anyone has not read Job. I do assume, perhaps incorrectly, that no one understands Job perfectly…
A fetus requires a body to live in? What about a fetus at nine months? Or eight months and so on? All of us born people depend upon technology (and other people), whether it be total life support, or a sharpened stick to plow with. When technology becomes such that human fetuses can live entirely outside of the mother’s body from fertilization on, will that mean that human fetuses are persons? The fetus will not have changed. This particular argument that Jessica presents is about bodily rights of the mother, not the character (personhood) of the pre-born. Bodily rights is another discussion.
To benjamyn, I don’t know any post-modern tales… Are there any? Maybe Borat? Surely this is a deficit in my education. Does post-modern believe in questions and answers? I am sorry, but I at the moment I can only refer to ancient/monotheistic, and so another book would be Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust compiled by Yaffa Eliach.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
70 03/5/07 7:41 PM | Comment Link |Ah… I mean Jennifer, not Jessica. Sorry. I have always had a problem with confusing those two names. We have neighbors and friends with daughters…
Comment by: benjamin ady
71 03/5/07 11:51 PM | Comment Link |Meredith
Thankyou for the recommendation! It looks brilliant! I think your “Hacidic Tales” may very much fulfill all the aspects of my request for a recommendation.
Chaim Potok is one of my very favorite authors. Here’s his recommedation of Eliach’s compilation:
So I bought it on Amazon. Used for $1.00 plus $3.49 shipping. used the “buy with one click” option. Took about 30 seconds. Amazon rocks
Thanks again for the recommendation. I shall have to post a review over on justice and compassion when I’v read it, and then maybe we can all talk about it.
Comment by: HereandNow
72 03/6/07 7:53 AM | Comment Link |Meredith wrote:
While I’m sure that you don’t think you understand Job perfectly, by siting it as justification for God’s behavior in killing babies you seem to indicate you understand it far better than those who think that God comes out looking “mean” and who think that the book doesn’t do much to convince a person that it’s ok for God to kill babies. Please, Meredith, shed some light on how the book of Job does convince you that God is not acting out of the character of a loving God interested in the well-being of creation when God behaves as God does in Job, arbitrarily killing and subjecting to suffering.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
73 03/6/07 9:33 AM | Comment Link |To Benjamin: Sure, I’ll discuss Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust at some later time, when you have read it. You may have to notify me by e-mail when you wish to interact. This book was given to me at the University of Oklahoma by a young Jewish man, a Zionist, who also was a sergeant in the U.S. Army.
To HereandNow: Studying Job would mean reading generally orthodox commentaries on it that deal with human suffering and God’s sovereignty. That work is fairly accessible, I expect. More simply, I suggest that Job’s concluding opinions would carry weight, since, though he was not killed, he endured catastrophic loss and suffered incredible pain. It doesn’t require any special genius to give Job, the man, credibility.
Comment by: HereandNow
74 03/6/07 11:21 AM | Comment Link |Job’s concluding remarks always seemed a little like damage control to me, even when I believed in inerrancy. It seems sort of like the “oh, yeah, God’s sovereign, I can’t comprehend it, but I got everything back in excess of what I had (except for my wife and kids), so it’s all ok.” One thing that I think the text mandates is that we read it as poetry instead of historical narrative, so I do try and look for the deeper metaphorical meaning of the book instead of just seeing it as a “and then this happened” sort of thing.
“Orthodox” commentaries. . .If they don’t admit to and wrestle with the huge problem of where the justice of God’s actions can be found in the book of Job, I wouldn’t find them very satisfactory expositions, but go ahead and recommend a few and I’ll see what they say. I should say though, that commentaries which are the by-product of someone’s staunch systematic theology, be it reformed or otherwise, aren’t compelling to me, and my experience with most of what I think of as “orthodox” commentaries are just that–defense of a broader systematic theology that ignores the fact that the Bible isn’t a neat box of truths packaged for simple understanding.
More importantly to my previous posting though, I’m interested in what you say, since you offer the book of Job as your answer for why it’s ok for God to kill babies.
Comment by: Meredith Eugene Hunt
75 03/6/07 2:14 PM | Comment Link |I’m not a theologian, nor a Bible scholar. Nor do I read commentaries. As I said, I am sure they are available, if you need such a guide. Of course the Bible is not a simple box of truths easily understood. Job wrestled with the issue of the justice of God’s actions. For me, it is an original document on the subject.
I am not sure what you would find compelling or authoritive.
All I said earlier is that Job, the man, asked why God was so mean. I suggested that a person interested should study Job, the book. I said that in Job may be found answers to human suffering, and I said that Job, the man, had credibility.
I will end with Job’s last words in the book (from the NEB, but other translations are adequate): “What reply can I give thee, I who carry no weight? I put my finger to my lips. I have spoken once and now will not answer again: Twice I have spoken, and I will do so no more.”
Next Job said, “I know that thou canst do all things and that no purpose is beyond thee. But I have spoken of great things which I have not understood, things too wonderful for me to know. I knew of thee then only by report but now I see thee with my own eyes. Therefore I melt away; I repent in dust and ashes.”
My commentary, for what’s its worth: In all his ranting and passionate, angry questioning, Job did not curse God, and in the end God commended Job.
If you require an explanation, I will have to charge extra.
[That's a joke borrowed from Mark Twain.]
Comment by: