How Could He???

[Alexis OCA]

WHY? WHY? WHY?:cry:

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050415-102359-6226r.htm

[Fish and Bread]

Yeah, this upset me as well. I am normally quite the defender of Bishop Robinson's, but this is a bit over the line. Liberal politics are one thing, heck I voted for Kerry, but to me abortion is a moral issue that goes beyond politics. To really truly back an organization that provides abortions for birth control purposes or to select against certain traits goes against almost every reasonable interpretation of Christian ethics. One would think that Bishop Robinson as a homosexual man would be particularly against something that people could use to kill off future homosexuals before they're born one day.

I'll freely admit that abortion can sometimes be a difficult issues when we're talking about abortions that people undertake after being raped or when the child will be nearly brain dead or something, and there are good Christians on both sides of those sorts of issues, but abortion on demand is just not a pretty picture and not something a God who the scriptures says knew us before we were formed in the womb would even remotely approve of, in my view.

There are those who would say Planned Parenthood provides some good services and I actually agree with that as far as it goes. Free GYN exams, free contraception, etc., are all valuable services they provide to the community. But that doesn't even remotely balance out the fact that they're killing off whole generations of unborn children! I just don't know how this whole abortion issue ever got confused with woman's rights and liberal politics. Abortion is the exact opposite of what is normally a very life affirming agenda on the part of the left (i.e. feeding the poor, universal health care, anti-capital punishment, anti-war). Bishop Robinson should be ashamed.

John

[gtsecc]

A lot of people who support gay ordination will not support this.

[AveMaria]

Well, I tend to keep very silent on this issue because I'm in the minority here, and I know we're not supposed to discuss or debate it except for in certain forums.

So all I'll do is quote from the ECUSA resolution from GC in 1994:

While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations.

We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience

[gtsecc]

Does anyone have the movie Beckett on DVD?

[TomUK]

I truely dread to think what the church is going to be like in 50 years time.

[Zacharias]

I truely dread to think what the church is going to be like in 50 years time.
Don't worry...

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. (RSV)

:amen:

[ethereal hope]

He left his wife and kids?

[gitlance]

What is with this man? You know, I have been trying to understand the situation with him in the Episcopate... but I cannot, in good conscience, support a bishop who advocates abortion -- much less one who implies that the scriptures do not forbid such an act.

God save the Church. :crossrc:

[Fish and Bread]

So all I'll do is quote from the ECUSA resolution from GC in 1994:

The key phrase in the 1994 ECUSA General Conference resolution is: "We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience". Is that Planned Parenthood's position also? I would submit that Planned Parenthood has no problem with abortion "as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience". In fact, Planned Parenthood very strongly supports birth control as family planning. To me, that is outside the bounds of Christian values.

I'll freely admit that I'm more conservative on this issue than the ECUSA GC resolution, but they do at least represent a reasonable Christian approach to the issue whereas to me Planned Parenthood's position is flat out incompatible with the faith on many key points. I think it is reasonable for a Christian to support legalized abortion (Though I don't) as a matter of civil rights or even support people making that decision in extreme circumstances (Which I suppose I do to some degree), but to actively support an organization that actively encourages abortion for purposes like birth control and family planning crosses a line.

John

[Fish and Bread]

I truely dread to think what the church is going to be like in 50 years time.

That's my concern. As a moderate, I like where ECUSA is at right now. The stances taken at GC2003 don't bother me and I actively support things like women's ordination. Clearly, though, there is a certain general trend towards liberalization in ECUSA, though, and given time that could be dangerous if taken to an extreme. To this point, it hasn't in general gone too far in my opinion, but given fifty years I have this fear that we'll be replacing the Nicene Creed with "Ode to the Moon Goddess" or something. That is one of the reasons I am so adamant about avoiding a split. If the conservative traditionalists all bolt, there's no check against the far left, and in the new conservative province, they'd be no check against right wing fundamentalism. We really have need of all parts of the body to balance each other out, in my view.

John

[UberLutheran]

1) I'd need more supporting documentation than just the Washington Times. Considering that the paper is owned and published by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church (the "Moonies") leads me to believe there might be just wee bit of bias in the article, especially given that the Times has a proven track record of exaggerating (or outright fabricating) stories to make its perceived enemies look bad. Frankly, I give the Washington Times about the same credibility that I would worldnetdaily or newsmax or weeklyworldnews.

2) I have mixed feelings on Planned Parenthood. I can actively and enthusiastically support contraception and birth control so that if people choose to have sex, at least they can prevent pregnancy if they don't want to risk pregnancy. In consensual sex, there really isn't much reason to become pregnant if one doesn't want to become pregnant.

I can't support abortion on demand, especially as a primary means of birth control, because the fetus is in the process of becoming a viable human. On the other hand, I can't tell a woman who is pregnant because of rape or incest that she has to bear that child and be traumatized twice. In the state where I live (Texas), we have a significant problem with farmers who spray their fields with pesticides while migrant workers are working in the fields, as well as women who live in colonias near toxic waste sites who deliver anacephaloid babies (babies with no brain except for a midbrain, a medulla, and a brainstem). An anacephaloid baby is not going to survive.

I don't think abortion is a "black or white" issue -- there are all sorts of shades of gray which people aren't willling to explore since many people on both sides of the issue have become polarized in their views. Babies are cute and cuddly -- but how would I feel if I were a 13 year old girl and my baby's father was also its grandfather? Or how would I feel if I were a woman who had been brutally raped, become pregnant, and the developing child was a constant reminder of what had happened? Or how would I feel if I were a woman and I learned by baby would be anacephaloid?

Again: I don't support abortion as a primary means of birth control -- but I also think there are extenuating circumstances which have to be considered.

Note: I'm starting a 1500 mile drive home at noon, and I don't want any of you wishing that my car will go off the side of the road! ;)

[benedictine]

:cry: This is not good. Not good at all. Did you know that a local parish has a member of the Vestry who has been married four times and is working on her fifth?

[Albion]

The Washington Times has proven itself to be a quality newspaper. The fact that the Rev'd Moon owns it should not be an invitation for attack since many newspapers have owners and publishers whose views are substantially different from the day to day writers and editors'. In this case, it was a news article anyway, not an editorial, and it relied upon quotes.

[Fish and Bread]

I have mixed feelings on Planned Parenthood. I can actively and enthusiastically support contraception and birth control so that if people choose to have sex, at least they can prevent pregnancy if they don't want to risk pregnancy. In consensual sex, there really isn't much reason to become pregnant if one doesn't want to become pregnant.

I can't support abortion on demand, especially as a primary means of birth control, because the fetus is in the process of becoming a viable human. On the other hand, I can't tell a woman who is pregnant because of rape or incest that she has to bear that child and be traumatized twice. In the state where I live (Texas), we have a significant problem with farmers who spray their fields with pesticides while migrant workers are working in the fields, as well as women who live in colonias near toxic waste sites who deliver anacephaloid babies (babies with no brain except for a midbrain, a medulla, and a brainstem). An anacephaloid baby is not going to survive.

I think that is a very reasonable position, and in fact one that is pretty close to my own beliefs. It is not, however, the same position that Planned Parenthood takes. Planned Parenthood is an extremist pro-abortion group that fully supports abortion for any reason whatsoever at any stage of a pregnancy. They're ideological extemists that masquerade as a mainstream organization. This is not the type of organization that in my view a mainstream church should support.

You raise an interesting point about birth control and one that I hardily agree with. We have various methods of birth control available that prevent conception and since no one thinks that life begins before conception, there should be no problem with encouraging the use of such contraceptives. One way I think my fellow pro-lifers often miss the boat is by not advocating and sometimes even discouraging the use of contraceptives. One way of preventing abortions for birth control purposes is to use birth control that prevents conception in the first place and thus avoids many of the situations that cause people to consider abortions. It's common sense. One of the big issues I've had with the Roman Catholic Church in recent years is that in declaring birth control "intrinsically evil", I believe they've unwittingly contributed to a lot of pain and suffering in terms of unwanted pregnanies and even people who try to follow their church's teaching and then wind up having an abortion when faced with the reality of it.

The via media position on this is to stand up for life and to stand up for choice. What I mean by that is that in my opinion we should condemn abortions that are for birth control purposes or family planning, but encourage people who want smaller families to consider contraceptive methods that prevent conception. That is exactly the sort of third way solution that Anglicanism is famous for and I think very consistant with the high moral principles of the Gospel that are accompanied by the idea that we are freed to live by the spirit.

Two side notes on this discussion that I couldn't squeeze in anywhere:

1) It always is worth noting as a public service in these discussions that contraception can sometimes fail. Many people aren't aware of this, but it can nevertheless happen and people should be aware that nothing is fool-proof, though contraception is a lot better than unprotected sex if you want to try to avoid having children.

2) People concerned about preventing conception instead of destroying an already fertilized egg need to be very careful to read the literature on the method of birth control they choose. Recently there have been some variations on the pill that actually kill fertilized eggs -- be careful what you pick. Different types of birth control pills can work in very different ways and have very different moral implications. I had the opportunity at one point to read some of this literature and was shocked to read that pregnancy is apparently now defined by some as implantation and not conception (Talk about redefining the use of a term!).

John

[Fish and Bread]

Did you know that a local parish has a member of the Vestry who has been married four times and is working on her fifth?

Are they still marrying her in the church? Isn't there some kind of an upper limit on how many remarriages the ECUSA and other Anglican churches will perform for one individual?

John

[julian the apostate]

Abortion, he said yesterday, is "not just a matter between a woman and her body. This is not like removing a mole.

[romaneagle13]

This is just great! (Sarcasm!) My parents read The Washington Times religiously. I can just hear what they must be saying about me and my decision to join the Episcopal Church now. I believed in the Via Media, but Gene Robinson is giving this church a very bad name and image. We already are the laughingstock of the conservative churches, but now none of them will ever take us seriously as Christians.

I worry that I have made the wrong choice in leaving Catholcism for Anglicanism. Perhaps I should swallow my beliefs in Apostolic succcession and become Lutheran or return to the Roman Catholic church and keep my differing beliefs to myself? I loved Anglicanism, but I am very disillusioned right now.

[ufonium2]

1) I'd need more supporting documentation than just the Washington Times. Considering that the paper is owned and published by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church (the "Moonies") leads me to believe there might be just wee bit of bias in the article, especially given that the Times has a proven track record of exaggerating (or outright fabricating) stories to make its perceived enemies look bad. Frankly, I give the Washington Times about the same credibility that I would worldnetdaily or newsmax or weeklyworldnews.


The speech was on CSPAN. You can order a video of it from them.

[trooper]

Well, frankly, we just can't be suprised by any of this anymore. Bp. Robinson is where ECUSA is going. If that sort of stuff strikes you as bothersome then you need to join an ACC congregation and make that THE church. Or, if like me, you can't figure out how to do that where you live, then bring your parish and priest into prayer, circle the wagons, and try to keep the Devil out. It's going to get worse.

[gitlance]

Well, frankly, we just can't be suprised by any of this anymore. Bp. Robinson is where ECUSA is going. If that sort of stuff strikes you as bothersome then you need to join an ACC congregation and make that THE church. Or, if like me, you can't figure out how to do that where you live, then bring your parish and priest into prayer, circle the wagons, and try to keep the Devil out. It's going to get worse.

Or we could believe Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and trust that just as the Church has made it through heresies, inquisitions, simony, wars, crusades, sexual abuse scandals, and any number of other things, the Lord will bring ECUSA through this.

[Albion]

Or we could believe Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, and trust that just as the Church has made it through heresies, inquisitions, simony, wars, crusades, sexual abuse scandals, and any number of other things, the Lord will bring ECUSA through this.

That thought applied consistently would have us all still being Roman Catholics.

[gtsecc]

That thought applied consistently would have us all still being Roman Catholics.
You mean Eastern Orthodox, ;)

[Fish and Bread]

Well, frankly, we just can't be suprised by any of this anymore. Bp. Robinson is where ECUSA is going. If that sort of stuff strikes you as bothersome then you need to join an ACC congregation and make that THE church. Or, if like me, you can't figure out how to do that where you live, then bring your parish and priest into prayer, circle the wagons, and try to keep the Devil out. It's going to get worse.

It's just not that clearcut for me. On a lot of these issues, like homosexuality, I'm a liberal (As far as Christians go). On some, like abortion, I'm a conservative. If the choice is between a liberal ECUSA after a conservative exodus and a new conservative province headed by Bishop Duncan devoid of any liberals, I'm not going to be an exact fit with either one of them. I'd be the token liberal in a conservative denomination and the token conservative in a liberal denomination. The ideal for me is that we hold everything together in tension and then I can continue to be happily in the mainstream.

If there's a split, I'll likely stick with ECUSA, but more based on the fact that I think the African primates and Bishop Duncan's crew are behaving poorly rather than based on any actual theological grounds. If my theology is split down the middle between the two sides, I'm going to choose the side that's behaving the most civily and reasonably in the dispute, which at the present time is Bishop Griswold and the ECUSA leadership. This is simply not being handled well by the conservative faction, by and large. Threatening to kick the liberals out, refusing to take communion with liberals, and so forth is just not very Christian behavior in my opinion. Besides, as an ex-Roman Catholic, the ideas of centralized power scares me and playing politics with communion scare me -- and I think that's the way the conservative faction will quickly head on their own. If there's a theological litmus test along liberal-conservative lines to come before Christ's table, I don't want a part of that denomination.

I really hope we can all stay together. I'm in a conservative (Network affiliated) parish in a liberal diocese and kind of like that combination. I'd prefer not to be Network affiliated, but I like our conservative priests and agree with 95% of their sermons. The key that they bring to the table is tolerance of people disagreeing with them and sensitivity in selecting their sermon topics and in the way they phrase things (Acknowledging that some in the parish in good conscience disagree). They preach the gospel and not politics. Political sermons drive me crazy -- not just Bush versus Kerry, but bashing other factions in churches. Be strong in your beliefs, but be loving and understanding of others and welcome those who disagree. I don't see nearly enough of what I see in my parish in ECUSA as a whole nowadays, on either the conservative or the liberal side.

John

[Finella]

Hm.


I still support Gene Robinson. I also support Planned Parenthood. I've even had the pleasure of using their clinical services when I was dating my future husband. I found the facility and the staff fabulous, the materials provided helpful and informative, and abortions were not focus of the practice. The focus was providing women healthcare services they needed, providing information about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and knowledge of how to plan for pregnancy. Pregnant women went there for medical care while pregnant as well as for regular checkups.

The misinformation about Planned Parenthood and Gene Robinson abounds in this Washington Times article. If you know anything about Gene Robinson, you know that he and his wife seperated amicably, and even did so with the help of clergy friends, using prayer and ritual to impart respect to each other, recognizing that the marriage could not continue. His wife and daughters continue to support him and respect him a great deal. To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

What appalls me the most about everyone's response to this is the jumping to conclusions from the information presented in this article. It does not seem to reflect the Episcopalians and Anglicans I know who would investigate the information first before promulgating rumors.

[john23237]

Hm.


I still support Gene Robinson. I also support Planned Parenthood. I've even had the pleasure of using their clinical services when I was dating my future husband. I found the facility and the staff fabulous, the materials provided helpful and informative, and abortions were not focus of the practice. The focus was providing women healthcare services they needed, providing information about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and knowledge of how to plan for pregnancy. Pregnant women went there for medical care while pregnant as well as for regular checkups.

The misinformation about Planned Parenthood and Gene Robinson abounds in this Washington Times article. If you know anything about Gene Robinson, you know that he and his wife seperated amicably, and even did so with the help of clergy friends, using prayer and ritual to impart respect to each other, recognizing that the marriage could not continue. His wife and daughters continue to support him and respect him a great deal. To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

What appalls me the most about everyone's response to this is the jumping to conclusions from the information presented in this article. It does not seem to reflect the Episcopalians and Anglicans I know who would investigate the information first before promulgating rumors.

Thank you!

[romaneagle13]

Hm.


I still support Gene Robinson. I also support Planned Parenthood. I've even had the pleasure of using their clinical services when I was dating my future husband. I found the facility and the staff fabulous, the materials provided helpful and informative, and abortions were not focus of the practice. The focus was providing women healthcare services they needed, providing information about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and knowledge of how to plan for pregnancy. Pregnant women went there for medical care while pregnant as well as for regular checkups.

The misinformation about Planned Parenthood and Gene Robinson abounds in this Washington Times article. If you know anything about Gene Robinson, you know that he and his wife seperated amicably, and even did so with the help of clergy friends, using prayer and ritual to impart respect to each other, recognizing that the marriage could not continue. His wife and daughters continue to support him and respect him a great deal. To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

What appalls me the most about everyone's response to this is the jumping to conclusions from the information presented in this article. It does not seem to reflect the Episcopalians and Anglicans I know who would investigate the information first before promulgating rumors.

Finella, thanks for the background info. Now at least have something to back up my stance in supporting the Episcopal Church when I am called to defend myself and my choice.

[gitlance]

That thought applied consistently would have us all still being Roman Catholics.

Except we all know that Rome did not take over England for quite some time after the establishment of the Church.

[TomUK]

(happy birthday, fish and bread!)

[Albion]

Except we all know that Rome did not take over England for quite some time after the establishment of the Church.

We do know that. However, we later had to assert what we believed to be right and true...and leave her.

If we had adopted the view then that we should just sit tight, we'd still be Roman Catholics.

[gitlance]

We do know that. However, we later had to assert what we believed to be right and true...and leave her.

If we had adopted the view then that we should just sit tight, we'd still be Roman Catholics.

I don't know. I've heard arguments that if Luther had just waited, the Church may very well have reformed herself and we wouldn't have needed a reformation. But who could ever know...

After this recent debacle with Robinson, I think enough is enough. I hope there is some disciplinary action come GC2006.

[Fish and Bread]

I still support Gene Robinson. I also support Planned Parenthood. I've even had the pleasure of using their clinical services when I was dating my future husband. I found the facility and the staff fabulous, the materials provided helpful and informative, and abortions were not focus of the practice. The focus was providing women healthcare services they needed, providing information about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and knowledge of how to plan for pregnancy. Pregnant women went there for medical care while pregnant as well as for regular checkups.

There is a need for much of what Planned Parenthood does, but you can't excuse evil by saying that the Nazis also made the trains run on time. Now, I'm not really comparing the two, just saying that general principle of the matter is it doesn't matter how much good a group or organization does if it it also does evil that surpasses the good.

The misinformation about Planned Parenthood and Gene Robinson abounds in this Washington Times article. If you know anything about Gene Robinson, you know that he and his wife seperated amicably, and even did so with the help of clergy friends, using prayer and ritual to impart respect to each other, recognizing that the marriage could not continue. His wife and daughters continue to support him and respect him a great deal. To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

I agree with your assessment of that situation.

John

[Fish and Bread]

(happy birthday, fish and bread!)

Thank you, Tom.

John

[Fish and Bread]

I don't know. I've heard arguments that if Luther had just waited, the Church may very well have reformed herself and we wouldn't have needed a reformation. But who could ever know...

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. With no check on Papal power and a self-perpetuating system whereby the Pope selects people who select the next Pope and the laity have zero say in who their priests and bishops are or the laws of the church, things were never, ever going to change barring direct invention by God. The system is set up not to change. It took 400 years for them to even put the mass into the venacular. The only hope for the Roman church, today or yesterday, was and is for the Cardinals to actually elect a reformer as Pope, something they would never conciously do. It could happen with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but "long shot" doesn't even begin to describe the odds of it ever happening.

I know a lot of great Roman Catholics and there are a lot of nice things about the Roman church where it reflects the traditions of the ancient Christian Church. I'd like unity, but, realistically, I can't see the Romans reforming enough to make it a reality and the alternative path to unity of Anglicanism "deforming" on important issues would probably force me to transfer my membership to ELCA.

John

[IowaLutheran]

That's pie-in-the-sky thinking. With no check on Papal power and a self-perpetuating system whereby the Pope selects people who select the next Pope and the laity have zero say in who their priests and bishops are or the laws of the church, things were never, ever going to change barring direct invention by God. The system is set up not to change. It took 400 years for them to even put the mass into the venacular. The only hope for the Roman church, today or yesterday, was and is for the Cardinals to actually elect a reformer as Pope, something they would never conciously do. It could happen with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but "long shot" doesn't even begin to describe the odds of it ever happening.

I know a lot of great Roman Catholics and there are a lot of nice things about the Roman church where it reflects the traditions of the ancient Christian Church. I'd like unity, but, realistically, I can't see the Romans reforming enough to make it a reality and the alternative path to unity of Anglicanism "deforming" on important issues would probably force me to transfer my membership to ELCA.

John

Happy Birthday F & B!

(1) While the far right-wing would disagree with me, I think there is a difference between recognizing that abortion is a tragic alternative in some cases (which is basically the ELCA's position) and actively promoting abortion as a contraceptive alternative, which ECUSA seems to be dangerously flirting with by aligning themselves with this group:

http://www.rcrc.org/about/members/index.htm

(2) Theological differences between Roman Catholics and Lutherans/Anglicans have diminished in many areas since the Reformation, but the ecclesiological differences have been exacerbated, particularly by the ultramontanist heresy that has gripped the Vatican.

[Iron Sun 254]

To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

Yes...it's wrong to the point of the fact that he divorced his wife when he realised he was gay, then two months after she remarried he met the man he is currently living with. If a point can't be made without the use of misleading information, how can you trust it?

[Fish and Bread]

Happy Birthday F & B!

Thank you!

(1) While the far right-wing would disagree with me, I think there is a difference between recognizing that abortion is a tragic alternative in some cases (which is basically the ELCA's position) and actively promoting abortion as a contraceptive alternative, which ECUSA seems to be dangerously flirting with by aligning themselves with this group:

http://www.rcrc.org/about/members/index.htm

Yes, I agree. The stance ECUSA is moving towards on abortion is of grave concern for me. It is one of the few issues that could potentially force me to the conservative side of a split one day, I fear. It's not at that point yet, but a strongly pro-abortion as family planning/birth control church is a church I would have serious issues with to the point where it could be unresolveable if my funds went to support such abortions and I had to listens to priests support it from the pulpit on Sundays. I suppose I could always direct my giving to avoid the funding issue, but if I had a priest giving a sermon on how women should abort babies if they don't intend to get pregnant, I don't think I could in good concience stay, which would be ashame, becuse I really feel like I've found a wonderful home in ECUSA. I love the stances we take on so many other issues and the blend of Protestant ideas with Catholic tradition.

(2) Theological differences between Roman Catholics and Lutherans/Anglicans have diminished in many areas since the Reformation, but the ecclesiological differences have been exacerbated, particularly by the ultramontanist heresy that has gripped the Vatican.

I don't know if this is an issue that Anglicans in general view as a problem, but I think there is at least one major theological difference between the RCC and I that has become exacerbated since the Reformation. The role of Mary in the RCC has increased so much that many Cardinals and Bishops recently (In the last decade or so) signed a petition asking it to be declared that she is co-redeemer of the world and the giver of all grace. I wish I was making that up. But that to me fundamentally turns the notion of who God is and how he relates to man on it's head if put into practice and it's implications explored.

John

[Inside Edge]

Happy Birthday Fish & Bread.

That article is extremely poor - the fact that it uses "quote" does not make it good or objective journalism. Finella has already made enough (good) points to this effect. I find most newspapers suffer from rotten journalism and writing these days, so seeing garbage like this doesn't surprise me.The fact of the matter is, Gene Robinson is public enemy #1 in a lot of Christian circles and that means most reports, articles, comments, etc about him are going to be extremely biased - and that goes for any bias. Due to his contraversial status, it will be hard to find a report that isn't trying to either throw stones at him or take the hit for him.

That being said, I don't think he's shouldering the responsibility of being a force of change very well. Change, when constructive and good, often comes slowly. He's made his mark not only being an actively homosexual priest, but also a bishop. That alone is a generation's worth of change which the greater society needs to learn to accept. Robinson ought to sit tight and not become a lightning rod for all sorts of changes and resulting critisizm - I don't think it's productive for him to be sounding off on C-Span regarding the likes of Planned Parenthood, etc. He needs to show a little more respect for the opinions and feelings of the conservative membership of his Church.

[Iron Sun 254]

As more and more conservatives leave the ECUSA itwill become more and more liberal and those of us who were previously considered "middle of the road" will end up being called the right wing while moderate liberals take center stage.

[julian the apostate]

our bishops are not alone in off the wall statements ...............................................

All this humbug about the corpse of
another Pope. The world is not that much diminished by his passing. The
world was, however, diminished by the passing of Ray Charles and J. Hunter
Thompson. As far as the Christianity of the USA goes, it is not the Pope,
but Jimmy Carter who, as the only truly devout Christian President in our
time, keeps the memory of a country with Christian aspirations alive, even
when its present government is busy abolishing the freedoms of its
citizens, and its adherence to decency, as well as morality in government.

Commending all to Christ's love,

+Tikhon, Bishop of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the West, The Orthodox
Church in America

[ufonium2]

Julian, you have a point. Bishop TIKHON is often referred to as the "bishop of Cyberia" because he is known for making off-the-wall comments, particularly on the internet. He is extremely anti-Catholic. He has also made statements about America's involvement in the Middle East that make Ward Churchill look like Rush Limbaugh. I don't know if he was like this when he was made bishop. Somehow I doubt it. But now you'd be hard pressed to find an Orthodox anywhere who didn't fall out of their chair when they read the above statement. From what I hear he's a great organizer and a brilliant liturgist, but I don't know anyone who supports him on the (numerous) statements he's made like that.

[julian the apostate]

i have nothing but admiration for the orthodox church

the la times had an interview with the new metropolitan of the western u.s. and i coudnt get over how reasonable he sounded (which i shouldnt have been surprised at all, orthos are usually very reasonable)

excerpts from>>>
His Eminence Gerasimos Michaleas

On the war in Iraq, he criticized President Bush's policy: "Was it a preemptive war? We did start it, but it was very much premeditated…. 'Preemptive' means you're going to try to prevent something. What war did we prevent? The politics have their own place. They have their own culture. They have their principles. But when they try to get them sanctified by God and by faith, that's when I get very angry."


Asked if same-sex unions were a threat to the traditional family, he said, "Absolutely not. I don't see that at all…. I would say God bless you, but I will not sanctify a marriage. But at the same time I will not tell them that you're condemned to die, that you're going to hell."


"This family has an inherent responsibility to choose and decide for their own," he said a day before Schiavo died. "So here comes the government and says, 'No! I'm going to become something over you. I'm going to tell you this is wrong, this is a sin.'

[Colabomb]

WHY? WHY? WHY?:cry:

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20050415-102359-6226r.htm
Remember, this is the same man that said that just because something is against Scripture doesn't make it wrong. (not an exact quote)

[gitlance]

i have nothing but admiration for the orthodox church

the la times had an interview with the new metropolitan of the western u.s. and i coudnt get over how reasonable he sounded (which i shouldnt have been surprised at all, orthos are usually very reasonable)

excerpts from>>>
His Eminence Gerasimos Michaleas

On the war in Iraq, he criticized President Bush's policy: "Was it a preemptive war? We did start it, but it was very much premeditated…. 'Preemptive' means you're going to try to prevent something. What war did we prevent? The politics have their own place. They have their own culture. They have their principles. But when they try to get them sanctified by God and by faith, that's when I get very angry."


Asked if same-sex unions were a threat to the traditional family, he said, "Absolutely not. I don't see that at all…. I would say God bless you, but I will not sanctify a marriage. But at the same time I will not tell them that you're condemned to die, that you're going to hell."


"This family has an inherent responsibility to choose and decide for their own," he said a day before Schiavo died. "So here comes the government and says, 'No! I'm going to become something over you. I'm going to tell you this is wrong, this is a sin.'

Wow. He sounds like an Anglican. Hahaha.

[Finella]

There is a need for much of what Planned Parenthood does, but you can't excuse evil by saying that the Nazis also made the trains run on time. Now, I'm not really comparing the two, just saying that general principle of the matter is it doesn't matter how much good a group or organization does if it it also does evil that surpasses the good.
Unfortunately you did make the comparison.

I haven't heard Robinson's speech, but I will tell you why I support Planned Parenthood and why I don't see their provision of abortions as "evil". I do believe that the issue of when life begins is an ambiguous one. I believe that it is one that can only be really understood by the person going through pregnancy for herself. While I doubt I would ever find myself in a situation where I would need an abortion, I don't believe it is right for me to tell another person that she can't have one on moral grounds. I would tell her I would help her, I would hope that she would keep her baby if it was possible, and I would give her information and support. And that is what Planned Parenthood does.

If you go to this page you might be surprised at what you see:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/aboutus/we-believe.xml

I don't think you'll necessarily agree with everything they believe, but I find that they are supportive, informative and loving in the care they give. When a woman is faced with an unintended or unhealthy pregnancy, it's an extremely difficult situation to be in. She needs clear information and support.
They are in the battlefield and doing work that desperately needs to be done.

I agree with your assessment of that situation.
Good... :)

[Colabomb]

Unfortunately you did make the comparison.

I haven't heard Robinson's speech, but I will tell you why I support Planned Parenthood and why I don't see their provision of abortions as "evil". I do believe that the issue of when life begins is an ambiguous one. I believe that it is one that can only be really understood by the person going through pregnancy for herself. While I doubt I would ever find myself in a situation where I would need an abortion, I don't believe it is right for me to tell another person that she can't have one on moral grounds.




Why not? We tell people all the time not to kill other people.

[CSMR]

Asked if same-sex unions were a threat to the traditional family, he said, "Absolutely not. I don't see that at all…. I would say God bless you, but I will not sanctify a marriage. But at the same time I will not tell them that you're condemned to die, that you're going to hell."
And why not? He is being a little too reasonable it seems.

[gitlance]

And why not? He is being a little too reasonable it seems.

Divorce is more of a threat to the traditional family than same-sex unions, I would think...

But just my two cents' worth of opinion.

[CSMR]

Divorce is more of a threat to the traditional family than same-sex unions, I would think...

But just my two cents' worth of opinion.
I agree: divorce is a bigger problem to society; it is a more widespread problem.

[Finella]

Why not? We tell people all the time not to kill other people.Let me rephrase that: I would not tell someone not to get an abortion based on my personal opinion about something that is widely morally debated among people of faith on both sides. Killing a born human being is unquestionably wrong. I would think... yet we have people in the church who "support" war. So I don't know if even that is a clear-cut issue these days.

[CSMR]

War is certainly right under certain circumstances. Who says that we should not have fought against Nazi Germany? And in the Old Testament, war is commanded on certain occasions.

[chalice_thunder]

Hm.


I still support Gene Robinson. I also support Planned Parenthood. I've even had the pleasure of using their clinical services when I was dating my future husband. I found the facility and the staff fabulous, the materials provided helpful and informative, and abortions were not focus of the practice. The focus was providing women healthcare services they needed, providing information about sex, sexually transmitted diseases, and knowledge of how to plan for pregnancy. Pregnant women went there for medical care while pregnant as well as for regular checkups.

The misinformation about Planned Parenthood and Gene Robinson abounds in this Washington Times article. If you know anything about Gene Robinson, you know that he and his wife seperated amicably, and even did so with the help of clergy friends, using prayer and ritual to impart respect to each other, recognizing that the marriage could not continue. His wife and daughters continue to support him and respect him a great deal. To throw into this article that he "left his wife and daughters" for his male partner tells a fraction of the truth and does everyone in relationship with Bp. Robinson a great disservice.

What appalls me the most about everyone's response to this is the jumping to conclusions from the information presented in this article. It does not seem to reflect the Episcopalians and Anglicans I know who would investigate the information first before promulgating rumors.

Thank you!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Finella again.

[Colabomb]

Let me rephrase that: I would not tell someone not to get an abortion based on my personal opinion about something that is widely morally debated among people of faith on both sides. Killing a born human being is unquestionably wrong. I would think... yet we have people in the church who "support" war. So I don't know if even that is a clear-cut issue these days.
I support just wars.

Also, what is the difference between a born person and a non-born person?

[Fish and Bread]

As more and more conservatives leave the ECUSA itwill become more and more liberal and those of us who were previously considered "middle of the road" will end up being called the right wing while moderate liberals take center stage.

My rector made a very interest point recently. He said if via media is simply splitting down the middle than what the church is will continually be redefined as people leave and society shifts. The middle of left and ultra left is still left, and the middle of right and ultraright is still right. At some point, we probably have to decide whether via media is true moderatism or "split the differences between the views whomever happens to be in the church at any given time". There is a big distinction.

John

[Fish and Bread]

I haven't heard Robinson's speech, but I will tell you why I support Planned Parenthood and why I don't see their provision of abortions as "evil". I do believe that the issue of when life begins is an ambiguous one. I believe that it is one that can only be really understood by the person going through pregnancy for herself. While I doubt I would ever find myself in a situation where I would need an abortion, I don't believe it is right for me to tell another person that she can't have one on moral grounds. I would tell her I would help her, I would hope that she would keep her baby if it was possible, and I would give her information and support. And that is what Planned Parenthood does.

If you go to this page you might be surprised at what you see:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/aboutus/we-believe.xml

I don't think you'll necessarily agree with everything they believe, but I find that they are supportive, informative and loving in the care they give. When a woman is faced with an unintended or unhealthy pregnancy, it's an extremely difficult situation to be in. She needs clear information and support.
They are in the battlefield and doing work that desperately needs to be done.

I did read the webpage that you linked to and I agreed with 90% of what they said. The problem is that what I disagreed with is such an important issue that I feel like I can't support their organization. To me, in some respects, it makes it worse that they try to negate abortion by lumping it in with issues like birth control in long lists of services provided and such. It does two things: 1) Implicitly makes abortion seems like less of a "big deal" and 2) Sometimes leads people who oppose abortion to oppose birth control also because it's all lumped together in their minds.

Frankly, I believe this is how Satan works. He confuses issues and makes them seem like important, like a matter of personal choice rather than of good and evil. If Satan simply said "Go do evil", he wouldn't have much an effect. He's sneaky and operates through confusion and misdirection.

Now, I do understand the view that a fetus isn't yet fully a human being. I even think there may be some wisdom in that. I think, though, that if a fetus is indeed less than a full human being, it is still nevertheless something special and blessed by God in a way that a mere animal would not be. God knows us before we are formed in the womb, according to scripture, which implies that when we are in the womb, God knows us and has a purpose and a plan for us. John the Baptist lept in the womb when he was near Mary carrying Jesus. We also only need to only look to how a happily pregnant woman reacts to what is growing inside her to realize that, whatever it is in her, it is something special and unique. She doesn't talk about her fetus, she talks about her baby. It is only people who don't want a child who try to minimize it so they can consider options -- only they talk about the "fetus". When we realize why people use the terms they do and how their attitudes are shaped, that can tell us a lot about what we really believe as a society.

John

[Finella]

I support just wars.War is still killing people. And I think it's often very, very hard to identify a "just" war.

Also, what is the difference between a born person and a non-born person? Isn't it obvious?

[Finella]

I did read the webpage that you linked to and I agreed with 90% of what they said. The problem is that what I disagreed with is such an important issue that I feel like I can't support their organization. To me, in some respects, it makes it worse that they try to negate abortion by lumping it in with issues like birth control in long lists of services provided and such. It does two things: 1) Implicitly makes abortion seems like less of a "big deal" and 2) Sometimes leads people who oppose abortion to oppose birth control also because it's all lumped together in their minds.

Frankly, I believe this is how Satan works. He confuses issues and makes them seem like important, like a matter of personal choice rather than of good and evil. If Satan simply said "Go do evil", he wouldn't have much an effect. He's sneaky and operates through confusion and misdirection.
Well, I'm not sure I believe in a literal Satan, but I disagree. I think choices such as abortion are so momentous it's impossible to not make them personal; surely only God really knows what is at stake here and what the individual is wrestling with.

Now, I do understand the view that a fetus isn't yet fully a human being.
Oh, whew. I am glad we don't have to go through that. :)

I even think there may be some wisdom in that. I think, though, that if a fetus is indeed less than a full human being, it is still nevertheless something special and blessed by God in a way that a mere animal would not be. God knows us before we are formed in the womb, according to scripture, which implies that when we are in the womb, God knows us and has a purpose and a plan for us. John the Baptist lept in the womb when he was near Mary carrying Jesus. We also only need to only look to how a happily pregnant woman reacts to what is growing inside her to realize that, whatever it is in her, it is something special and unique. She doesn't talk about her fetus, she talks about her baby. It is only people who don't want a child who try to minimize it so they can consider options -- only they talk about the "fetus". When we realize why people use the terms they do and how their attitudes are shaped, that can tell us a lot about what we really believe as a society.

John
I agree that an unborn child is indeed something very special, yes, even in the early days of pregnancy. But there is a continuum here, surely, between the lump-of-cells stage and the degree of humanness and ultimate "babyness" of the child? This is why I feel abortion is really a grey issue that is very hard to argue in ultimate "this is good" or "this is bad" terms. And why women need to know about _all_ the options -- what is abortion, exactly? What does it involve? What is actually happening in the fetus' development at the gestational stage where I'm considering abortion? What would I experience? I believe providing complete information is absolutely necessary for women to make wise decisions.

Yes, God knew us in our wombs; but to go as far as to say that even then s/he had distinct plans for our lives seems rather deterministic to me. I would even argue that God would have known that a mother would abort her child anyway, if you were to go in that direction.

And why would a woman not want a child so badly that she would abort it? I don't feel there are enough supports in our society today to encourage women to keep their babies rather than abort them. It's a sad commentary on the state of things, but I think abortions will only decline when we can help women feel that they and their children are physically, emotionally, economically, and spiritually safe in bringing their children into the world and raising them. (I'm sure you've noted that since George W. Bush has been in office, abortions have been on the rise.)

And should a woman make that heart-wrenching decision to have an abortion, she should be cared for and loved. Because someday she may become a mother and she will need to know how to love her children, which she can only do if she loves herself.

[Fish and Bread]

I think choices such as abortion are so momentous it's impossible to not make them personal; surely only God really knows what is at stake here and what the individual is wrestling with.

What an individual who is seeking an abortion is thinking doesn't seem relevant to the discussion to me. We're not talking about determining how we should be judging people who have abortions. In fact, I think we'd both agree that it is not up to us to make such judgements, but rather up to God.

The question before us here is: Is the action of destroying a healthy viable fetus right or wrong if there are no mitigating factors such as health or life of the woman in play? The fact that people struggle with the decision and that it's momentus can not make something that is wrong morally justifiable. Maybe God will consider that sort of thing on judgement day if I'm wrong about the whole saved by grace alone theology, but it's not a consideration for us to today in deciding whether or not abortion itself is wrong. Remember, we are evaluating the morality of the action and not how morally accountable the person taking the action is. The latter question simply confuses the issue unnecessarily.

And, actually, in talking about determining whether the action is right or wrong and whether we should forbid it, the fact that it is momentus should be a particular consideration in determing whether or not it should banned. We don't ban people from spitting on sidewalks anymore, because, frankly, who cares? We care about the important things.

But there is a continuum here, surely, between the lump-of-cells stage and the degree of humanness and ultimate "babyness" of the child?

Yes, I agree with that.

This is why I feel abortion is really a grey issue that is very hard to argue in ultimate "this is good" or "this is bad" terms.

To me, when a fetus is recognizeably human in the way that an infant is indeed a grey area. When a fetus is something special deserving of protection is not a grey area, though, in my view.

The best way to explain my reasoning for that is to take what I view as a similar issue: A new born infant is very likely non-sentient. It can not perceive and understand the world around it as an adult or even an eight year old child can. In terms of it's reasoning capacity, it is below the level of many animals. It is definitely *not* what we would recognize as an adult human in terms of it's very essence -- not just the physical appearance, but the mental capacity. Yet, we don't treat an infant as if it were chicken, even if it's brain capacity is similar. All Christians I've ever seen quoted recognize that infanticide is wrong. Why? Because an infant is a being with a full human DNA code which is developing into an adult human. And a fetus is a being with a full human DNA code which is developing into an infant.

And why women need to know about _all_ the options -- what is abortion, exactly? What does it involve? What is actually happening in the fetus' development at the gestational stage where I'm considering abortion? What would I experience? I believe providing complete information is absolutely necessary for women to make wise decisions.

I don't think abortion is a decision any one person should be allowed to make for birth control reasons anymore than robbing a bank is a decision one person should be allowed to make, legally speaking.

Yes, God knew us in our wombs; but to go as far as to say that even then s/he had distinct plans for our lives seems rather deterministic to me. I would even argue that God would have known that a mother would abort her child anyway, if you were to go in that direction.

You could apply that same argument to whether or not people should be allowed to "abort" their newborn infants.

I don't feel there are enough supports in our society today to encourage women to keep their babies rather than abort them. It's a sad commentary on the state of things, but I think abortions will only decline when we can help women feel that they and their children are physically, emotionally, economically, and spiritually safe in bringing their children into the world and raising them. (I'm sure you've noted that since George W. Bush has been in office, abortions have been on the rise.)

I agree with you. We need to provide more for the needs of young mothers and for their children. It is foolishness to oppose abortion and then let people starve on the streets in the name of the false god of unfettered capitalism or encourage them to go overseas to fight and die in unnessary wars of aggression. We need to offer people help and protection and love from conception to natural death. That to me is the Christian ethic. And it's one neither major US political party fully embraces, but then, they're of the world, and we strive not to be. Still, I think, ironically, Kerry is probably closer than Bush in his politics to what Christ would done even though Bush seems to be a man of deeper faith. That's one of the reasons I voted for Kerry over Bush.

And should a woman make that heart-wrenching decision to have an abortion, she should be cared for and loved. Because someday she may become a mother and she will need to know how to love her children, which she can only do if she loves herself.

I agree with this also.

John

[pmcleanj]

One of my favourite Christian websites is www.truthminers.com. The opening paragraph of their website, dedicated to eliminating urban legends and hoaxes, reads 'Jesus said that He is "The Way, The Truth, and The Life." (John 14:6). Shouldn't knowing THE TRUTH make us 100% truthful people?' I don't get much Christian hoax spam in my email any more; perhaps because they're actually succeeding, or perhaps because I've started using "reply to all" when I get those emails, and sending a link to truthminers' expose of the hoax, to the sender and to everyone else the sender targetted.

But, issues like Planned Parenthood's role in society, make it obvious how hard it is to be 100% truthful. "Everyone knows" they promote abortion -- at least everyone in the Christian community -- but the documentary evidence is fairly sparse. I've tried digging in to the foundation of that knowledge, and what seems to be quite clear that Planned Parenthood don't condemn abortion. For many who are opposed to abortion, that in itself is sufficient to negate the good done by the organization and is equivalent to promoting abortion.

Interestingly, the only women I know who have had recourse to Planned Parenthood's medical services, are pious Christians. (Of course, this is a skewed sample set, since most of my international acquaintances are through Christian groups and my fellow countrywomen are able to rely on socialized health care rather than NGO's like Planned Parenthood.) One was a teacher at a fundamentalist Christian women's college. The college board paid for health care, but refused to cover gynecological care for unmarried women staff because such things were sexually immoral :sigh: . Hence, all the unmarried teachers needed to go to Planned Parenthood for their annual exams and for any health care issues related specifically to being female.

Another one took a friend to Planned Parenthood when the friend became pregnant out of wedlock. Planned Parenthood assigned a counseller who fully explained all of her options, put her in touch with Catholic Charities to speak to them about their adoption pregram, and helped her fill out paperwork for DHS for medicaid -- and the girl as a result decided in favour of the adoption choice.

I guess I'm going to take the viewpoint that the 90% good that they do outweighs the 10% good that they don't do; and that being truthful requires ignoring neither side of that equation.

Of course, being truthful also requires making that distinction between birth control and abortion; and Planned Parenthood is as culpable as are many of their detractors in blurring the two.

[Finella]

What an individual who is seeking an abortion is thinking doesn't seem relevant to the discussion to me. We're not talking about determining how we should be judging people who have abortions. In fact, I think we'd both agree that it is not up to us to make such judgements, but rather up to God. Absolutely. So we’re agreed that we’re not deciding who is going to hell, then. :)

The question before us here is: Is the action of destroying a healthy viable fetus right or wrong if there are no mitigating factors such as health or life of the woman in play? The fact that people struggle with the decision and that it's momentus can not make something that is wrong morally justifiable. Maybe God will consider that sort of thing on judgement day if I'm wrong about the whole saved by grace alone theology, but it's not a consideration for us to today in deciding whether or not abortion itself is wrong. Remember, we are evaluating the morality of the action and not how morally accountable the person taking the action is. The latter question simply confuses the issue unnecessarily.

And, actually, in talking about determining whether the action is right or wrong and whether we should forbid it, the fact that it is momentus should be a particular consideration in determing whether or not it should banned. We don't ban people from spitting on sidewalks anymore, because, frankly, who cares? We care about the important things.
Of course mitigating factors are part of the moral question. It is why we have ethical dilemmas. You know the famous one about the man whose wife is dying of a disease, but who can’t afford the life-saving medication that their insurance doesn’t cover, which they can't afford on their own either? Is it morally right for him to steal the medicine for his wife so she can live, or is it more right for him to not steal the medicine and let her die?

So let me tell you a story more relevant to the abortion topic. A woman (my mother), who has become pregnant out of wedlock, knows she carries a genetic syndrome that could cause her child to become mentally retarded. The father has left the picture, and she cannot care for the child herself as her education and skills are limited and she can barely support herself. Additonally, this is the early 60s when children with mental retardation are usually institutionalized. If she has the child, then what kind of life is she giving it? Is she causing it to suffer in a potentially abusive environment without any love and affection? If she aborts it (and it’s illegal to do so) she is going against her very strict Christian upbringing. If she keeps it, she risks economic despair for her and her child and rejection by her family.

I can tell you that ultimately my mother gave up her child to a Christian adoption agency, and her child is doing very well now. But for years my mother was in great anxiety over how healthy her child was and whether or not the child suffered from the syndrome and to what extent. Had she really made the right choice? She wasn’t ever really sure until she got back in contact with her child many years later. And so we have many different factors besides the decision to abort itself: what is the quality of the life for the child likely to be should the mother decide to give birth to it? And if the quality of life is likely to be poor, and we want all women to make the choice to give birth to their unplanned children, what is the impact on society?

So here’s where it gets messy because there’s different kinds of ethics at play: deontology and utilitarianism. What makes an action good or bad? Is it because we have followed God’s command, regardless of the outcome? Or is it because it benefits society as a whole? One could argue that eliminating abortion would have positive consequences for society, yet there has been extensive research showing the benefits to society of legal abortion: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml
So given this evidence, one who opposes legal abortion would say that regardless of the negative impact of illegal abortion on society, it’s still morally right to stop abortions. I’m not sure that is the real solution. Besides, if we only act on the basis of God’s command, it does play into the conundrum of whether we are saved by grace or by our actions… which is another thread, I’m sure.


To me, when a fetus is recognizeably human in the way that an infant is indeed a grey area. When a fetus is something special deserving of protection is not a grey area, though, in my view.

The best way to explain my reasoning for that is to take what I view as a similar issue: A new born infant is very likely non-sentient. It can not perceive and understand the world around it as an adult or even an eight year old child can. In terms of it's reasoning capacity, it is below the level of many animals. It is definitely *not* what we would recognize as an adult human in terms of it's very essence -- not just the physical appearance, but the mental capacity. Yet, we don't treat an infant as if it were chicken, even if it's brain capacity is similar. All Christians I've ever seen quoted recognize that infanticide is wrong. Why? Because an infant is a being with a full human DNA code which is developing into an adult human. And a fetus is a being with a full human DNA code which is developing into an infant.
But our mitochondria have their own DNA, so do they deserve to be protected, too?

I see what you are saying, but, again, this is where it gets fuzzy. A baby within its mother’s womb is still growing and preparing to live outside of the womb. My position is that while it’s in there, it is still a part of the mother’s body. It is encased, protected, fed, and developing. This also happens after birth, but in a different way that now also can involve others besides the mother. While the baby is in the womb, it is all up to mom and no one else. Of course, when a baby gets to late gestational age it’s more likely to be viable should labor happen prematurely, which is why I’m naturally not a fan of late-term abortions. But birth is the major transition and, I think, a natural starting point for the application of rights, citizenship, etc.



think abortion is a decision any one person should be allowed to make for birth control reasons anymore than robbing a bank is a decision one person should be allowed to make, legally speaking. I’m not a fan of abortion as birth control, but as I showed earlier, often times it’s not just about “birth control” (“Do I feel like taking care of a baby today? Nah….”) but also about health, economics, and quality of life issues.

You could apply that same argument to whether or not people should be allowed to "abort" their newborn infants. See why I don’t like determinism? :)


I agree with you. We need to provide more for the needs of young mothers and for their children. It is foolishness to oppose abortion and then let people starve on the streets in the name of the false god of unfettered capitalism or encourage them to go overseas to fight and die in unnessary wars of aggression. We need to offer people help and protection and love from conception to natural death. That to me is the Christian ethic. And it's one neither major US political party fully embraces, but then, they're of the world, and we strive not to be. Still, I think, ironically, Kerry is probably closer than Bush in his politics to what Christ would done even though Bush seems to be a man of deeper faith. That's one of the reasons I voted for Kerry over Bush.
And this is what I wish all of us on both sides could start working on now – because we can all agree on this aspect of the abortion question. I agree that Bush missed the mark big-time on this, and yet I also wish Kerry could have argued more for a faith perspective on preventing abortion and creating better socioeconomic conditions for women facing abortion as an option. I hope we can convince our leaders in church and state to act in this way, and if Gene Robinson spoke more on this issue, I would be very happy (and after all this, I still haven’t heard whatever it was he said at the PP thing! Is there a video or audio clip of it out there somewhere?).

[Fish and Bread]

I've tried digging in to the foundation of that knowledge, and what seems to be quite clear that Planned Parenthood don't condemn abortion.

They not only don't condemn abortions, they *provide* them. I'm not convinced that they don't promote them as well since at the very least they deemphasise the significance of abortions by lumping them casually in with other more commonly accepted ideas like contraception and so forth, which could in a sense be considered a type of advocacy by implication.

I've personally read literature that a friend was given by a Planned Parenthood clinic about the "morning after pill" that defines pregnancy as implantation in the uterus and not as conception and thus makes the claim that the morning after pill does not terminate pregnancies. The claim that it does not terminate pregnancies is made very prominently and it is only upon a close reading of the more detailed information in the body of the document that you understand that they make that claim based on their own revised definition of pregnancy. Now, that isn't an abortion per say in many people's eyes, but I mention it because it's a devious way of phrasing things on their part, in my view, that shows that Planned Parenthood *does* take positions on these sort of issues and writes pamplets in a way that could be considered advocacy of controversial positions.

John

[pmcleanj]

...that defines pregnancy as implantation in the uterus and not as conception ...


You might want to check with an obstetrician. My understanding is that this is the medical definition of pregnancy. A lot of "emotionally loaded" terms are used baldly in a medical situation without any political intent (I'm speaking here from my own obstetrical experiences in an "emotionally loaded" context -- sufficiently emotionally loaded that I'm not going any further down that road). The term "conception" also has a distinct defined medical sense, which may not be what you expect.

By all means, check out the terminology with a physician or medical dictionary.

[Fish and Bread]

So let me tell you a story more relevant to the abortion topic. A woman (my mother), who has become pregnant out of wedlock, knows she carries a genetic syndrome that could cause her child to become mentally retarded. The father has left the picture, and she cannot care for the child herself as her education and skills are limited and she can barely support herself. Additonally, this is the early 60s when children with mental retardation are usually institutionalized. If she has the child, then what kind of life is she giving it? Is she causing it to suffer in a potentially abusive environment without any love and affection? If she aborts it (and it’s illegal to do so) she is going against her very strict Christian upbringing. If she keeps it, she risks economic despair for her and her child and rejection by her family.

Ah, but I've already said that I believe abortions of folks with severe handicaps are one of the areas that I feel it is reasonable for Christians to disagree on. We're talking about normal healthy babies and abortion as birth control -- i.e. "I don't want a child right now, so I will abort him or her".

And so we have many different factors besides the decision to abort itself: what is the quality of the life for the child likely to be should the mother decide to give birth to it? And if the quality of life is likely to be poor, and we want all women to make the choice to give birth to their unplanned children, what is the impact on society?

If we're talking about fiscal problems as opposed to financial, it is notable from the Christian perspective that the Virgin Mary was a poor single mother. More to the point, though, there are plenty of couples who want to adopt. I have relatives who have gone so far as to adopt children from Russia and Korea. So it would seem to me that if it is really the welfare of the children that is the concern for fiscal reasons, that adoption would be the obvious alternative to raising the child by one's self, not abortion.

One could argue that eliminating abortion would have positive consequences for society, yet there has been extensive research showing the benefits to society of legal abortion

It might also benefit society if we shot all handicapped or sick folks and people with low IQs, but that wouldn't make it morally right to do so.

And this is what I wish all of us on both sides could start working on now – because we can all agree on this aspect of the abortion question. I agree that Bush missed the mark big-time on this, and yet I also wish Kerry could have argued more for a faith perspective on preventing abortion and creating better socioeconomic conditions for women facing abortion as an option. I hope we can convince our leaders in church and state to act in this way, and if Gene Robinson spoke more on this issue, I would be very happy

I agree.

[Fish and Bread]

You might want to check with an obstetrician. My understanding is that this is the medical definition of pregnancy. A lot of "emotionally loaded" terms are used baldly in a medical situation without any political intent (I'm speaking here from my own obstetrical experiences in an "emotionally loaded" context -- sufficiently emotionally loaded that I'm not going any further down that road). The term "conception" also has a distinct defined medical sense, which may not be what you expect.

By all means, check out the terminology with a physician or medical dictionary.

I am talking about the common accepted definition of pregnancy down their the ages of humankind, not whatever the AMA came up with last week or even a few decades ago. Their thinking is likely influenced by the widespread acceptance of abortion in society and the presence of abortionists with memberships in the AMA. To use an example of how implantations has not historically been the way people have thought of pregnancy beginning, I'd reference our own birth narratives from Christian tradition beginning with the conception of Jesus (and, for Anglo-Catholics, the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary, not "Immaculate Implantation").

There are actually a lot of doctors who disagree with what is being shoved down their throats on this front. I have a doctor in my family and also work at a doctor's office. I know several doctors who disagree with the idea that pregnanies begin at implantation and not conception.

John

[Finella]

Ah, but I've already said that I believe abortions of folks with severe handicaps are one of the areas that I feel it is reasonable for Christians to disagree on. We're talking about normal healthy babies and abortion as birth control -- i.e. "I don't want a child right now, so I will abort him or her". But some people would still say that mental retardation isn't a good enough reason to abort a child, but you exceptions are noted.


If we're talking about fiscal problems as opposed to financial, it is notable from the Christian perspective that the Virgin Mary was a poor single mother. Of course, but she also was gotten pregnant by God himself, right, so her situation was a little more unique... she was definitely going to be taken care of. :) Besides that, society was different then -- we are dealing with a society now where everyone acts for his or her own benefit, no longer in a communal, "it takes a village" kind of mentality. Again, this is why economics play a huge role in this decision.
More to the point, though, there are plenty of couples who want to adopt. I have relatives who have gone so far as to adopt children from Russia and Korea. So it would seem to me that if it is really the welfare of the children that is the concern for fiscal reasons, that adoption would be the obvious alternative to raising the child by one's self, not abortion. This argument gets me riled up. Where are these people who want to adopt children when the abused single Black mother goes to get an abortion? Or the woman who is addicted to crack goes and gets an abortion? Where are these people when there are older children stuck in the foster care system for years right here in America? These people don't want these babies or children, and no one is protesting outside the clinics that provide abortions in North Philadelphia where I work.

It might also benefit society if we shot all handicapped or sick folks and people with low IQs, but that wouldn't make it morally right to do so. This is a slippery slope argument. People who are handicapped, sick, the mentally retarded - these people are already citizens with rights conferred upon them by birth, not by conception. As it stands now, a zygote has no rights because, as I stated earlier, it is contained within another person who provides everything it needs for its existence.

You're not touching the ethics stuff, are ya? :)

Glad we agree on taking action to better conditions for women, though.

[CSMR]

This is a slippery slope argument. People who are handicapped, sick, the mentally retarded - these people are already citizens with rights conferred upon them by birth, not by conception. As it stands now, a zygote has no rights because, as I stated earlier, it is contained within another person who provides everything it needs for its existence.
Speaking of legal rights, you may be right, but speaking of morality (as Fish and Bread was) can you really say such a thing?

[Finella]

Speaking of legal rights, you may be right, but speaking of morality (as Fish and Bread was) can you really say such a thing?
Can I say what, that a zygote has no rights, or that it is contained within another human being? Morally, yes, I say both these things.

[pmcleanj]

I am talking about the common accepted definition of pregnancy down their the ages of humankind

The best historical research in this area -- not actually a particularly prolific field, since it's not related to power politics, but a field with some research in it -- suggests that down the ages of humankind pregnancy has been considered to start at quickening. Which makes sense, because prior to the last few decades that was the only definitive pregnancy test humankind had available (morning sickness being too easy to confuse with food poisoning or dysentry.))

[julian the apostate]

i think aquinas believed that as well

i tend to be awfully conservative on this issue for some reason, so i will keep my mouth shut

[CSMR]

Can I say what, that a zygote has no rights, or that it is contained within another human being? Morally, yes, I say both these things.
I haven't studied this issue and I don't know about zygotes and whatnot. It just seems obvious to me that at childbirth a baby comes out of the womb and it was a baby before and so shouldn't be killed. I don't know for sure that human life starts at conception but saying that being inside another person means it's fine to kill surely can't be right.

[julian the apostate]

the incarnation, for some reason is what convinced me of life beginning at conception

[Finella]

I haven't studied this issue and I don't know about zygotes and whatnot. It just seems obvious to me that at childbirth a baby comes out of the womb and it was a baby before and so shouldn't be killed. I don't know for sure that human life starts at conception but saying that being inside another person means it's fine to kill surely can't be right. This is why I say there is a continuum of humanness that goes along with fetal development. Obviously a baby at a gestational age of 8 months is much more human than a zygote at gestational age of 3 weeks. Thus the ending of a life of a zygote is much different than ending the life of a fetus who could potentially live outside the womb because of the late gestational age. If the baby cannot live outside the womb because it is developmentally too young, then it is not yet fully human, in my eyes. It's on its way to being human, yes, but it's not quite there yet. This isn't to say it has no value, of course it has value, but it does not have the same rights of a baby that has been born.

As far as whether it's right or not to kill something "inside another person," I think it is really that person's right to decide what is best for herself. When your body has become the sole provider for another organism, you really are ultimately in charge of that other organism just as much as you are in charge of yourself. It's a privelege and a sacred right that I don't think anyone can intrude upon.

[Colabomb]

This is why I say there is a continuum of humanness that goes along with fetal development. Obviously a baby at a gestational age of 8 months is much more human than a zygote at gestational age of 3 weeks. Thus the ending of a life of a zygote is much different than ending the life of a fetus who could potentially live outside the womb because of the late gestational age. If the baby cannot live outside the womb because it is developmentally too young, then it is not yet fully human, in my eyes. It's on its way to being human, yes, but it's not quite there yet. This isn't to say it has no value, of course it has value, but it does not have the same rights of a baby that has been born.

As far as whether it's right or not to kill something "inside another person," I think it is really that person's right to decide what is best for herself. When your body has become the sole provider for another organism, you really are ultimately in charge of that other organism just as much as you are in charge of yourself. It's a privelege and a sacred right that I don't think anyone can intrude upon.
People are assuming that self-reliance is a measure of humanity. First of all, someone being born, does not make them no longer dependant of their mother.

And second of all, we are all dependant on God for every breath we take, every bite we eat. Are we abortable, simply because we cannot sustain ourselves?

[TomUK]

(i've just downloaded this thread to read through and it currently stands at over 15,000 words. :eek: )

[CSMR]

This is why I say there is a continuum of humanness that goes along with fetal development. Obviously a baby at a gestational age of 8 months is much more human than a zygote at gestational age of 3 weeks. Thus the ending of a life of a zygote is much different than ending the life of a fetus who could potentially live outside the womb because of the late gestational age. If the baby cannot live outside the womb because it is developmentally too young, then it is not yet fully human, in my eyes. It's on its way to being human, yes, but it's not quite there yet. This isn't to say it has no value, of course it has value, but it does not have the same rights of a baby that has been born.

As far as whether it's right or not to kill something "inside another person," I think it is really that person's right to decide what is best for herself. When your body has become the sole provider for another organism, you really are ultimately in charge of that other organism just as much as you are in charge of yourself. It's a privelege and a sacred right that I don't think anyone can intrude upon.
Finella, I think you are a bit confused about rights. They are certainly secular rather than sacred, and to do with law. I am not so interested in rights, which would take us into a complex legal debate even for one particular country or state, but in what is right. That is the sacred question. For instance in all countries as far as I am aware there is a right to property, but that doesn't mean that it is right to hoard wealth without charity.

[Finella]

The only way this premise is correct is if that "something" is a parasite that depends on it's host for life. What you are talking about here is not a something, but a someone. True, it depends on the mother's body for nourishment, but it is not a parasite, it is a seperate entity that is fully human by ALL accounts of genetics and science. The same argument could be made for a mother who would starve a small child by not providing breast milk - afterall, you are saying you are "in charge" of that "organism" because the body of the mother is the sole provider (it is only moderninty that allows us to use something other than breast milk to provide the nutrients, etc. needed).
No, the same argument could not be made in the case of a mother denying milk to her child because another person could feed the child and it would still survive -- even back in Jesus' time and later there were wet nurses who would feed newborns. A zygote cannot be taken out of the womb and be cared for by another person and survive. The zygote is indeed the mother's own flesh and blood, quite literally. In a way it is indeed a parasite -- the difference being that it will someday be a human, where a parasite will always remain a parasite. At that stage, however, it is not a full human being.

The fallacy with this argument is that you are projecting a "property right" on an "individual right" issue. As far as rights go, no one is "forcing" you keep your hand, eyes, ears, etc - and if you wanted to cut those off because it was your "right" - I wouldn't have a problem. However, you are talking about a human being (albeit in it's primitive state, it will become nothing other!). All laws that I know (with the exception of abortion laws and death penalty) are designed to protect human life. From insurance law to criminal law etc - individuals have a responsibility to sustain human life - can you imagine a physician at the scene of an accident doing nothing to save an injured's life and not facing criminal and civil liability!! These are fellacious arguments as well; a mother and her zygote are not the same as a physican at the scene of an accident. Please read what I have said about the degree of humanness relative to the gestational age of the unborn child.

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

Please remember that non-Anglican/Old-Catholic members may not post debate posts in STR.

Please recall that abortion falls under the list of offensive topics in the CF rules: you may debate Anglican/Old-Catholic issues related to current events, but you may not debate abortion itself. This thread has been allowed to remain open because of the great grace and mutual respect shown by the posters in this thread to one another. A strict enforcement of the rules, which would be necessary in the absence of such mutual respect, would find many of the posts in this thread to be well over the line.

So continue please to show the Christian kindness you have been showing so far.
Hat off.

[Finella]

People are assuming that self-reliance is a measure of humanity. First of all, someone being born, does not make them no longer dependant of their mother.
As I said, there's a degree of dependence; a newborn infant remains totally dependent on others, but not necessarily the mother as s/he could be fed by others and raised to adulthood. While in the womb the child is absolutely, completely dependent on the blood supply and physical protection of the mother.

And second of all, we are all dependant on God for every breath we take, every bite we eat. Are we abortable, simply because we cannot sustain ourselves? I believe God empowers us rather than makes us dependent on him, so I don't really agree with this premise.

[Finella]

Finella, I think you are a bit confused about rights. They are certainly secular rather than sacred, and to do with law. I am not so interested in rights, which would take us into a complex legal debate even for one particular country or state, but in what is right. That is the sacred question. For instance in all countries as far as I am aware there is a right to property, but that doesn't mean that it is right to hoard wealth without charity.
According to Dictionary.com:
Right n.

1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.


This is what I mean. And because I'm such a good Episcopalian, I (jokingly) admit that my knowledge on scripture to back up my claim of a woman's right to her body being "sacred" is lacking. But I'll work on that.

(And I'll try to keep this somewhat related to Anglican issues, pmcleanj!)

[Colabomb]

As I said, there's a degree of dependence; a newborn infant remains totally dependent on others, but not necessarily the mother as s/he could be fed by others and raised to adulthood. While in the womb the child is absolutely, completely dependent on the blood supply and physical protection of the mother.

which is exactly why the mother's womb should be sacred and safe.

[Colabomb]

Finella Is a fetus a person?

[pmcleanj]

This thread was kept open in recognition of the restraint and mutual respect shown by the posters.

The subject has, however, run its course.

If anyone wishes to continue to debate the rightness or wrongness of abortion, they must take that discussion to Philosophy and Morality.

If anyone wishes to discuss Anglican issues related to current events, please open a new thread to do so.

Thank-you all for your consideration and deportment in this thread. It was great to see.

Pamela.