Thursday, November 10, 2005

amen

sometimes you come across a post that's so solid it makes you vibrate.

this is one of those posts: Redneck Mother: Not a baby-machine

i post a lot about choice and reproductive rights (and abortion). as a christian woman, i guess that's strange to do. it looks like i'm all for a bunch of baby-killing. but that's not it at all; i just have a deeply rooted issue with authority. i've been wanting to write about my pro-choice stance but, for now, that's the best i can do.

redneck mom puts it so much better:

I think about all this in the context of pharmacists presuming to tell women whether they can prevent a pregnancy or not, of legislators trying to ban "unauthorized reproduction," of Sam Alito and all the other conservatives who want women to answer to men about what's going on in their own bodies. And I say this: You have no idea what you're trying to control, no right to do it and no way to do it to your misguided satisfaction anyway because women are not machines and reproduction is not an industrial process. Pregnancy is unpredictable, carries infinitely variable risks, and is so private that it is in many ways a closed book even to the woman herself. If she and her obstetrical team can't shoehorn it into neat, predictable processes, why do you presume you can? No one has the right or authority to compel any woman to go through what I chose for myself, and no one has the right to judge any woman for choosing not to do so.

[via i blame the patriarchy]

31 comments:

MEP said...

That was an very compelling argument. I didn't need to be persuaded; I agree wholeheartedly with her, but I enjoy reading the thoughts of other women who feel like I do. Thanks for sharing.

It is sometimes hard to convince people that you can be pro-choice and a Christian at the same time.

A Christian said...

Okay, I thought what she wrote was typical of anyone who sees her body as a machine. Being a christian and beliving in pro choice is another. Please defend your position bibically, please.

greg said...

a christian -
that's a piece of cake. I don't believe that abortion is mentioned anywhere in the bible, and I know for a fact that it isn't mentioned in the Gospels. Fetuses also aren't mentioned. Looks like abortion just wasn't a big issue for the writers of the bible one way or the other.

The bible does however mention idolotry. Over and over, it mentions idolotry. Idolotry was a really big issue for the writers of the bible, and they didn't like it one bit. You know about idolotry, right? That's where people worship an image of God which they have created as though the image were actually God godself, rather than a human attempt to describe God. Take for example the bible itself. That is a collection of various human images of God: God is like a king, God is like a father, God is the creator of everything, and so on.

There are some really beautiful images of God in the bible, and there are some really deep and insightful images of God in the bible, and so sometimes it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the bible is in fact an image (albiet a very deep and complex image) of God created by humans.

There is nothing wrong with humans creating pictures or images of God. Since it is impossible for humans to have direct knowledge of God (even Moses was allowed to see only God's back - Ex33:20-23), all we have, and all that we will ever have, are our pictures and images to hold God in our minds. Nonetheless, we have always to remember that our images are just that - our images. They are not God. The bible is not God. It is an image of God, created by us. To forget that is to fall into idolatry of the worst sort. You know about idolotry, right?

ding said...

i see no conflict whatsoever in being a christian and being pro-choice - or being a feminist, for that matter. though i suspect christian wants me to give chapter and verse for thinking it's ok to abort a fetus, i won't. it's a tedious exercise; i know the verses about seeds and killing, yada yada yada. if one wants to argue for a consistent-life ethic, that's one thing. to try and tangle me into bible study debate team, no thanks.

pro-choice means that i believe in a woman's right to make a moral decision on her own, without the interference of the state - or her neighbor.

it takes a lot for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy and the heavy, moral weight of that decision must be borne by the woman who makes it - not by someone else who doesn't agree with her choice. if i don't think about allowing a woman to make her own moral choices, i then have to think about what it means to force someone to abide by a moral authority belonging to another.

i don't understand how thinking that a person has the right to make their own moral choices is counter to christianity.

(and now someone who thinks they're really smart is going to come up with some horrifically awful thing, like bestiality or pedophilia, as a 'moral choice' and think to try and get me embroiled in that.

not gonna do it.)

A Christian said...

"that's a piece of cake. I don't believe that abortion is mentioned anywhere in the bible, and I know for a fact that it isn't mentioned in the Gospels. Fetuses also aren't mentioned. Looks like abortion just wasn't a big issue for the writers of the bible one way or the other."



"pro-choice means that i believe in a woman's right to make a moral decision on her own, without the interference of the state - or her neighbor."



Okay, now, which one of you ever brought a life into this insane world of ours?
Just for the record I am not making an argument out of this, I'm seeking to understand why you think this way.

ding said...

i'm not sure what's unclear.
and i'm also not sure what my baby-making status has to do with anything.

A Christian said...

ding, because it seems to me that people who are against pro choice always are the ones who don't like kids, don't want kids, had an abortion, and of course, never had them or they don't understand why life was given to themin the first place. Which may me think, why are you two so much for pro choice. I can see if you and greg didn't like some extreme radical groups who justice is to burn down abortion clinics and the like, because I think that's stupid, totally anti-christian and doesn't mean people will stop getting abortions at all. In fact who can really control what people do anyway. My original question was asking, if you and greg being "christians", why the fight against "life"? Our creator gave us life. To bring a life into this world is one of the most beautiful thing that God has given to mankind, think about it? Jesus? If a person doesn't want their child, give it up for adoption. How simple is that, but giving up something that's growing inside you for months won't be always be easy to do for many, so they go the easy conscience way. Kill it and then suppress the guilt.
When I didn't have any children I thought like you, but now, its not just a fetus,who's not living, its a life,and I know that.
I believe you and greg are looking at it from a intellectual view point. Nope, you can't do it. God said, "the wisdom of the world is foolishness" that is why I wanted you to support your views bibically. I heard all the secular views, but when christians speak out, I want to know, why?

Greg, "thall shall not murder" is in the bible.

Have we lost our focus?

A Christian said...

Correction at the beginning of my post I said "anybody who is against pro choice are... I meant FOR pro choice.

ding said...

it's not a matter of whether i'm childless; that's like the guy i once dated from church who said, 'you might say you don't want kids, but that'll change when they're yours.'

not only is there an assumption that motherhood is a prerequisite for giving an opinion, there's also a mistaken idea that only single, childless people are pro-choice. that's not the case at all.

i think it is completely within christian though to believe that the government shouldn't interfere between a woman and her own moral conscience.

that's what being pro-choice means.

if you don't believe that, you're not pro-choice. it's really that simple.

now, when and if i ever get pregnant, whatever decision i make will be informed by a spiritual and moral ethic that has nothing to do with what my family, friends, neighbors, readers, or government.

trust someone, trust even a feminist christian, that they will make the right choice.

you're right. life is to be protected. how do we define life? are you a consistent life christian? in other words - if you're against abortion, are you also against the death penalty, war and all other forms of killing?

if you're going to argue for a pure ethic of 'thou shalt not kill' then let's talk about all the ways we kill one another and how it's wrong across the board.

ding said...

uh, and i meant 'christian thought'.

ding said...

fyi, hugo schwyzer usually has very good posts about consistent-life ethics and choice at his blog:
http://hugoboy.typepad.com/

he's a christian, too!

jesus chick said...

okay so i'm pro-life (big shock). i don't like big government and the last thing i want is for someone completely unrelated with my situation telling me what i should do. . . as a general rule. it gets a bit mucky (at least for me) re abortion. i will take responsibility for my actions and my choices. but what about a baby? who is looking out for his/her "choice" (to live, i presume). i've always found it interesting that the terms fetus and baby are used so selectively. if there were to be a life saving procedure, it would be done to "save the baby". i've never heard a mother-to-be say "i'm 8 months pregnant and need x-y-z treatment to help my fetus". i'm off on a tangent. . . at any rate, in a previous (somewhat unrelated post) re whether a married woman should tell her husband she's having an abortion someone suggested, "I suppose it's on par with 'should a married man tell his wife that he has had an affair with another woman'? Of course he should. Should he be legally obligated to do so? is having an affair and being responsible for the life of an unborn baby really comparable? for real? dude. . . that's whacked.

ding said...

hi, jc. was wondering where you were!

re: telling a spouse you're having an affair=telling your spouse you're about to have an abortion. aren't they comparable?

both are moral and ethical decisions that will have an affect on the relationship as well as the two people in it. why shouldn't they be comparable? if we think a woman is obligated morally to tell her husband she's contemplating an abortion, a husband is also obligated to tell his wife of icky things. i think we can all say, yes this is so. everyone should talk to their partner about important events/decision.

but this is the crux: should they be legally obligated? by analogy, should a man be legally obligated to report to his wife that he's been unfaithful? i think making the argument that the state should regulate marital honesty is a thin one.

that's all i'm saying. there is no doubt that married people should communicate openly and honestly with one another; it's another can of beans when suddenly the government says 'we're going to MAKE you tell your husband against your wishes.'

now, why wouldn't a wife want to tell her husband she's about to have an abortion? what are the circumstances that halt such communication? not healthy ones. (and the 'women are deceptive' thing isn't going to fly with me here.) so, since there are probably legitimate reasons for this wife to be afraid of her husband, why not trust that that wife knows best? (without the government trying to be marriage counselor?)

jesus chick said...

i agree on all fronts with one minor exception (of course). both decisions are moral and ethical in nature. however one scenario has a human life haning in the balance. i'm sure someone somewhere will say that if a man/woman has been cheated on it could impact them so severely that their life could hang in the balance. but in this situation i'm sticking with the abortion thing.
great pt re why wouldn't a woman want to tell her husband in the first place - something's rotten in denmark. but i still maintain that a child has a choice as well. don't they have a choice? did i miss the memo?

greg said...

Wow, I've been missing all the excitement.

First, let me apologize to 'a christian' - I was a bit flip, and have been regretting it ever since I pushed the 'publish' button.

Second, I have two daughters, but I agree with ding that that is entirely beside the point for this discussion. Or maybe not. I'll let you interpret it as you wish.
(boy, what a nice guy I am...)

Third, "thou shalt not murder" is certainly in the bible, but the entire issue of abortion hinges on the question of at what point the fetus acquires the status of "human being". You think that it happens at conception, I think that it happens considerably later than that. Since the writers of the bible had very little knowledge of the science behind conception and fetal development, they really have nothing to say on this subject. Unless you want to have a debate on this point, there really isn't much for us to argue about because we are operating from different sets of assumptions.

In response to jc, you are correct that in one scenario a human life hangs in the balance; I just assume (since you didn't actually say it) that we disagree about which scenario. In the abortion case we are talking about a blastocyst of perhaps early-stage fetus, neither of which I recognize as a "human" life. In the adultery case, the husband is risking his wife's life by not telling her about the affair (given the risk of AIDs) so in that case I do see a human life hanging in the balance.

Now for the usual disclaimer: pro-choice is not the same a pro-abortion. Even though I don't believe that fetuses are fully human, neither are they the same as rocks. Destroying any part of God's creation is not something to be done lightly. I know of no one who thinks that abortions are a good thing: they are like wars - always bad, but sometimes the least of all possible evils. Being pro-choice means that I believe that decisions about abortion are best left to those who have to suffer the consequences of the choice. Notice that I do not count the fetus amongst these, because I do not regard the fetus as having all the attributes (and thus rights) of a human. In the early stages of it's development it is more a part of the mother's body than an independent creature, and this gives the mother special rights when it comes to deciding whether or not to bring it to term.

It's a funny thing that most pro-lifers are anti-science, and yet believe that what it means to be human is defined entirely by some DNA molecules, while most pro-choicers are pro-science, and yet believe that "humaness" is much more than a simple biological property. God does have a sense of humor.

greg said...

This article on the NYT discusses various bible versus which some believe pertain to abortion (both for and against).

A Christian said...

I originally was addressing one issue which was,why would Ding and Greg, being christians would think that having a abortion is okay for some.

Ding, so you're saying that its the persons responsibility not the governments. In other words, no laws to mandate what a woman should do with her own body?
Yes, but you're a christian and you do have an authority that you will answer too! Wouldn't that along bother you or others?

My statement about not having children could be look at two ways. I know of women who do not have children and would love to have them and they would never abort a baby. On the flip side of that I know of women who don't want children but wouldn't think of killing their baby if they got pregnant.
The solution so no one be harm, no fornicating.

Greg, so you have daughters, great, and you also never gave birth. Which means you are basically clueless about bringing a life into the world. You have experience the moments and heard things, but you did not carry that baby. Its a difference. My hubby is clueless too! Its not a science the way the secular world is trying to figure it out to be and I love science actually. Scientist(some), need to just acknowledge a creator that is bigger then their finite thinking. Read my comments to Ding again(life). Please don't tell me you believe in evolution. I know you are smarter then that!
Yes, you are a nice guy. A rare.


I'm really seeking to understand.

ding said...

christian,

you're either deliberately misunderstanding me or not reading very closely. i believe that a decision to make moral decisions (one of them being abortion) belongs to the individual, and not my government.

my moral decision-making will involve this 'higher power.' notice again that i acknowledged that. did i do that proper church language? probably not. i'm not going to do it.

life is messy enough without having to make guarantees about what i would or would not do in particular situations. why? because i believe that's a decision between me, my faith and no one else.

do i think that the law should have a right to intervene in a woman's ability to make medical, psychological and moral decisions for her self and situation? absolutely not.

i'd really like to hear your arguments why you think the State should interfere in this way.

and yes, i do believe in evolution. i also believe jonah WAS swallowed by the leviathan. if i can believe in jonah, then why can't i believe in evolution? which one sounds even more fantastic than the other?

here's a big tip: the christian world is a lot more diverse than one thinks.

ding said...

greg,
you're right.

arguments for/against abortion all hinge on this question of when life starts. and because this question is usually one with religious parameters, it's a question the state has no right fiddling with.

in other words, the state shouldn't take sides in a religious argument.

ding said...

jc,

i equate the two scenarios because we usually flatten our moral plane. church folk, that is. we have a tradition of saying a sin is a sin. lying, murder, gay sex, voting democrat - all the same.

if this is so, then infidelity is on the same moral level as abortion. now, if the moral playing field isn't level, then all the moral variables are different and should be decided on a different scale.

ding said...

christian,
it occurs to me, since it is late, that my tone could come off as rather harsh. it isn't.

i'm bolding things just so that we're extra clear on what i'm saying. and i would like to hear your thoughts on why the government should interfere in private moral or religious decisions.

A Christian said...

Ding,
I believe in small government. In fact, religion and government, a definite no, no.



I do understand your point. I do believe its a personal choice. However, why is it even a choice from some? I read the article that Greg suggested, andddddd typical of those who want to talk about evangelical christians. We're such a diverse group and I don't think I personally fit in the package of what others may think, because I oppose abortion.

When I was reading that article, I started to think, all those teenage moms who have babies out of wedlock that everybody talks about, but know one wants to acknowledge that at least they had the decency and the courage to do the right and to deal with the consequences of their obvious choice.

See, God is right all the time- NO SEX before marriage. It makes perfect sense.Issues of abortion rather you agree with a persons choice will not be any argument if women and men only do what He told us to do. Sex is for marriage only...

and yes Ding, a sin is a sin, no matter how you look at it. If you don't want get pregnant, don't have sex. See, simple.

when a sperm meets up with an egg, God intended for a life to form. Think about nature. Awesome!

ding said...

Hi there, AC - I'll go through and respond to the points you bring up:

However, why is it even a choice from some?

It's a choice for some because it's a choice for some. In the same way it's a choice for some to think a full quiver is a good quiver (personally, ick) to have an abortion is an option for others.

For instance, a young girl still in high school gets pregnant. Do you know what happens to a girl when she's pregnant in most high schools? She has less chance of graduating, less chance of going to college and less chance of earning money. She's often isolated from her peers, sent to a remedial school or passively encouraged to drop out. For the teenage pregnant girl who wants to finish and graduate with her class she's given the Manichean choice: have an abortion and graduate or carry to term and drop out.

Given those real social parameters, what kind of choice is best for a 16 or 13 year old girl to make?
I think a lot of Christians need to get away from the idea that reality is what they see in front of them in their own neighborhoods; there's a whole other world of social exigencies that most of us don't deal with and will never have to deal with. These are the people I'm talking about.

no one wants to acknowledge that at least they had the decency and the courage to do the right and to deal with the consequences of their obvious choice.

Again, you're making assumptions about what creates the environment that allows an adolescent to have sex. You're not thinking about rape, assault, or coercsion. Where's choice in this?

And, unfortunately, you're making pregnancy a punishment for sex. If that's really what you want to say, then say it: girls should be punished for the sex they have - the sex they have that doesn't adhere to a religious code I personally carry.

And, again, you're not looking at the reality of what happens to young single mothers - these consequences. Unless this girl grows up in a community full of support for her situation, her and her child will most likely rest at the bottom of the socio-economic scale for the rest of their lives. (I say most likely because, of course, there are exceptions.) I work is a social agency and the kind of punishment you advocate is the perfect recipe for urban blight, ignorance and a continuing of the poverty cycle.

But, hey. If that's your deal and think this is the best choice for these women, I guess that's ok.

See, God is right all the time- NO SEX before marriage. It makes perfect sense.

Actually no sex before marriage only makes sense when you have a healthy sense of your body, your goals, your future, your sexuality and an idea of what true intimacy is. It also helps to be grounded in rational, comprehensive sex education. That's the only time celibacy makes sense - when a person is given the right tools to deal with it.

It doesn't make sense, and will fail, when you're made to feel ashamed of your body, of pleasure and not taught what to do when/if an 'accident' occurs.
And again, you're making the mistake of assuming that everyone believes the way you do! Most church folk, I guess, would be quite happy to live in a theocracy that makes religious rules for everyone. I'd rather not. I'd rather help a woman in need make the right choice for *her* and show her the concept of forgiveness. there is no sin that can't be forgiven, is that not correct?

If you don't want get pregnant, don't have sex. See, simple.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated. If you don't want to get pregnant, use birth control consistently, correctly and efficiently. If you're a *Christian* and would rather not have sex before marriage - don't have sex!

See? Two different things.

when a sperm meets up with an egg, God intended for a life to form.
Fortunately, there's a lot that can be done to make sure that meeting doesn't happen!

See, I grew up in a church that saw *every* teenage girl get pregnant and yet the church wouldn't even say the word 'condom.' (The epidemic of pregnancies skipped me and my sister because we had other things to worry about - college.) That logical gap made me furious - I saw them turning promising young girls into welfare mothers.

So, yeah, I'm going to always advocate for young women to make the best choice they can for their long-term survival in a difficult and complex world - and worry about their salvation later.

greg said...

Hmmm, pretty interesting. jc, you seem so take a lot of things for granted about God that other christians (take for instance me) either don't necessarily agree with, or that we flat dab disagree with. Which is not really a problem, except that you need to keep in mind that you know no more about God than we do. While you may have a healthy skepticism about your own views of God, I don't detect it in your posts.

Here is a quote from Gordan Kaufman that I believe goes to the heart of the matter (I apologize for the length - he's a wordy guy):
The central focus of the churches' faith is God - God conceived in absolutistic and universalistic terms as the creator and judge of the world, .... It is not noted as often as it should be how difficult it is to conceptualize this universalizing and absolutizing dimension of God without falling into deep paradoxes: when we attempt to get clearly in mind just what it is we are trying to say here, God seems to disolve into a kind of logical Archimedean point which, on the one hand, is that from which all else comes and to which it ultimately returns, that in terms of which, therefore, all else must be understood; but which, on the other hand, so utterly trancends everthing else (real or imaginable)that it cannot properly be conceived at all. This Archimedean point obviously is not to be identified with our ideas about it, or our act of conceiving it, or our language expressing it: these (and everything else we might imagine or say) belong to the "all else" which God "utterly trancends." But this implies, then, that when we speak of the divine "transcendence" or "wholly otherness" or "mystery," we really do not know what we are talking about; indeed, it is just our not knowing .... that these terms all emphasize. By "God" we mean that which calls us and all our claims and contentions - including expecially our claims and contentions about God! - radically into question. Apart from this feature of God - which thouroughly undercuts any advantage with God that believers might imagine they have in comparison with their (unbelieving) neighbors - all our characterizations of God would in fact involve the (illegitimate) universalization of our own particular standpoint; and no claims about God's universality or absoluteness would be justifiable

Or said more briefly, the minute that you claim that you know the mind of God, you are substituting your own mind for God's, and that is the essence of idolatry. So when you make a statement like See, God is right all the time- NO SEX before marriage., I wonder what makes you think that you know so much about God.

I know this sounds like an attack, but it is not meant that way. Really. I just think that it is important to point out that not everyone concieves of God the same way that you do, and that that does not necessarily make them wrong (just as your disagreeing with me does not make you wrong, and so on). God calls each of us to do the right as we see the right, and to continually reexamine what the right is. As long as we are each faithful to that call, we can trust in God's forgiveness for the sinfulness which causes us so often to make wrong choices.

Peace.

jesus chick said...

holy cripes. greg, dude, i'm not the one who made the comment *See, God is right all the time- NO SEX before marriage*. did i say something that came across as i absolutely know the mind of god? i think if i were to truly behold the mind of god i'd crawl under a rock from the shame of what a lump of clay i am in his presence.

i can honestly say that i completely and adamantly disagree with many things that are posted here, but hey ya know, people have their own thoughts, etc. it's america, right?

at points like this i grow weary of trying to explain myself, of looking up all the big words in my dictionary and figure ya'll just hash it out and i'll wait for the next great debate.
p.s. you don't REALLY expect me to take any stock in the NYT, do you? that was purely for inflamatory purposes - just a joke !!! :)

greg said...

jesus chick,

Unfortunately, I meant the comment for 'a christian,' which I somehow thought was abreviated 'jc' just like you. I guess this means I've pretty well shot my intellectual credibility. Whatever - you'all would have caught on eventually anyway.

My face is really red. Sorry.

ding said...

jesus chick,

and i can honestly say that even though you totally and adamantly disagree with almost everything here i'm glad you keep coming back!

(whyever do you??)

A Christian said...

My intentions when I first posted was for Ding and Greg to tell me why being christians, you support the right of choice.

You have answered by your own beliefs and opinions.I did ask for scriptures from you to support the why, but because Ding said she wasn't going there. I also respected that, and tried not to give any as well.

I stand by everything I said, although Ding and Greg you took some of the things I wrote out context. Allow me to address those.


Ding, you said:

"I think a lot of Christians need to get away from the idea that reality is what they see in front of them in their own neighborhoods; there's a whole other world of social exigencies that most of us don't deal with and will never have to deal with. These are the people I'm talking about."

um, these are the people I know. You see Ding, my reality is not something I am running from are left because I may be at a better advantage or made different choices. However, when it comes to abortion and I say I'm a christian I'm pretty clear about that choice, just as I'm sure that many of those teenagers have thought about as well. There are things about life you are obviously very remove from or never been a part of and you probabaly have smirk at. "Look I never got pregnant" is your focus". That makes you a lot more smarter then those teens , right?


My comment about courage and decency. No, you misunderstood me. What did I say after that. "Sex before marriage is wrong"! See God, not me(greg) is right!
I praise them because they choose to keep their babies. They made a decision or choice that no matter what may lie ahead,they obviously will have to deal with the consequences. When we sin that will include yours truly as well, there are consequences. I don't need statistics on teens and preganancy , I'm very well knowledgeble about it. Yes, there are many who do go on to do very well in life. You might want to talk with some of them. I think it will give you a different perspective. In fact, talk to some young moms who had babies at younger ages and not marry.
Punishment? No Ding, remember, you said a woman should have a choice what she does with her body. They chose to have the child. Just like they chose to have sex. I'm not saying its right. Life is about choices,
right?

Ding, you said:
"Actually no sex before marriage only makes sense when you have a healthy sense of your body, your goals, your future, your sexuality and an idea of what true intimacy is. It also helps to be grounded in rational, comprehensive sex education. That's the only time celibacy makes sense - when a person is given the right tools to deal with it."

those are the ways of dealing with celibacy? I won't comment, but... I can see you do work for a social agency.

Forgiveness? The concept? The teens in my society are pretty bright and very much aware of what sex can cause. The television and the many programs they're watching has contribute to this, along with a decline in morality in our society.

Ding, you said:
See, I grew up in a church that saw *every* teenage girl get pregnant and yet the church wouldn't even say the word 'condom.' (The epidemic of pregnancies skipped me and my sister because we had other things to worry about - college.) That logical gap made me furious - I saw them turning promising young girls into welfare mothers."

You saw every girl in your church at that time get pregnant, but you and your sister. "You two had college on the mind"? What is wrong with with what you just wrote?

I hope you and your sister got the heck out of that church. A church that would allow teen age pregnancy to get out control means something is terribly wrong with that church and its message! What!
when I read that, I was like Ding, you mean you and your sister was the only ones who had sense not to get caught having sex, right? And if you remain virgins, good, but the college comment oncerns me.Your tone about it. "we were so thinking about college that we wouldn't have dare to let sex creep into our thoughts, what would our parents think of us?We will become like those people" Sorry, I can only imagine what you were thinking when you wrote that. Tell me, what are the statistics of young women and sex at college and pregnancy? You don't have to give me the number of abortions. I remember college very well. In fact, a big laugh just came out of my mouth. Yeah, right, Ding!

Having sex before marriage is not complicated Ding. Having sex after you get married, now theres where the complications will come. lol


Greg, I will not address you, because by the grace of God, I am what I am. If you want scriptures for everything I said, then let me know.

"Let God be right and everybody be acurse!"


I want to end by thanking Ding for allowing me to stop by and post on your blog. Your views I may not agree with, but I stil thank you for hearing me out. If I have not been so polite in my responses to you or Greg, please accept my deepest apologies.

You both have answered what I need to know.

Thanks and God Bless

ding said...

Thanks, AC, for stopping by.

And, yes, I am classist. I think education is a pretty good road out of the ghetto and my sister and I made that a priority. It wasn't what our parents would think of us but what WE would think of us. (and i don't particularly think forming decisions about what we don't want because we saw consequences in other people's lives as a bad thing.)

And no, I didn't become sexually active until I was well into adulthood. (though thank you for this aspersion.) In this space here I've been pretty up front that I don't think teenagers should be sexually active.

But thanks for coming by.

greg said...

AC, you didn't offend me in any way. I hope that I didn't offend you either (well, I suspect that some of my beliefs may offend you, but that's a different thing). I'm with ding - thanks for stopping by. It is by conversations with people like you (i.e., people with views very different than my own) that I grow the most in Christ.

Sara E Anderson said...

It's not the marital status of a couple that causes an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. There are women who are married and women who already have children who have abortions. Clearly they're not anti-child.