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
janem@ihlpa.UUCP (Mack) (09/27/86)
> In Article <1104@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl writes: > ... > that it offends neither feminists nor moral majority types, since each can > ... A common misconception: one who believes abortion is wrong == moral majority type I've been assaulted by this view time and time again, probably because I do believe that abortion is wrong and I do not support the "moral majority." I'm not interested in another discussion about abortion. I am interested in learning if others have run into this kind of stereotyping. jane.
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (09/28/86)
In article <1930@ihlpa.UUCP> janem@ihlpa.UUCP (Mack) writes: >A common misconception: > one who believes abortion is wrong == moral majority type > >I've been assaulted by this view time and time again, probably because I >do believe that abortion is wrong and I do not support the "moral majority." Gee, Jane. It seems that your cause suffers somewhat because of certain actions by others who also support your cause. How awful that must be! I hope you are careful not to fall under the sway of corresponding misconceptions about other causes and groups. Matt Crawford Am I elected yet?
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) (09/29/86)
In article <1930@ihlpa.UUCP> janem@ihlpa.UUCP (Mack) writes: >> In Article <1104@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>, cheryl writes: >> ... >> that it offends neither feminists nor moral majority types, since each can >> ... > >A common misconception: > one who believes abortion is wrong == moral majority type > >I've been assaulted by this view time and time again, probably because I >do believe that abortion is wrong and I do not support the "moral majority." > >I'm not interested in another discussion about abortion. >I am interested in learning if others have run into this kind of stereotyping. > >jane. Well, to be perfectly honest, I have wondered for some time now just exactly what is meant by the term "Moral Majority". Does this term imply an "Immoral Minority"? Is someone (???) suggesting that there is a majority of people in this country that agree upon a moral doctrine? Certainly, that is an absurdity. We can't even get a majority of people to vote for a president. I could see where, perhaps, there are some moral attitudes that a majority of people agree with. As for your question jane, yes, I have. -- Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * } There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky. { * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
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
debray@megaron.UUCP (10/04/86)
Kiki: > 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. Give me a rational argument for why, given any situation, there should necessarily be some unique course of action which is "_really_ right" (appeals to authority -- "the Ayatollah says so" -- don't count). What does "right" mean, anyway? > Jesus said that He is the Truth. If Jesus is God (like he said) than [sic] > He knows what is right. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmm ... and if he isn't? (How did it go in Carrol's "The Hunting of the Snark"? "I've said it once, I've said it twice, I've said it thrice, so it _must_ be true!") --- Saumya Debray University of Arizona, Tucson debray@arizona.edu {allegra, cmcl2, ihnp4, ucbvax}!arizona!debray
zonker@ihlpf.UUCP (Tom Harris) (10/06/86)
> 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! ^^^^Not true, don't believe everything you read in a history book. > 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. What is really right? Jesus, if so then how come so many people enjoy killing in his name? > Jesus > said that He is the Truth. If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows > what is right. That's not necessarily true. He may defines what is right, but Joe God down the street may have a different and more relavant definition. > If we base our decisions on His Truth, then the will not > fluctute with the whims of man. So Hitler was right in thowing people into ovens? (Assuming he base his descision on His Truth, which I'm sure he thought he had). >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, The real problem with what you said is that Hitler felt he was basing his decisions on Jesus' truth (he was after all taking revenge on the people who murdered Jesus, wasn't he? <<This is retorical don't so bother to give it a serious answer>>). The problem is that Jesus' truth is by no means clear, concise or relavant to a given situation. Hitler did not make his decsions in a vacum, he had a country to help him and support him (a Xtian country no less). It was Christains like yourself that fed people into the fires in the Third Reich'ns concentration camps. Until the start of WW II very few people thought that what Hitler was doing was wrong. (Note: that the concept of the camps as a center for genocide didn't really begin in ernest until late 1942 when the Nazi's were losing the war and cost of supporting the camps was becoming a burden to the war effort. The original idea was to ship the inmates out of Germany into some conquered area as a slave race.) My real question to you is who in a secular sense makes the bottom line decision as to what Jesus intends? If it is the individual then you have placed yourself in a position where you could have to support what Hitler did to the Jews as Jesus' truth (Ditto for any other loony who does things in the name of your God). If it is a government then you could still end up supporting (like the citizen of Nazi Germany) some horrible abomination as Jesus' truth. Besides goverments soon learn that God is an unnecessary concept. If it is Jesus then where the hell was he in 1942-5? (What was so important he let 30 million people die? BTW 30,000,000 is a rough estimate of the number of people killed by Nazi Germany maybe 10,000,000 of that weren't Xtians.) Non Cuniculus Est, Tom H. HASA or HABSA or ASAP or whatever it is this week. H division.
rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) (10/09/86)
In article <313@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: In article <50@oliveb.UUCP> rap@olivej.UUCP (Robert A. Pease) writes: >In article <311@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: > >>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. First of all, no one really KNOWS what "God" wants. All we can do is point to something and say, "This indicates that God wants ta-da." If someone KNEW what "God" wanted then there would not be such a heated debate about "The TRUE Religion." >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! Hitler is not at issue here. What is at issue is using the idea that "I know what is right for you." Only I and my deity know what is best for me and only I and my deity should make that choice. Not you. Not Jerry F. Not Ronnie R. (BTW - Hitler was enforcing his idea of what was right on other people and that made him wrong.) >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. Maybe, but that person is the only one who can decide this. And that decision is based on the "many different factors" that are personal to that person and in that person's situation. >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. I'm having trouble with what you are saying (or meaning). It doesn't make sense to me. Then again, I'm beginning to get the idea that (at least in this sentence) you are referring to a limited range of decisions. I'm talking about any decision that a person [me] makes. That decision is between me and my deity and no one should try to interfere with my making that decision. The decision that I make will change as my conditions change. Example, new needs, new understanding of a situation, etc. >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 Sorry to say, but from your description above it does sound monotonous and even rigid. I really don't like the sound of it. Now, just as a closing remark to prevent any mis-apprehensions, at least in one place above I noticed that I sound rather forceful. Please interpet this as being emphatic not angry. And with that I bid you a fond, "So loong!" PS - Don't follow up to Kiki. It confuses my news reader something awful. -- Robert A. Pease {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
george@scirtp.UUCP (George Greene Jr.) (10/14/86)
I am sure that I am just as liberal as Robert Pease, but here he is taking moral relativism *entirely* too far. (This particular branch of the discussion also happens to belong in talk.politics and talk.religion rather than here.) Robert was (and I'm glad he was) trying to refute the following: > >That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God > >wants. So Robert said, > First of all, no one really KNOWS what "God" wants. All we can do is > point to something and say, "This indicates that God wants ta-da." If > someone KNEW what "God" wanted then there would not be such a heated > debate about "The TRUE Religion." This was fine and dandy. Then, his victim continued, > >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! Then Robert replied: > Hitler is not at issue here. What is at issue is using the idea that > "I know what is right for you." Only I and my deity know what is best > for me and only I and my deity should make that choice. Not you. Not > Jerry F. Not Ronnie R. (BTW - Hitler was enforcing his idea of what > was right on other people and that made him wrong.) > I hate to disappoint you, but enforcing your idea of what is right on other people is NOT usually wrong. Whether it is right or wrong depends on whether your idea of right or wrong is right or wrong. If you see a person committing a murder, and you know that you can easily prevent it, you are (usually) morally obligated to prevent it, even if he thinks that murder is good clean fun. Any morality worthy of the name will occasionally REQUIRE itself to be enforced upon the unwilling. About the only thing that can be said in favor of Robert's position is that these occasions are a hell of a lot rarer than the Ayatollah Robertson thinks they are. Nevertheless, when one arises, you had darn well better recognize it (South Africa should leap to mind unbidden here, as Dixie did in 1956-66). If you have a morality then you are usually morally obligated to enforce it through as wide a sphere as your power will permit. There are some cases where you can claim ignorance of how other people ought (morally) to behave, but in most cases that is just a cop-out. An obviously key component of any morality is some guidelines about legitimate use of force. A morality that cannot legitimize force in its own defense is usually untenable.