God on both sides
Wonderful article published in the New York Times
The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too
By NEELA BANERJEE
In any given week, if you walked into one of Washington's big corporate hotels early in the morning, you would find a community of the faithful, quite often conservative Christians, rallying the troops, offering solace and denouncing the opposition at a prayer breakfast.
So you might be forgiven for thinking that such a group was in attendance on Friday in a ballroom of the Washington Hilton. People wearing clerical collars and small crucifixes were wedged at tables laden with muffins, bowing their heads in prayer. Seminarians were welcomed. Scripture was cited. But the name of the sponsor cast everything in a new light: the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
To its critics, Planned Parenthood is the godless super-merchant of abortion. To its supporters, it is the dependably secular defender of abortion rights. But at this breakfast, God was everywhere, easily invoked by believers of various stripes.
''We are here this morning because, through our collective efforts, we are agents in bringing our fragile world ever closer to the promise of redemption,'' Rabbi Dennis S. Ross, director of Concerned Clergy for Choice, told the audience. ''As clergy from an array of denominations, we say yes to the call before us. Please join me in prayer: We praise you, God, ruler of time and space, for challenging us to bring healing and comfort to your world.''
''Amen,'' the audience responded.
The Interfaith Prayer Breakfast has been part of Planned Parenthood's annual convention for four years. Most ministers and rabbis at the breakfast have known the group far longer.
Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, drew clergy members in the early 20th century by relating the suffering of women who endured successive pregnancies that ravaged their health and sought illegal abortions in their desperation, said the Rev. Thomas R. Davis of the United Church of Christ, in his book ''Sacred Work, Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances.''
In the 1930's, Jewish and mainline Protestant groups began to voice their support for birth control. In 1962, a Maryland clergy coalition successfully pressed the state to permit the disbursal of contraception. In the late 1960's, some 2,000 ministers and rabbis across the country banded together to give women information about abortion providers and to lobby for the repeal of anti-abortion laws.
''The clergy could open that door because the clergy had a certain moral authority,'' said Mr. Davis, who is chairman of Planned Parenthood's clergy advisory board but whose book is not sponsored by the group. ''They balanced the moral authority of the critics.''
As the scrape of silverware quieted at the breakfast, the Rev. W. Stewart MacColl told the audience how a Presbyterian church in Houston that he had led and several others had worked with Planned Parenthood to start a family planning center. Protesters visited his church. Yet his 900 parishioners drove through picket lines every week to attend services. One Sunday, he and his wife, Jane, took refreshments to the protesters out of respect for their understanding of faith, he said.
Mr. MacColl said a parishioner called him the next day to comment: ''That's all very well for you to say, but you don't drive to church with a 4-year-old in the back seat of your car and have to try to explain to him when a woman holds up a picture of a dead baby and screams through the window, 'Your church believes in killing babies.' ''
Mr. MacColl said of the abortion protester: ''She would, I suspect, count herself a lover of life, a lover of the unborn, a lover of God. And yet she spoke in harshness, hatred and frightened a little child.''
Mr. MacColl quoted the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: '' 'Sometimes the worst evil is done by good people who do not know that they are not good.' ''
The crowd murmured its assent.
Then Mr. MacColl challenged them. ''The trouble is, I find myself reflected in that woman,'' he said. ''Because I can get trapped in self-righteousness and paint those who oppose me in dark colors they do not deserve. Is that, at times, true of you, as well?''
This time, people were silent.
It is not lost on Mr. Davis how the passion of the Christian right in its effort to abolish abortion and curtail access to birth control now mirrors the efforts of clergy members 40 years ago to do the opposite.
''They're a religious tradition, too, and they are moved by Scripture,'' he said, although the Bible says nothing explicit about abortion. ''When we understood the suffering in these kinds of situations that women were in, we understood that for reasons of justice, we had to act. We're doing it for theological and Biblical reasons.''
A perception may exist that the denominations supporting abortion rights are outnumbered and out-shouted by their more conservative brethren. But that worried Mr. Davis little, he said, for he and other like-minded clergy members were in the minority in the 1960's, too.
Still, some clergy members could barely contain their outrage. ''The more we are able to cultivate the capacity in every person -- women and men -- to make informed ethical judgments both in ourselves and our society, the more we are coming into relationship with the transcendent, with God,'' said the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary.
''Human existence as a materialistic quest for power and dominance, a crass manipulation of fear and intolerance for political gain, drives us apart both from one another and from God,'' she said. ''For what does it profit you to gain the whole world and lose your soul?''
The Abortion-Rights Side Invokes God, Too
By NEELA BANERJEE
In any given week, if you walked into one of Washington's big corporate hotels early in the morning, you would find a community of the faithful, quite often conservative Christians, rallying the troops, offering solace and denouncing the opposition at a prayer breakfast.
So you might be forgiven for thinking that such a group was in attendance on Friday in a ballroom of the Washington Hilton. People wearing clerical collars and small crucifixes were wedged at tables laden with muffins, bowing their heads in prayer. Seminarians were welcomed. Scripture was cited. But the name of the sponsor cast everything in a new light: the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
To its critics, Planned Parenthood is the godless super-merchant of abortion. To its supporters, it is the dependably secular defender of abortion rights. But at this breakfast, God was everywhere, easily invoked by believers of various stripes.
''We are here this morning because, through our collective efforts, we are agents in bringing our fragile world ever closer to the promise of redemption,'' Rabbi Dennis S. Ross, director of Concerned Clergy for Choice, told the audience. ''As clergy from an array of denominations, we say yes to the call before us. Please join me in prayer: We praise you, God, ruler of time and space, for challenging us to bring healing and comfort to your world.''
''Amen,'' the audience responded.
The Interfaith Prayer Breakfast has been part of Planned Parenthood's annual convention for four years. Most ministers and rabbis at the breakfast have known the group far longer.
Margaret Sanger, founder of the organization that became Planned Parenthood, drew clergy members in the early 20th century by relating the suffering of women who endured successive pregnancies that ravaged their health and sought illegal abortions in their desperation, said the Rev. Thomas R. Davis of the United Church of Christ, in his book ''Sacred Work, Planned Parenthood and Its Clergy Alliances.''
In the 1930's, Jewish and mainline Protestant groups began to voice their support for birth control. In 1962, a Maryland clergy coalition successfully pressed the state to permit the disbursal of contraception. In the late 1960's, some 2,000 ministers and rabbis across the country banded together to give women information about abortion providers and to lobby for the repeal of anti-abortion laws.
''The clergy could open that door because the clergy had a certain moral authority,'' said Mr. Davis, who is chairman of Planned Parenthood's clergy advisory board but whose book is not sponsored by the group. ''They balanced the moral authority of the critics.''
As the scrape of silverware quieted at the breakfast, the Rev. W. Stewart MacColl told the audience how a Presbyterian church in Houston that he had led and several others had worked with Planned Parenthood to start a family planning center. Protesters visited his church. Yet his 900 parishioners drove through picket lines every week to attend services. One Sunday, he and his wife, Jane, took refreshments to the protesters out of respect for their understanding of faith, he said.
Mr. MacColl said a parishioner called him the next day to comment: ''That's all very well for you to say, but you don't drive to church with a 4-year-old in the back seat of your car and have to try to explain to him when a woman holds up a picture of a dead baby and screams through the window, 'Your church believes in killing babies.' ''
Mr. MacColl said of the abortion protester: ''She would, I suspect, count herself a lover of life, a lover of the unborn, a lover of God. And yet she spoke in harshness, hatred and frightened a little child.''
Mr. MacColl quoted the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr: '' 'Sometimes the worst evil is done by good people who do not know that they are not good.' ''
The crowd murmured its assent.
Then Mr. MacColl challenged them. ''The trouble is, I find myself reflected in that woman,'' he said. ''Because I can get trapped in self-righteousness and paint those who oppose me in dark colors they do not deserve. Is that, at times, true of you, as well?''
This time, people were silent.
It is not lost on Mr. Davis how the passion of the Christian right in its effort to abolish abortion and curtail access to birth control now mirrors the efforts of clergy members 40 years ago to do the opposite.
''They're a religious tradition, too, and they are moved by Scripture,'' he said, although the Bible says nothing explicit about abortion. ''When we understood the suffering in these kinds of situations that women were in, we understood that for reasons of justice, we had to act. We're doing it for theological and Biblical reasons.''
A perception may exist that the denominations supporting abortion rights are outnumbered and out-shouted by their more conservative brethren. But that worried Mr. Davis little, he said, for he and other like-minded clergy members were in the minority in the 1960's, too.
Still, some clergy members could barely contain their outrage. ''The more we are able to cultivate the capacity in every person -- women and men -- to make informed ethical judgments both in ourselves and our society, the more we are coming into relationship with the transcendent, with God,'' said the Rev. Susan Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary.
''Human existence as a materialistic quest for power and dominance, a crass manipulation of fear and intolerance for political gain, drives us apart both from one another and from God,'' she said. ''For what does it profit you to gain the whole world and lose your soul?''
posted by Nicholas at 5:01 PM
9 Comments:
Hi Nick,
Kate has been riding home with a friend, so I haven't been at the studio much. Hope you are doing well. We're really looking forward to seeing you at the Spring concert. Please don't drop Kate :-)
MacColl's comments are interesting: "And yet she spoke in harshness, hatred and frightened a little child. . . . Sometimes the worst evil is done by good people who do not know that they are not good."
Apparently this pastor finds frightening a child worse than killing her. And he considers the protestor's behavior to be the worst evil. Hmmmm. (I don't support the protestor's tactics, but I hardly consider them as evil as abortion). Jesus warned us of false teachers, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that PP could round some up.
Re. Margaret Sanger - the article forgot to mention her love of eugenics and her other ties with pastors - i.e., the black pastors she manipulated into encouraging their parishoners to be sterilized. Ask Karrie Kinchen about Sanger sometime. You'll get an earful :-)
Neil,
Pardon my harshness because I don't know you, but you're argument is flawed in many ways.
First of all, your attacks on Margaret Sanger lead me to believe that you are actually against birth control. I would think any opponent of abortion would be the staunchest birth control advocate there is -- because with girls and women adequately educated in planning pregnancies, you can eliminate all but a very few unwanted pregnancies (such as those caused by rape or those intended pregancies which present serious health complications to the pregnant women). Therefore, I you'd think the first step in eliminating abortions would be to give women the freedom to choose whether they get pregnant in the first place. I think you'd find many more cases of desperate back-alley abortions in the 1700s and 1800s before adequate birth control than you do today.
Secondly, it hardly makes sense to attack the "messenger" by attacking Ms. Sanger (who was misdirected in number of issues) rather than the actual issue. Its like me attacking the Catholic Church for its silence during the Holocaust or its tolerance of abusive priests when I think that they have no right to be "holier-than-thou" about abortion. Stick to the issues.
Third, I think the religious "right" are actually quite "wrong" lately. They are forgetting the Christian message of tolerance and love, and instead choose to condemn rhose that are already in a terrible place in their life (no one is happy about having to get an abortion!) There is no way I'm ever going to convince you that a collection of cells inside a women's body is not a child with a soul. Or that abortion is an easy decision. But in the meantime, let women have autonomy over their own bodies - I refer you to the famous "violin player" analogy of why one human being should not be forced to risk their lives, happiness or sanity to provide life support to another human being: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html
Neil,
I appreciate your comments - however to suggest that this issue is black and white is to completely miss the point.
Whether or not a fetus equals a child is an unnecessary argument - baring unforeseen circumstances, it would become a child. But let's not pretend that you are against the idea of sacrifice for the greater good. In the same way that your party supports the killing of 30,000 Iraqi civilians in the hopes of a democratic society, I support the killing of a fetus to ensure it's living mother has full control over her body.
I always enjoy your comments - I hope you and Becca continue to contribute to my blog.
To be fair, Nick, if we just consider the religious arguments rather than the political arguments, the Catholic Church vocally opposed U.S. action in Iraq from the outset. Of course, the Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, yet many Catholics still ally themselves with President Bush who oversaw more executions than any governor in history during his term in Texas.
I'm not going to address the views of the so-called "fundamentalist" Christians, because I think they are pretty screwed up and easily manipulated by television preachers and less thought out world views because of their unbending (and unthinking) decision to take the Bible literally word-for-word, but only really focus on the sections that Dobson or Robertson tells them are important and ignore the frequent contridictions and anachronisms that are obvious to most readers.
Oops - sorry if this gets posted twice.
Nick, aren't you glad you switched from the cereal eating topic to something less controversial?
"your attacks on Margaret Sanger lead me to believe that you are actually against birth control."
Since by your own words you don't know me, it might be fair not to assume you know all my beliefs. I have no problem with birth control. I do think people should know which birth controls act as abortifacients. Some users may not care, but others do care and don't realize how their birth control actually works. More education is better in my view.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the famous - and flawed - violin player analogy. You might want to read this - http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689.
Please don't stereotype pro-lifers so much. We are not all the same. I understand the love concept. The question is, how do you show love to women in crisis pregnancies? I volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center (more info here http://www.4simpsons.com/Pro%20Life.htm). I have a standing offer to Nick if he ever wants a tour. You are welcome to come as well. The center doesn't condemn anyone. Everything is free - pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, diapers, formula, life skills training classes, etc. We even offer post-abortion trauma counseling for those who need it.
I have met many women who deeply regret their abortions. Roughly half of the time they were pressured to have them by boyfriends (who usually left anyway) and/or parents. What do you tell someone who changes their mind after they have an abortion? Which way shows the most love - encouraging them to have an abortion or standing beside them in their time of need?
"There is no way I'm ever going to convince you that a collection of cells inside a women's body is not a child with a soul."
When a sperm and an egg unite, a living human being is created with unique DNA, 46 chromosomes, etc. That is basic biology.
If you want to play the numbers game, consider that in the next 10 days more humans will be crushed and dismembered in their mother's wombs in the U.S. than the total Iraqis killed. And more humans will die by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning in the U.S. than the total number of executions since 1976.
"I support the killing of a fetus to ensure it's living mother has full control over her body."
I appreciate the honesty and that you don't gloss over the fact that a killing is taking place. But wow, what a statement.
"Whether or not a fetus equals a child is an unnecessary argument - baring unforeseen circumstances, it would become a child"
The key issue is whether the unborn are human. And they most certainly are. A fetus becomes a baby, then a toddler, then a child, then an adolescent, etc. The worth is the same for each. Location (i.e., in the womb, in another room, wherever) doesn't change the value.
What if a toddler is getting in the way of a woman's happiness? Can we kill her? Of course not. So the only question is whether the unborn is human.
P.S. Doesn't love extend to the unborn? Aren't they our neighbors? Be sure not to tell anyone who had a miscarriage that they didn't lose a human life.
P.S.S. Re. the comments on the Bible - I don't watch TV preachers. They are mostly false teachers. I have read all the Bible many times and would be interested in the frequent contradictions you mentioned. I examined countless Bible difficulties before I came to faith and am now quite confident that the original writings were indeed inerrant and fully inspired by God. I'll save you a few electrons by pointing out that I know you disagree.
Neil,
Interesting talking to you. I'm sure your "Pregnancy Crisis Center" is above reproach. However, I have heard many reports from women who have visited these centers of unpleasant experiences. Women show up uncertain about their options, and many end up barracaded in and discouraged to leave unless they swear that they are going to carry the pregnancy to term. They are shown disturbing images and sometimes further traumatized beyond belief from what they are being told. Many are judged for having sex without marriage or intention of having a child. Some are even followed home and harassed after their departure just in case they do decide abortion is the right solution for them.
And then you wonder why women have problems after abortions? Its because what is already a trying time is made worse by scary protesters and critical, judgemental religious types. If groups of people showed you pictures of dismembered cows and meat packaging factories and yelled profanity at you everytime you ate a hamburger, eating a hamburger would probably tramautize you too.
I wonder if you've ever really visited a Planned Parenthood. A woman with an unplanned pregancy doesn't just walk in and get told by the powers-to-be that she must abort. They also have a full line of both birth control and pregnancy support and education services. Many women get all their ob-gyn care at Planned Parenthood because it is one of the most affordable places for the uninsured. If a woman goes into a Planned Parenthood and expresses uncertainty about her options, they provide information about all sorts of alternatives - adoption, social assistance if they decide to keep the baby.
The difference is, Planned Parenthood respects a woman's autonomy over her own body and allows her to make her own decision. No, of course, I don't think killing a toddler is correct. But of course, a toddler isn't carried around 24-7 inside its mother's stomach. It doesn't cause serious health problems (including the risk of death -- mortality rate is far higher for carrying a pregnancy to term than it is for having an abortion). If an adult doesn't want to raise a toddler, at most they will be held financially accountable and can turn over the rest of the care to either the state through adoption or to other caretakers. A pregnant woman doesn't have that kind of option. If you could extract a fetus and put it somewhere else, I'm sure many women would choose that over an outright abortion. But an unplanned pregnancy shouldn't force a woman's body to be hijacked by the state or religious interests in keeping the fetus alive.
That sounds like the opposite of the CareNet network and every other center I am aware of. If you have examples of specific clinics, I would be interested in the data so I could follow up on them.
Data like this, for example, with recorded phone calls of Planned Parenthood volunteers who try to cover up statutory rapes:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47193
"mortality rate is far higher for carrying a pregnancy to term than it is for having an abortion"
The statistics are notoriously suspect here. Abortion related issues are typically covered up or coded as pregnancy related, giving a double whammy to the pregnancy stats. And it ignores the documented breast cancer, depression, suicide, etc. links to abortion.
"And then you wonder why women have problems after abortions? Its because what is already a trying time is made worse by scary protesters and critical, judgemental religious types."
I suppose that is possible. But I have read countless stories of women tormented by their abortions and have yet to have someone blame pictures. Besides, if this is a moral act, why would a photo of it be an issue? BTW, CareNet does NOT show pictures of abortions. Ever read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky? The theme was that no matter how you rationalize murder, it is still murder and you will feel terribly guilty. So demonize the religious types all you like, but women will still suffer.
"But of course, a toddler isn't carried around 24-7 inside its mother's stomach."
I didn't realize that was a capital offense.
"But an unplanned pregnancy shouldn't force a woman's body to be hijacked by the state or religious interests in keeping the fetus alive."
Unless you are talking about rape, incest or the woman's life being at risk (which leaves about 97% of the abortions), no one hijacked anyone. The woman had consensual sex.
"they provide information about all sorts of alternatives - adoption, social assistance if they decide to keep the baby."
I am quite familiar with how few adoption referrals PP makes and how little they do for anyone who keeps a baby.
Then there are the defective PP condoms - http://www.lifenews.com/nat1085.html
A few things, since I think we've beaten this blog entry to death:
On the link of abortion and cancer, I know what the "life" propaganda machine says, but since neither you nor I are oncologists, I think we should probably go with what the experts at the American Cancer Association say (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp) that there is no evidence for a causal link between having an abortion and getting breast cancer. Again, the numbers on the greater health risks of pregnancy over abortion are published by scientists and doctors in peer reviewed journals, you can choose to disbelieve them if you'd like, but being not an expert in those fields, I think the only leg you can stand on to discredit them is ideological and not scientific.
As for adoption referrals, I have worked at a two Planned Parenthood clinics in my lifetime, and both had more literature and information about adoption and birth control than they did about abortion (of course, neither clinic actually provided abortion services, actually only a small percentages of Planned Parenthoods have the facilities for that). I'd like to see more documentation about "faulty condemns", I can't imagine given the goals and purposes of Planned Parenthood (which is to give every person the autonomy to choose when and if they have a child) that they would knowingly pass out faulty birth control.
When a man has consentual sex, his body doesn't become the property of the state or someone else's religion for the duration of a pregnancy, he can have any medical procedure he wants -- a cist removed, a nose job, a vasectomy. Yet, for 9 months, a woman should be forced to put her life and mental and physical health at risk?
"Besides, if this is a moral act, why would a photo of it be an issue?"
Give me a break. If someone showed you a photo of having a cancerous tumor removed, you would be revolted too. With the right camera angles and associated propaganda, you could probably make a person feel guilty for having the cancer removed too (you are interfering with Gods plan for your body! You are engaging in self-mutilation!) It doesn't mean those operations are immoral. I also don't believe that you can see abortion as a black-and-white moral-immoral act like that. There are times when it could be immoral -- like a boyfriend forcing it to happen (which should never occur! and ethical doctors and clinics usually council patients in private to make sure the decision is their own), and times when it is the most moral decision imaginable (like to save the life of the pregnant woman).
I'm glad to hear CareNet where you work doesn't show pictures or engage in deception. But, many places that advertise as pregnancy crisis centers do (this story contains some info on real cases that have been taken to court, sorry its probably from a source you don't approve of: http://www.ppfa.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/newspoliticsactivism/fean-041118-crisis.xml). I would ask how many trained doctors, nurses, and certified social workers or psychologists your center has on staff? Is it more or less than your local Planned Parenthood? This is why I support legislation to require truth-in-advertising for "Pregnancy Crisis Centers", they should have to admit that they will not tolerate abortions and some forms of birth control to women who might seek their assistance. Some of the centers (there was one in Florida where I lived) even made their signposting deceptive so that they would look like a Planned Parenthood, tricking women who entered! And if you use accurate advertising and provide your services honestly, I have no problem with it. I think its good work to have a place for women who choose to carry their pregnancy to term to go where they can get support and assistance with their needs.
That is awful that any clinics used deception. I hope they shut down and get replaced by well run centers. I trust in God's providence that we don't have to use "the ends justify the means" approaches.
Here's the Consumer Reports condom study - http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/health-care/condoms-and-contraception-205/ratings.htm
Consumer Reports ought to be one reference we can both count to be reliable :-). They run a little to the left but are about as unbiased a publication as I have found. There seems to be one of two options to account for this debacle: 1) It was a diabolical scheme by PP to increase unwanted pregnancies and abortions or 2) It was gross incompetence by the supposed birth control experts. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was option 2. Hopefully people were held accountable there.
And I hope there was accountability for this little jewel where Planned Parenthood fantasized about blowing up pro-choicers - http://www.dawneden.com/2005/08/planned-parenthood-fantasizes-about.html Hmmm . . . I wonder why the mainstream media never picked up on this story ;-)
I wonder what your take is on "Roe v. Wade for men." I think it is reprehensible for men to avoid their responsibility, but given our society's fixation on choice and avoiding consequences, can we be surprised?
http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe
No, I'm not an oncologist, but I am well aware that politics can impact what otherwise reliable organizations report. The APA is a good example. For the record, CareNet is careful to tell every client that the abortion/breast cancer link studies are split about 50/50. Of course we could both reference our preferred studies. This is one case where I really hope I'm wrong. We'll know for sure in another 10-20 years.
Thanks for your insights. I'm finished on this topic; the last word is yours if you want it.
Post a Comment
<< Home