The CBE Scroll

Comment by Liz

April 3, 2007 @ 9:30 am

Wow! That is amazing - just shows that justice in the realm of equality is a burning issue in all realms including the political arena.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

April 3, 2007 @ 4:06 pm

No, it is a matter of the inequality shown in the in the advertisement that is objected to. It is not just little girls who suffer because of disease, poverty and oppression.

I am surprised that you did not notice that. Isn’t the name of your organization Christians for Biblical Equality? Do you mean equality, or feminism?

Comment by Lori

April 3, 2007 @ 5:36 pm

Well, Donna beat me to it, but I was basically going to say the same thing. I don’t have a problem with the BCI banning this ad, because it grossly oversimplifies a very complex issue. Because there are two groups of babies, black and white, in the ad, then I’ll break it down for each group.

White

Less education–in the West? In fact, we have the exact opposite problem. In both Britain (where I live) and America, there are far more women than men entering higher education. In fact, officials in both countries are wringing their hands about the “gender imbalance” and trying to figure out how to motivate boys to go beyond high school.

More poverty–I don’t know about America, but I recently read that the majority of people on welfare in Britain are young, unwed mothers. So in that respect, the ad is true. However, the reason these young women are poor is because they get pregnant, then drop out of school to have their babies. With no job skills and limited education, it’s very difficult for them to then get a job. I suppose you could trace this all back to some patriarchal conspiracy that teaches girls their only worth comes through having sex. However, you could also argue that the breakdown of the family has had a great deal to do with it. With no parent to spend quality time with girls and give them a higher sense of self-esteem, then girls will seek love and acceptance wherever they can find it.

Violence–depends on what kind of violence we’re talking about. Men are far more likely to die from violent causes, and are far more likely to commit violent acts. The population of our prisons proves that. (And the fact that most male prisoners grew up in poor, single mother homes shows how poverty affects them, too.)

More disadvantage–like what? The only way I can think that Western women are oppressed is if they follow the complementary view of gender relations. However, that’s an internal debate within Christianity. I can tell you that here in Britain, they pretty much look down their noses at the complementary movement. They take it for granted that women should be treated equally in society. About the only way they regard women as being oppressed is possibly the difficulty of balancing work and childcare, but that’s a far cry from living in a country where you can be killed for “dishonoring” the men in your family.

AIDS–I don’t know the exact statistics for Western women as opposed to men, so I don’t know if they have higher rates of this disease. However, I know the best way to avoid getting it is to get married and stay committed. Women are more likely to get by engaging in promicuous sexual behavior. With the exception of prostitutes, women have a choice to say no. Our culture may glorify such promicuity, but that doesn’t mean you have to follow the culture.

Black

Less education–are we talking about black Africans? Because that’s the only way I can make sense of this. If so, then you could apply that equally to boys. The only way I think this would really apply would be to talk about girls in Muslim countries. They really are discriminated againt when it comes to education.

Poverty–again, I assume we’re talking about Africa. This could apply equally to men. The newspaper I read has been following the situation in Zimbabwe, under the dictator Mugabe. They also follow the situation in Darfur. In both cases, men are suffering terribly, too.

Violence–I suppose they mean domestic violence? Women certainly suffer from that in less advantaged countries. However, men suffer from violence just as much, as I outlined above.

It’s late and I’m tired, so I’ll come back to this some other time. Suffice it to say that this ad is all over the map, and terribly confusing. If they wanted to highlight problems relating to women, then I think they would have done a much better job by doing just that–talking about specific problems in specific regions, and not just making vague generalizations.

Comment by Donna L. Carlaw

April 3, 2007 @ 6:13 pm

Quite good, Lori. I could point out the areas of disagreement, of course, but I choose to explain how I think about this issue of oppression and violence done against human beings.

Children are in greater danger from being abused or even killed by their mothers than by their fathers - at least here in the US. Yes, mothers spend more time with their children. No, this is not an anti-woman statement. It’s just how it is.

It is still the same dynamic as in other domestic violence cases. The physically larger and stronger tends to have the advantage over the smaller and weaker if things escalate to the point of violence.

The cases of wives abusing their husbands could be included, since that is more common than we women like to admit, generally.

It’s more biblical, and more in line with all of reality, to see that violence and oppression is a human problem, part of our shared humanity and our fallen nature. It is not specifically a gendered problem, though there are areas where one gender may suffer greater than the other, or tend to be more guilty, as Lori so clearly pointed out.

IMO, of course, we Christians should look at the individual who is suffering, and not plug human beings into some category before we can see their suffering and need and feel a need to speak out for those whose voices are being silenced.

FWIW

BTW, I am one of those evil complementarians, but am not oppressed, nor have I ever been in my marriage or in the church. Maybe I’m the only one?

Comment by Jesse

April 3, 2007 @ 9:26 pm

It is not just little girls who suffer because of disease, poverty and oppression.

Of course not. But they suffer disproportionately. Just a quick roundup:

Worldwide, 1.3 billion people live in poverty. 70% of them are women.

15,000 victims of sexual trafficking are brought into the US annually; 80% of them are female (and 50% of them are children)

In Morocco, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan women have no legal authority and are restricted from public life, denied access to jobs, and must comply with restrictive dress codes. Some of these countries deny women basic rights like voting, driving, and access to medical care.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, tradition and/or statutory laws discriminate against women by severely curtailing or denying rights to own, buy, sell, inherit, and dispose of property. As women have become widowed due to the AIDS epidemic, these laws have plunged women and children into a life of extreme poverty

Over 2 million girls suffer female genital mutilation annually, mostly in Africa and the middle East. Depending on the country, between 5% and 95% of girls in African nations are victims of FGM. In some regions, it effectively reaches 100%.

Of the estimated 113 million children who do not attend school due to poverty, local custom, or violence, 60% of them are girls.

95% of babies and children living in Chinese orphanages are able-bodied girls with living biological parents. They have been abandoned because their parents preferred a male child.

Comment by Mary

April 4, 2007 @ 12:54 am

Thank you for providing the statistics, Jesse.

Simply because women–as human beings–do commit violent acts and do make poor choices in life, does not negate the demonstrable fact that women and girls are statistically at far greater risk worldwide than boys for death, disease, violence, and enslavement, even prior to birth. Just how much more so, depends on what country and what locale in that country. It’s true that Western women have much more freedom and many more rights than women in other parts of the world. If we put our blinders on and look only at situations similar to our own, and don’t care to face the facts about women and girls elsewhere, then a case can be made that we can afford to ignore the subjugation of female human beings. (Though I think that even one case in which ANY human being, male or female, being deliberately sinned against because of his or her gender, is one too many.)

I find it amazing that Christians will claim that there is no particular problem with the appalling situation that the majority of women and girls in this world face. Because I embrace the equality proclaimed in the Bible for all people–male and female–I believe that proclaiming release to the captives (as Jesus himself did) is essential to spreading the gospel. Pretending that women and girls are not being targeted for violence, oppression, and murder–sometimes even before birth–for simply being female, is obviously possible, but it does nothing to address the problem. I think we’ve seen here a sad illustration of the problem. When fellow Christians will ignore the obvious in order to denounce equality, I see again that systemic patriarchy cannot stand up to honest scrutiny.

And for the record, I don’t doubt that there are many cases of willful sin committed against males simply because they are male. I have yet, however, to see governments and religions and cultural traditions institutionalize such sin against males. The systemic victimization of girls and women, however, is what is behind the issue raised in this post, and that’s why it’s a red herring to claim that egalitarians care more about females than about males simply because this post discusses the systemic preference of males over females in many parts of the world. (There is still significant male preference in the West as well, despite much progress in the acceptance of the full humanity and equal rights for women and girls in the West.)

Comment by Jeannette

April 4, 2007 @ 5:59 am

Jesse,
Thanks for your post! Obviously, most people are unaware of those statistics. There is a need for education. Women in the US certainly have it much better than women around the world, but, world-wide there is a disproportionate number of women who are disadvantaged and many suffer due to the cultural practices Jesse mentioned. (i.e. human trafficking, unwanted female babies, etc.) I fear that too often American Christians live in a “bubble.” Life is nice and comfortable for them so they reason that it’s not happening or it’s not “that big of a problem.”

Jesus told us to LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR. In this global world of the 21st century, we can not sit by and ignore these issues because they are happening “over there.” (Although many of the issues are happening here. Domestic violence is a HUGE issue.) For Christians to ignore this is paramount to being the pharisee who left the beaten man in the street to die!

The ad could have been a little more informative. However, you can only say so much in 30 seconds. It obviously got people’s attention and perhaps that was all it was designed to do. Clearly there is a need for education.

One more thing, I must comment about the statement
” …the reason these young women are poor is because they get pregnant, then drop out of school to have their babies. With no job skills and limited education, it’s very difficult for them to then get a job.”

Yes, that is true. I do not condone or support the immoral life-style of our culture BUT here again, WHERE ARE THE MEN? It takes two to conceive these children but the men are not MADE to support them financially. I once heard a very prominent evangelical Christian on the radio arguing to “take away women’s government services if they had more than one child out of wedlock.” I agree that it is a messed up cycle that women need to get out of….but why ONLY blame the women. They would not be living on government support if the men were doing there part. And what further infuriates me is this particular Christian is a self-acclaimed complementarian, so by his OWN standards the very essence of “manhood” is TO PROVIDE. But instead of using his public influence to call men TO PROVIDE, he wants to just leave the women and children high and dry!!! (To me, this smells like a similar situation from two thousand years ago when the pharisees brought the adulterus women to Jesus to be stoned but they neglected to bring the man!)

In the end, I agree, at the heart of the issue is sin, the problem of all humanity.

Comment by Liz

April 4, 2007 @ 6:39 am

Thanks for the excellent posts outlining something of the suffering in what constitutes 2/3 of our world. When I read the original post I thought the ad was referring to some of the countries mentioned by Jesse (certainly not America or England)
The previous ads were about ‘apartheid’. ‘child soldiers’ and ’slave labourers’ none of which is practised in the 2 countries mentioned. The concern of the Catholic church is obviously for people in countries where women are treated as less than second-class citizens and some of the statistics written show this fact.
This discrimination against females is where patriarchy goes if taken to its fullest extreme which people in the ‘western’ world seldom see, particularly if they live and move only among middle class, well-educated people.

Comment by Lori

April 4, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

I’ve been doing some research on this issue, and here are some things I found.

First of all, the ad hasn’t disappeared. The Irish blogosphere has been all over the issue, and the ad is widely available on the internet because of it. Here’s one source.

[a=href"http://www.redcardinal.ie/social-media/08-03-2007/banned-trocaire-lent-tv-ad/]

The reason the BCI banned it was because they believe the ad is advocating a political position, and the BCI is not allowed to run political ads. Specifically, BCI objectd to Troicare including its website address in the ad, because once you go there, you are requested to sign a petition advocating women’s rights that will be sent to the UN. In its defence, Troicare has said that the ad itself does not contain any mention of the petition; therefore, it should not be considered political. I tend to agree with the latter position. (If you’d like to know more about them, here’s their website. [a=href"http://trocaire.org/]

There appears to be a great deal of outrage over the issue in Ireland, so the ad is getting a lot of airplay. And the ad is only banned on the government-run BCI. The for-profit channel RTE is running the ad.

Troicare has issued a response to the fuss. [a=href"http://www.village.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=3773] In it, they acknowledge that Western women take their righs for granted, then pretty much repeat the statistics that Jesse did. The focus of the ad is supposed to be on women is less developed countries.

Comment by Lori

April 4, 2007 @ 1:09 pm

And so we come back to the ad itself. (Sorry, the other post was running too long.) I feel that I should clarify my remarks above. I have no problem with Troicare, or their wanting to raise awareness on this issue. Having browsed their website, I find that I am very much in agreement with them on many issues. The reason I was upset is just the opposite: I felt the ad was ineffective, and therefore did not serve the cause it was trying to promote very well. I wish it had been done differently so the message would have been more powerful.

For instance, if I had been the ad agency advising Troicare, I would have told them to tighten the focus. Eliminate the white babies and focus on women in other countries. Let me give you an illustration as to why.

On one of those blogs I mentioned above, somebody commented and said that the Catholic Church was being very hypocritical in running this ad, since they don’t allow women to be priests. The remarkable thing about this comment was that the blog was not a Christian one, nor did the poster identify himself as such. Stop and think about that for a moment. A non-believer takes the idea of women having equal rights so much for granted that he criticizes the church for not doing the same. (Many Americans, including myself, feel the same way about the complementary movement.) Therefore, this is a non-issue in the Western world, and having white babies simply proves too confusing. Yes, you could say that women are oppressed by certain segments of Christianity that try to subordinate them. However, as I said above, I believe that is an internal debate that will have to be resolved within Christianity, and does not rise to the level of what women in the developing world suffer.

Getting back to the ad, I think it would have been much more powerful if, say, they had focused on adult women in the Middle East or Africa. I also feel that they should have given the statistics that Jesse mentioned. That way, they could have brought the issue home to people and made them realize just how serious it is. Using vague generalizations only produces a vague feeling of discomfort, but doesn’t really motivate people to do anything. Showing real women who have suffered real oppression will make people want to end it. You only have to watch the World Vision ads to see how much more powerful using specific examples can be.

Comment by cokhavim

April 4, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

Just to add to the list in #5, about 0.5 million girls are aborted every year in India after ultrasound sex screening, amounting to about 10 million girls murdered in the past two decades. I wish there was a word like “genocide” to describe this. “Sexicide” perhaps? “Girlicide”?

No other people group in all of history has experienced so much abuse, humiliation, and discrimination. Women and girls were abused, treated as subhuman, and murdered long before Africans, Jews or Armenians ever existed. Women and girls have suffered far longer and more universally than any racial or religious people group. If we condemn Holocaust denial, then how much more so should we condemn the denial of the disproportionate injustices against women!

Why is it that women have experienced so many injustices for so long, so universally, and so much more than men? Of course, men experience injustices too, but I’m not asking “why is there any injustice at all?” The answer to that question is clearly human sin. But what I want to know is, why do women experience far more injustice than men? For there is ample evidence that this is true. What do you all think?

Comment by Jesse

April 4, 2007 @ 1:51 pm

I think God told us why in Genesis 3, at least partly. “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (DEscriptive, not PREscriptive). Women’s in-born inclination to be relational was perverted to an unhealthy level by the Fall, just as a man’s testosterone-driven natural inclination to dominate was perverted by the Fall. Women “keep the peace” at all costs, while men “take dominion” over women and other human beings, which was never mandated in Creation (men and women together were told to take dominion over the creatures and the earth, not other human beings). Had there been no Fall, these qualities would have been much more balanced and no gender hierarchy would have resulted.

Comment by JLP

April 5, 2007 @ 12:23 pm

Donna and Lori,

The ad probably should have specified that it was referring to females in the less developed countries, as it provides a very accurate description of what these babies will face there because they are female. Women’s lives are much better in the developed world.

JLP

Comment by JLP

April 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pm

To cokhavim,

It’s not just in India that baby girls are being aborted. It happens on a massive scale in China also.

Joan

Comment by JLP

April 5, 2007 @ 12:35 pm

Donna,

The last statistics I saw on child abuse and killing in the U.S. put mothers and fathers as equally responsible. I can’t remember where I saw that statistic. I could try to find it again. Would you like me to?

Where did you get your statistic that more mothers abuse and kill their children than fathers? Do you remember where you got it? If so, could you post it here.

I know statistics aren’t perfect, but I like to see them anyway.

Comment by B

April 5, 2007 @ 4:21 pm

For the person who talked about unwed mothers…

Pro-abortionists talk about choice for mothers.

What choice?

Years ago, the baby was placed with some look-alike family. Now, the baby is killed.

Society still has no room for those babies, or their mothers, if those mothers decide to (how dare they!) keep their babies. Those who are against abortion (esp. the complementarian men who are supposed to be leading!) need to get off their butts and start making that room. Oh, and make room for the mother and child to stay together. How many people have you heard of, righteously detailing how they rescued a poor baby from a life of poverty with its unwed mother, through adoption? What about (financially, at least) adopting mother and child? I realize that not all mothers want this…but I am sure there are many that, through lack of support and resources, are parted from babies that they want to raise.

Comment by JLP

April 5, 2007 @ 7:39 pm

Donna,

Are you aware that over 90% of the perpetrators of the sexual abuse of children are men?

Comment by JLP

April 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm

Donna and others,

Here’s the problem with statistics on child abuse, you have to define what is meant by child abuse. There are different forms. Let me list some of them here, child neglect, child abandonment, verbal abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse. I’ve been looking up statistics but have not seen the abuse divided into categories. The statistics also don’t take into account children who were abandoned before birth by their fathers.

If someone knows of a good site that categorizes child abuse please let me know. Thanks.

Comment by Lori

April 7, 2007 @ 8:49 am

From #16:

[quote]Society still has no room for those babies, or their mothers, if those mothers decide to (how dare they!) keep their babies. Those who are against abortion (esp. the complementarian men who are supposed to be leading!) need to get off their butts and start making that room.[/quote]

According to an article in Christianity Today, a poll has found that “almost a quarter of a million women getting abortions identified themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians.” The article continuded, “With simple logic, it is easy to see the probability of a similar number of Christian men who gave assent to, or encouraged, the abortion of the children they fathered. What’s more, the number keeps increasing.”

And the reason why these Christian men and women are aborting their unborn children? Shame. The article describes how the most common reason given is that the couples are afraid of the shame and humiliation that will come from their church if the woman continues with her pregnancy. Again from the article (Williams is a pastor who counsels postabortive fathers):

[blockquote]But how did abortion become commonplace in the Christian community? As with the Titanic, the cause of the tragedy lies somewhere below the surface.

Williams points out that “there’s no permission granted in the church for pregnancy outside of marriage.” If the pregnancy continues, everyone at church finds out the unmarried couple has had sex. The pregnant 18-year-old sets a bad example for the younger girls in the church. Parents would rather not have Ryan, [Christian whose story was told earlier in the article] as an unwed father, coach basketball for their boys, who will continue to look up to him as a role model. “The unspoken rule,” Williams says, “is that an abortion would be preferable to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.”[/blockquote]

http://ctlibrary.com/563

Althougth this article was written several years ago, I have no reason to believe the numbers are going down. Apparently, neither does CT, because they provided a link to this article in their most recent e-newsletter.

And so we have the great shame of the church in this generation: we march at pro-life rallies, we demonize the feminists who are aborting their babies out of convenience, we cheer rah-rah when a politician promises to make it tougher to get one, but when an unwed mother shows up in our church heaven help her, especially if she is already a member. What? One of our True-Love-Waiting girls having sex? One of our 20-something guys not staying faithful until he meets his blushing bride on their wedding night? A good Christian would never have sex outside of marriage! Oh, what will the children think!

And of course, we ourselves never suffer an ounce of sexual temptation. No, we’re comfortably married with our 2.5 kids and the house with the picket fence and the dog and the loving spouse. We have our Bible studies and potlucks and Wedesday night prayer meetings. We’re not “in the world.” And so, whether we say it out loud or not, we treat the woman like the Pharisees treated the woman caught in adultery. If we know her partner, we treat him like he’s beyond the pale, too. They’re weak. Not spiritaully mature. Certainly not like us. And so we prefer that the problem go away. In the old days, the girl would go out-of-town and then come back later, usually having given up her baby for adoption. That way no one would have to know about it. Today, with our post-modern world, we’ve simply speeded up the process. We are spiritually destroying a generation of men and women, and physically destroying a generatin of unborn babies, because we would rather believe in the illusion that the only people who actually sin are the gays, feminists, and liberals.

And by the way, this isn’t some abstract argument to me. I have personally known young women who were treated like dirt by their churches when they got pregnant, even though they had the baby and gave it up for adoption. One girl I knew almost didn’t make it to missionary training school because her pastor wouldn’t give her a reference. According to him, “Girls like you don’t deserve to pursue Christian ministry.” Someday, the feminists will have to stand before God and account for legalizing abortion, while the church will stand before God and have to account for enabling them. I think a great deal of people will be in for a surprise when that happens.

Comment by JLP

April 7, 2007 @ 10:38 am

To Lori post #19,

I’m a feminist and I oppose abortion. Will I have to stand before God and account for legalizing abortion?

Also - what about the people who helped legalize abortion but are not feminists. Will they be held accountable? Part of the support for legalized abortion came from that part of society that believes sex should not be limited to marriage but had no involvement in the feminist movement.

Comment by JLP

April 7, 2007 @ 10:41 am

Lori about 19,

One more thing. Part of the support for abortion came from the pornographic community. Will they have to stand before God and be accountable?

To blame only feminists for the legalization of abortion in the United States (I’m assuming you mean the U.S. - but I’m not sure) is historically inaccurate.

Comment by JLP

April 7, 2007 @ 6:45 pm

Although some Feminists did help push abortion, so did many non-feminists. Many people who don’t support feminism do support abortion. Although feminists are totally responsible for what happened with abortion, they are partially responsible. I wish they had not been.

However, feminists are totally responsible for the following: women’s right to vote, married women being allowed to own property and women having protection against physically abusive husbands. Without the feminist movement women would not have had these gains. Unfortunately, at every step of the way part of the Christian community opposed these improvements in the status of women.

The feminist movement has its faults, but so does the Christian community.

Comment by JLP

April 7, 2007 @ 6:49 pm

I made a mistake in my last post. I said:

Although feminists are totally responsible for what happened with abortion….

I meant to say:

Although feminists are NOT totally responsible for what happened with abortion….

And I want to reword my last paragraph:

The feminist movement has its faults in its handling of women’s issues, but so does the Christian community.

Comment by Kathryn

April 7, 2007 @ 8:32 pm

Re: comment #19: Lori, your comment illustrates just how badly some of us who name the name of Jesus need to get out of our comfort zone to love people. Maybe your statement will provide some much-needed impetus. JLP, your comments on feminism were right on the money too. It is a very unfortunate part of American history that these gains were opposed by the vast majority of Christians. It is instructive that feminism in America had Christian beginnings. Those who reject feminism sometimes do not realize this. They also do not realize how much of their opinions were formed from second-hand information, filtered through right-wing commentators who of course are not sympathetic with either women’s rights or civil rights for African Americans.

Comment by Kathryn

April 7, 2007 @ 8:44 pm

One more thing: Thank you for opposing abortion. You prove that “pro-life” encompasses many issues, not least of which is recognizing women as full and equal human beings. We need not choose between said recognition and saving unborn life. We can-and must-do both.

Comment by pw

April 8, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

I am intrigued that when violence against women is brought up, female violence also seems to be quickly brought up. Male violence accounts for 90% of violence against men. Male violence accounts for 95% of rapes; 85% of intimate partner violence. A woman who is beaten by her male partner has a 70-80% chance that her children are also being directly physically abused. Children witnessing spousal abuse are as traumatized as children who are directly sexually abused. A third of murdered women in the USA were murdered by their maile partners; 4% of men murdered were murdered by women. Women DO murder their children (usually by neglect and 85% of them are usually mentally disordered); women DO murder their male partners (85% of the women were victims of abuse.) Men seem to be the only ones who murder their spouses AND children. Males seem to be the ones who walk into schools and target either girls AND boys or just girls (as in the fall of 2006 in America.) Women do perpetrate 51% of the abuse done to children–however, one study found that this is a function of statistics–when a male is in the house, males perpetrate 75% of abuse against children. Male children are more likely to suffer physical violence from adult males (girls more sexual violence.) Women do more frequently less severe physical violence; men do less frequently more severe physical violence. We need to look at gender constructs (including those used by the faith community) which perpetuate these statistics.

A few websites for reference:

(Data:http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ipv01.pdf

U.S. DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. HHS, NIMH, May 1996

Comment by Lori

April 9, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

I apologize if I have offended anyone. Perhaps it would be wise if I shared some background about myself.

I would consider myself to be a Christian feminist, so I certainly appreciate all the gains that women have made during this century. I worked for a radical feminist professor at university and helped teach Women’s Studies classes. I sympathize with virtually everything the movement talks about except it’s support for abortion.

Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to deny that support for abortion is part and parcel of the secular feminist movement. I remember attending one rally against domestic abuse. One of the speakers was reporting on the gains women were making in our state, and she included a report on how NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) had successfully pressured lawmakers to resist the pro-life crowd and refuse to tighten abortion laws. In the minds of this speaker, then, one form of abuse is to take away a woman’s right to an abortion. Later, the crowd joined in this mindset. As we marched through the city streets, the rest of the crowd (not including myself), chanted: “Our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!”

This mindset has been part of the radical feminist movement from the very beginning, when Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee helped Norma McCorvey (”Jane Roe”) file her lawsuit to overturn the country’s abortion laws. McCorvey has since become a Christian and pro-life activist, and she says that Weddington and McCoffee never had a particular interest in her. They were simply looking for a test case to overturn abortion. The case was originally filed in 1970, when the women’s rights movement was reaching a crescendo. Thus, liberalizing abortion laws was seen as an integral parat of that movement. Other groups may have supported it, but it was the feminist movement who were responsible for bringing the case, and who are its primary promoters today. It may be unfair to say that they are the only supporters, but like it or not, they will always be seen as the face of abortion rights in America.

Comment by JLP

April 10, 2007 @ 10:52 pm

I am distressed by the feminist support for abortion also. It seems like they done so many wonderful things for women, and then there’s this awful thing they support. It bothers me that they keep equating feminism with support of abortion. They don’t seem to realize that not all feminists support it.

Because of the support of some of the feminist groups for abortion, I just can’t get involved with them. I feel much more comfortable being a part of the Christian eqalitarian movement that supports the moral beliefs I do and yet works to improve the status of women.

Recently I’ve done some feminist reading on pornography. And although there is much I can support in what they say, they don’t have the deeply moral convictions that the Christian community has about it. So even though I appreciate much of the work they have done against pornography, any work I do will be within the Christian community.

Posts 24 through 27 make me wonder what our culture does wrong in the way it raises some boys that makes them turn out so violence and prone to pornography. I am thinking about starting a blog here on this issue.

Comment by JLP

April 11, 2007 @ 8:35 pm

PW-

Thanks for the stats on child abuse.

Comment by Mary

May 3, 2007 @ 7:56 pm

Just in case people are still reading this discussion…

I think it’s quite significant that even the Family Research Council blog, not exactly a bastion of biblical equality, recognizes the huge global problem of gender-selective abortion:

http://www.frcblog.com/2007/04/the_global_war_against_baby_gi.html#more