Sunday, January 29, 2012

Righteous Abortion: How Conservative Christianity Promotes What It Claims to Hate

Righteous Abortion: How Conservative Christianity Promotes What It Claims to Hate 
 http://new.exchristian.net/2012/01/righteous-abortion-how-conservative.html

I shared a link to this on Facebook and got comments from two people.

One of the paragraphs in the article stated that in The Netherlands abortion rates were 1/3 that of America per 1000 pregnancies because they "de-stigmatized sexual education, de-mythologized virginity, and invested in broad access to the most effective contraceptives available". One of the comments received pointed out the obvious (though of course the religious right won't see it as such): If we truly want to reduce abortions (which we can all agree is good, right?), then promoting birth control and women's rights works! If we take away education and access to birth control, there are more abortions and more risky abortions which means the mortality rate for the mothers goes up also. That is anti-life.

Of course, the post also attracted comments from one who was shocked by it all: Wow, one of the harshest and most critical things I've every read. Interesting how the writer likes to quote OLD testament. People who read the bible know that Christ came to liberate and save us from that way of life. And it  is quite post-modernist in it's approach - life is all about doing what you want, when you want. It's all about the individual. I won't comment again, but I caution people against this type of diatribe.

Now I totally agree with the first commenter.  The second was more difficult.  Last time I checked, the OT was part of the biblical canon.  Certain verses are certainly quoted enough when they suit the ideology at least, especially by those who claim the Bible is infallible and every word is true and it must be followed to the letter.  This approach would seem to ignore the fact that, as the second commenter pointed out, Christ allegedly lived and died to save us from the letter of the law which brings only "death" because no one can follow it perfectly enough.


And it  is quite post-modernist in it's approach - life is all about doing what you want, when you want. It's all about the individual. I thought "post-modernist" related to a group of artists but I have much to learn.  Being free to do one's own thinking and set one's own course, as opposed to doing what we are told by the religious hierarchy, sounds good to me.  Not sure what the problem is.


And the inevitable warning, not to read such stuff.  You might get a flash of liberating doubt?  You might learn something?  You might begin to think and analyse the nonsense you are being taught? Keeping the peasants ignorant and uneducated has been the methodology of control since the dawn of time.  The religious right frown on higher learning unless it is at THEIR institutions where you are taught WHAT to think, not taught HOW to think. 


At any rate, the article will be preaching to the choir for many of my readers and most of the others won't read it lest they learn something they don't want to hear.

16 comments:

  1. There is a danger in invoking biblical scripture:
    Leviticus 20:10 demands death for adultery.

    Oops!
    the Ol'Buzzard

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting read. It's never been about abortion, it's about punishing women for having sex. Frothy Boy Santorum actually said that a baby that is the result of rape is a gift from god. How sick do you have to be to believe that????

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with the first commenter. The Netherlands statistics merely demonstrates what happens when a society treats women like real people instead of peasants whose only assets are their uteruses. For some reason, the very idea that women are adults and have the right to control their own reproductive organs scares the crap out of the Religious Right. Reveals a lot about the Religious Right.

    And I agree with Kulkuri. Rick Santorum is a sick man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I laugh when the religious right tries to limit abortion. A doctor needs only to classify the procedure as a D and C to avoid all the controversy.

    Send my best to the Femen gals of Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Classy lassies with classy chassis, they are indeed.

      Delete
  5. Oh, but you are seeing it all wrong! You are twisting it to make it look like its all the fault of Conservative Christians, when it is the woman's fault for having sex before she is married!

    Even though some women get pregnant through rape, and even though married women seek abortions too, if we told kids to wait until marriage, then we wouldn't have to worry! Married women and rape victims can see the blessing that those unwanted pregnancies really are. Unmarried people who had sex because they wanted to are the real danger.

    Teaching kids about birth control means that our society has no morals. We should teach them that sex is horrible unless they are married instead. The fundamentalist Muslims and Orthodox Jews are a bit too harsh when they kill the woman for having sex in the wrong way. Conservative Christians just want to bless her with children! How else can you learn if you don't suffer the consequences of your behaviour?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't it cool that blessings and consequences are the same thing here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Beyond birth control and abortions, we need to feel free to talk openly about our humanity, including our sexuality. And when we get past all the "static" in the conversation, maybe we'll have a better understanding of each other, and an honesty that means we will respect each other.

    My mother was pro-choice. She chose to have me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am glad she made that decision and did not have someone else make it for her

      Delete
  8. You were right that the commenter completely misused the term "post modernist" (although it doesn't refer to a group of artists, either)—individualism is a characteristic of the modernist movement—as well as of the political middle and right, really.

    But I wouldn't read that article all the way through, either: not because I "might get a flash of liberating doubt"—in fact, I agree that truest way to be pro-life (which I am) is to increase sex education and contraception and to empower women in a way that allows them to have control over their bodies (BEFORE conception, especially). The reason I wouldn't read the article through was due to its hate-filled tone and its extreme anger. That approach is the least helpful for dialogue. Rather than changing the minds of those who need to have their minds change, it only makes them defensive while feeding bitterness to those who are already convinced. That doesn't move things forward at all—it moves things backwards. As the great Lebanese proverb puts it, "Lower your voice and strengthen your argument."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ky, you are speaking as a liberal Christian. If there were more like you there would be fewer disillusioned of all religion. The religious right is far beyond reasoned discourse. That has been tried for years. I agree the article was angry but people are tired of the BS and the hypocrisy and are fighting back.

    As to individualism, there are several ways to look at it and I may blog about it one of these years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I resent being called a "liberal" Christian. I'm a socialist Christian, thanks. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Small l liberal, not large L liberal. But socialist christian is even better. You are also a smartass.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ky, what you have to say is good and worth listening to. The article is not written for reasonable and gentle people like you. It is written for more stubborn people, like your dad ;)
    Many people do not change their minds when confronted with anger. However, some people need a more abrasive voice or they can keep ignoring everything.
    Women didn't get the vote because they kept their voices gentle and kept stating rational arguments. They weren't listened to! They had to break through the self-absorbed shell of those in power who were used to ignoring gentle wisdom.
    Again with the civil rights movement. Many white people were horrified when gently pointed out the oppression that non-whites faced (and still do). However, if everyone had simply kept saying "Don't show that you are angry or the white people in charge might be offended", racist oppression would be worse than it is today.
    You assume that all people listen to argument. They don't. People are different. You get through to a lot of people in your own way. Your dad hits another group of people in another way.
    Your proverb only works when people listen. Sometimes you need another way to get them to pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As Yosemite Sam says "I speak LOUD and carry a BIGGER stick"

    ReplyDelete