[talk.abortion] Feminism and Abortion

stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) (09/23/86)

The October issue of Sojourners featured an article on abortion by feminist
Ginny Soley.  In the article she shows how the rights of women and unborn
children must be addressed together, rather than separately.  Following are
a few quotes from the article.

"In order to deal with abortion, we must deal with the reality of the
oppression of women as a class of people within a particular culture.  From
that perspective the question of abortion really becomes a question of
justice.  What does it mean to do justice?  What does it mean to bring forth
justice for women and their children?"

....


"The particular and unique contribution of Christian feminism is to question
two assumptions.  The first assumption it questions is that the individual's
self-interest is, in fact, the highest value.  The second assumption it
questions is the vision of justice that pits a woman's rights against a child's
right to life, that forces us to see only one victim over and against another
victim.

"What we need is to find a way that is good for both mother and child.  In the
Christian worldview, the highest value extends beyond individual self-interest
to what is good for the whole of the community.  The responsibility for
anything we do also extends beyond the individual to the whole of the
community."


Randy Stimpson

cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/26/86)

In article <1604@vax1.fluke.UUCP> stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) writes:
>
>
>The October issue of Sojourners featured an article on abortion by feminist
>Ginny Soley.  In the article she shows how the rights of women and unborn
>children must be addressed together, rather than separately.  Following are
>a few quotes from the article.
...
>
>"What we need is to find a way that is good for both mother and child.  In the
>Christian worldview, the highest value extends beyond individual self-interest
>to what is good for the whole of the community.  The responsibility for
>anything we do also extends beyond the individual to the whole of the
>community."
>

Unfortunately, she apparently says nothing about the nature of her 
proposed solution.  

These statements could be an intro to a demand for widespread high-level 
welfare for all pregnant women such that any woman can raise a child in 
the manner to which they would like to become accustomed; or it could be 
an intro to a demand that all women be raised in a more "Christian" manner --
that books be banned, that marriages happen early, and that women subordinate
themselves to those who provide for them. 

Could this noncommittal stance of hers be intentionally ambiguous, such
that it offends neither feminists nor moral majority types, since each can
read into the article what they would like?

Randy, if there is more substantive material in this article, please
quote that, too.

Cheryl

devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/26/86)

In article <> stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) writes:
>
>The October issue of Sojourners featured an article on abortion by feminist
>Ginny Soley.  In the article she shows how the rights of women and unborn
>children must be addressed together, rather than separately.  Following are
>a few quotes from the article.
>
>....
>
>"The particular and unique contribution of Christian feminism is to question
>two assumptions.  The first assumption it questions is that the individual's
>self-interest is, in fact, the highest value.  The second assumption it
>questions is the vision of justice that pits a woman's rights against a child's
>right to life, that forces us to see only one victim over and against another
>victim.
>
>"What we need is to find a way that is good for both mother and child.  In the
>Christian worldview, the highest value extends beyond individual self-interest
>to what is good for the whole of the community.  The responsibility for
>anything we do also extends beyond the individual to the whole of the
>community."
>
>
>Randy Stimpson

Randy,

Exactly how is this statement a "unique contribution" of Christian
feminism?  Churches faithful to be Bible have always taught that love for
neighbor is a central tenent of the Christian faith.  It doesn't matter
whether that neighbor is a pregnant teenager in need of a place to stay because
her parents have tossed her out of the house, or an unborn child who is
about to be scraped from the womb for the sake of convenience.

The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights.  We should
all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
sake of another.

--
Tom Albrecht
"Reformata, semper reformanda"

pmd@cbdkc1.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/26/86)

Thanks for posting the quotes, Randy.  I can tell you that you'll
probably get some nasty letters (from a few men, probably) for posting
an article that challenges the pro-choice feminist line on abortion,
even though this subject is as much about feminism as abortion.  I got
this reaction when I posted an article describing the book _Pro-Life
Feminism: Different Voices_  (Gail Grenier Sweet, ed.).  No, I haven't
learned my lesson, guys. :-)  I still think people ought to know that
you can be against abortion *on demand* and be for women's rights.
I think there are some good arguments (those who have read my stuff
in net.abortion a couple of months ago have seen some of them) to the
effect that legalized abortion on demand may have done more harm than 
good for women.  

The concern for a consistent appeal for justice in our society is
forging a pro-life consensus on human rights issues like abortion,
poverty, discrimination, and the arms race.  The newly formed
Political Action Committee "JustLife", which I described a while back
is just one expression of this.  I hope this consensus grows enough
to leave out in the cold those who insist on clinging to the inconsistent
extremes on these issues.  (I have about 7 information packets
on JustLife that I would be glad to send to the first 7 people who will
mail me their postal address.  To the rest I'll send JustLife's address.
I don't have that handy to post right now.)
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbdkc1!pmd

raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (09/29/86)

>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights.  We should
>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>sake of another.
>
>Tom Albrecht
>"Reformata, semper reformanda"

Why?

raghu

terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/30/86)

raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) says:
>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights.  We should
>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>>sake of another.
>>
>>Tom Albrecht
>>"Reformata, semper reformanda"
>
>Why?
>
>raghu

Someday when *you* need help and everyone else is asking ``Why?''
maybe you'll know.




-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          
without a                                              Terry Grevstad
 ECNALG                                  Network Research Corporation
                                                   ihnp4!nrcvax!terry
                         {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry
                    
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (09/30/86)

In article <5833@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights.  We should
>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>>sake of another.
>>
>>Tom Albrecht
>>"Reformata, semper reformanda"
>
>Why?
>
>raghu

When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life.  The biggest
change is that God becomes the center of the person's life rather than self
being the center.  As the relationship between God and man continues, man 
becomes transformed into the image of God.  God himself is love.  After Christ's
life on earth, Christians are giving just *one* new commandment as shown in
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even
as I have loved you."  This commandment lives in our heart's and is powered
by God himself.  We see many examples of this attitude that was shown in the
life of Christ and documented in the Bible.  One such example is the role of
Christ as a servant where he is shown washing the feet of his disciples. 
He shows us that we should put the needs of others before our own.  Jesus
himself said that "there is no greater love than this that a man would lay down
his life for a friend."  As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life.  Now imagine
the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
best for others.  If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.

Kiki

smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) (10/01/86)

In article <> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>In article <> raghu@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
>>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...]
>>>
>>>Tom Albrecht
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>raghu
>
>[...more xtian propaganda saying the same thing...]
>
>Kiki

This is called begging the question.  You assume that for some reason there
is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and
then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this."

There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they
also have nothing to do with one or another religion.  There is the pragmatic
reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if
they are worth something.  There is the internal reason that quite often it
simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others.  If you don't want
to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
expect people to care to associate with you.

I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong)
because "the Bible says so."
                                \scott
-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller                         lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev
City of Turlock                             work:  (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628
901 South Walnut Avenue                     home:  (209) 527-1203
Turlock, CA 95380                           <Insert pithy saying here...>

rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/01/86)

In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life.  Now imagine
>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
>best for others.  If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>
>Kiki

The intention is a nice one, but  the  idea  frightens  me.  My  first
question,  of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me?  If
I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by  it.
If  you  are  to  decide, then I am to be bound by something that will
very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort.

Be careful with this  idea.  It  can  be  easily  used  to  justify  a
lifestyle  akin to that depicted in "1984".  I think what has a better
outcome is to live and let live.  Its like I tell my kids, "Don't  you
worry  what  she's  doing,  you take care of yourself and let her take
care of herself."
-- 
					Robert A. Pease
    {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap

devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (10/02/86)

rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes:
>In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
>>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life.  Now imagine
>>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
>>best for others.  If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
>>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>>
>>Kiki
>
>The intention is a nice one, but  the  idea  frightens  me.  My  first
>question,  of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me?  If
>I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by  it.
>If  you  are  to  decide, then I am to be bound by something that will
>very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort.
>

I guarantee that if you were the unfortunate individual helped by the Good
Samaritan you wouldn't question whether his helping you was in your best
interest.

>Be careful with this  idea.  It  can  be  easily  used  to  justify  a
>lifestyle  akin to that depicted in "1984".  I think what has a better
>outcome is to live and let live.  Its like I tell my kids, "Don't  you
>worry  what  she's  doing,  you take care of yourself and let her take
>care of herself."
>-- 
>					Robert A. Pease

I hope you never run into trouble and the only people who come by have the
same attitude as you.   As a matter of fact, I hope *I* never run into trouble 
and the only people who come by have the same attitude as you.

--
Tom Albrecht

kiki@isieng.UUCP (10/02/86)

In article <50@oliveb.UUCP> rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes:
>In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
>>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life.  Now imagine
>>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
>>best for others.  If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
>>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>>
>>Kiki
>
>The intention is a nice one, but  the  idea  frightens  me.  My  first
>question,  of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me?  If
>I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by  it.
>If  you  are  to  decide, then I am to be bound by something that will
>very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort.
>
>Be careful with this  idea.  It  can  be  easily  used  to  justify  a
>lifestyle  akin to that depicted in "1984".  I think what has a better
>outcome is to live and let live.  Its like I tell my kids, "Don't  you
>worry  what  she's  doing,  you take care of yourself and let her take
>care of herself."
>-- 
>					Robert A. Pease

That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God
wants.  Every person can make his or her decisions based on many different
elements.  Take the extreme example of Hitler who slaughtered the Jews
because he thought he was doing the right thing.  Everybody else thought
he was doing the wrong thing!  People make decisions based on many different
factors.  But they are not always the right decisions.  One person's decision
on what is right may be completely different to what is really right.  Jesus
said that He is the Truth.  If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows
what is right.  If we base our decisions on His Truth, then the will not
fluctute with the whims of man.  This does not mean that we become a monotaneous
unthinking society, but that we put the Love of God as our primary goal and
react to people with that Love.

Kiki

larrabee@decwrl.UUCP (10/03/86)

The charter of net.women, now soc.women, specifically says that abortion
is *not* to be discussed.  It is to be left to net.abortion, now
talk.abortion, and not touched upon in this group.

I support this decree and I have been waiting for someone else to mention
this to the group at large.  What the hell, I may not be a net authority,
but I may be able to refresh some memories.  (See whatever
net.announce.newusers has become if you don't believe me).
--
Tracy Larrabee	tracy@sushi.stanford.edu	decwrl!larrabee

features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (10/03/86)

Please note that *any** posting on the topic of feminism and
abortion, or anything and abortion, belongs solely in talk.abortion.

Peripheral mention in talk.religion.misc might be appropriate,
but posting in soc.women is not.  Please make sure to change
the newsgroups line.
-- 

aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
		*It's never too late to have a happy childhood*

matt@oddjob.UUCP (10/05/86)

In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:

>  If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right.

And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp
out all other philosophies!  Just as in agriculture, we'd better
keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should
prove to have hidden weaknesses later on.

				Matt Crawford

			- if it GLISTENS, gobble it!!

kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (10/06/86)

In article <1513@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes:
>In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>
>>  If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right.
>
>And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp
>out all other philosophies!  Just as in agriculture, we'd better
>keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should
>prove to have hidden weaknesses later on.
>
>				Matt Crawford
>

Yeah, but if something is true, why worry about everything that's not true?
If there were a book on "Everything You Wanted to Know About Agriculture But
Were Afraid to Ask" and your prime concern as you said is agriculture.  Would
you read a book about car maintenance or opera?  Of course not, you won't
find a section on agriculture in either of those books.

Kiki

P.S.  One of my old work partners was named Matt Crawford.  Do we know
each other?  :-)

li@uw-vlsi.UUCP (10/14/86)

In article <1513@oddjob.UUCP> matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) writes:
>In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>
>>  If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right.
>
>And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp
>out all other philosophies!  Just as in agriculture, we'd better
>keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should
>prove to have hidden weaknesses later on.
>

That was what turned me away from Christianity for SOOOoooo long (better
than 21 of my years).  The concept that Christ and God would encourage
everyone to be the same, to smear all the varied and beautiful colors of
human endeavour and thought and faith into one runny mess really repulsed
me.  The thought that there would only be one truth, that could actually be
seen and interpreted by a failable human elected by failable humans, would
be the only truth for all humans was something that I could not accept.  Not
on faith nor on hope.  If I had accepted that as the basis of my faith it
would crumble to nothing.

Then one day, someone showed me Corinthians I, 12 and 13.  I'm going to take
lines out of them.

12.4-7 "There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit
gives them. There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is
served.  There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God
gives ability to everyone for their particular service.  The Spirit's
presense is shown in some way to each person for the good of all."

12.14-20
	"Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one
body, even though it is made up of different parts.  In the same way, all of
us, wheither Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized
into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one
Spirit to drink.
	For the body itself is no made up of only one part, but of many
parts.  If the foot were to say, "Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to
the body." that would not keep it frombeing a part of the body.  And if the
ear were to say, "Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body," that
would not keep it from being a part of the body.  If the whole body were
just an eye, how could it hear?  And if it were only an ear, how could it
smell?  As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as
he wanted it to be.  There would not be a body if it were all only one part!
As it is there are many parts but one body."

We are all needed.  I am a Christian, first a Catholic baptised and
confirmed as a child, then, repulsing the human element, failings and
bigotry of that section of that Church that I was involved with I declared
myself NOT a Christian.  Now, I am back.  Accepted as a part that is
different, yet still a PART of Christ's body.

13.8-10
	"Love is eternal.  There are inspired messages, but they are
temporary; there are gifts of speaking in strange tongues, but they will
cease, there is knowledge, but it will pass.  For our gifts of knowledge and
of inspired messages are only partial; but when what is perfect comes, then
what is partial will disappear."

The Bible is a series of "inspired messages", something that must be
interpreted to adapt to present day situations, otherwise it stagnates and
dies and is no longer relavent.  There is a Truth that is eternal, but I do
not really believe that any one person can perceive or interprete it, at
least I know that I cannot, you may be gifted enough to perceive the whole,
and able to judge all who might abort an innocent.

All I know is what I have seen.  And from that view I have seen what
unwanted children go through, from seeing the terrible emotional scars that
led to physical scars on one of my boyfriends, to hearing with horror the
death of a sister of a friend who was an unwed mother, to reading of the
terrible storys of child abuse from elementary school teachers.  Every
teacher of children that I have known has agreed with me on my view of
the issue of abortion.  And from what I have seen and experienced and been
told and felt, the terrible price of a childhood unwanted is not paid by
just the mother, it is also paid by the child, the father, the teachers of
the child, the social workers that have to deal with child abuse, all the
friends the child may have, and the lover that child may wish to love later.
No, I know, not all unwanted childhoods turn into these feast of horror, but
enough have that I am conviced that to make *all* abortions illegal is a Bad
Thing.

Mostly because anyone who can make the decision to go through the grief,
risk and clinical horror of an abortion in order to get rid of a child, will
NOT make a good mother at that time.

I cannot condone abortion as a method of contraception, nor can I condone
abortions after the first trimester.  But I also cannot condemn all
abortions as a crime against an innocent, because a childhood unwanted is a
penalty no innocent should have to pay just to exist.  I, personally, will
never and have never had an abortion, I love kids too much to even think of
it.  However, and this is also a personal view, I cannot think that He who
loved children so much could actively condone and help those that which
could make their lives a living hell.

Liralen Li
-- 
"A closed mouth gathers no foot."

USENET:  ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li
ARPA:    li@vlsi.cs.washington.arpa