As some readers know, I am a lay preacher. Last month I was asked to address the issue of social justice. I chose crisis pregnancies as the vehicle for examining this vital biblical topic. A woman who was in attendance at the sermon spoke to me afterwards about her reaction. I invited her to put her thoughts in writing and I would post them on my blog site. She sent me three excellent responses of varying length and content. The first of these appears below.
The writer prefers to remain anonymous. She is using Mahlah as a pseudonym. I will just say that while she was present when I spoke, she is not a member of that particular congregation. And she would describe herself as pro-life. I consider her to be a mature and devout Christian. Her thoughts are her own, and this post appears unedited.
Who put the crisis in crisis pregnancy?*
WE did, as a society. We are a male-dominant individualistic instant-gratification society, and our media have promoted irresponsible sexuality along with myths of romance that obscure real-life consequences. Then we have not made adequate provisions for the victims of our societal choices: the pregnant women and their children.
First of all we raise girls to be hyper sexual. We put our little girls in tiny bikinis. We allow our pre-teens to dress like prostitutes. Ads on TV and in print present young women as sexual prizes for men who can afford an expensive car. Male publishers (and female ones too) market women as sexually available to anyone anytime. The message is: women exist for men. It's called female subordination. Pregnancy is not part of the message. Male responsibility is not mentioned**.
So a pregnancy can be a crisis in the relationship. He never meant to be a father. She was not raised to support herself and her child(ren).
Societally, women have been streamed into low wage jobs, and although feminists have worked hard to change that, women's wages, even for those who can work full time full year, still average 70% of men's.
In addition, maternity benefits and child care provisions are still poor. For every small improvement, there seems to be a setback and except for Quebec, there aren't enough accessible regulated programs affordable to average income women. Child care subsidies are inadequate. Mr. Harper's government offered a taxable benefit of a hundred dollars a month to mothers of a child under six. My daughter's childcare expenses for her four year old are $650 a month.
So pregnancy can be an economic crisis for a woman without a partner willing to contribute financially or personally to the raising of the child. A male-dominant individualistic society leaves her and her child on her own.
People in my church are under the illusion that “the government takes care of people like her.” They are unaware that income assistance is less than half the income she requires to support herself and her child. And it ends when the child is three.
Adoption, the alternative proffered by many pro-life people, is also anti-life, particularly if the adoption is closed. It ignores the child's lifelong feelings of abandonment as well as the mother's pain.
One woman who had given up a child said to me, years later, “Every time I read about a child molested or killed I wonder, “Is that my child? “
So after one adoption, next time she will have an abortion. There often is a next time, because her grief, her low self-esteem and her lifelong training in subordination will drive her into another man's arms. As a society, we have made a “life choice” very difficult for her.
Many people see all this as “no more than she deserves,” but that's blaming the victim. A truly pro-life society would work on male responsibility, different socialization, better wages for women, more affordable regulated child care programs and improved income assistance. Changing the world is harder than we think.
* Title of a sermon by John Sutherland
**There was one beautiful billboard picturing a mother and a baby with the message: LOVE THEM BOTH. Unfortunately men probably don't learn to take responsibility by looking at a billboard.
The writer prefers to remain anonymous. She is using Mahlah as a pseudonym. I will just say that while she was present when I spoke, she is not a member of that particular congregation. And she would describe herself as pro-life. I consider her to be a mature and devout Christian. Her thoughts are her own, and this post appears unedited.
Who put the crisis in crisis pregnancy?*
WE did, as a society. We are a male-dominant individualistic instant-gratification society, and our media have promoted irresponsible sexuality along with myths of romance that obscure real-life consequences. Then we have not made adequate provisions for the victims of our societal choices: the pregnant women and their children.
First of all we raise girls to be hyper sexual. We put our little girls in tiny bikinis. We allow our pre-teens to dress like prostitutes. Ads on TV and in print present young women as sexual prizes for men who can afford an expensive car. Male publishers (and female ones too) market women as sexually available to anyone anytime. The message is: women exist for men. It's called female subordination. Pregnancy is not part of the message. Male responsibility is not mentioned**.
So a pregnancy can be a crisis in the relationship. He never meant to be a father. She was not raised to support herself and her child(ren).
Societally, women have been streamed into low wage jobs, and although feminists have worked hard to change that, women's wages, even for those who can work full time full year, still average 70% of men's.
In addition, maternity benefits and child care provisions are still poor. For every small improvement, there seems to be a setback and except for Quebec, there aren't enough accessible regulated programs affordable to average income women. Child care subsidies are inadequate. Mr. Harper's government offered a taxable benefit of a hundred dollars a month to mothers of a child under six. My daughter's childcare expenses for her four year old are $650 a month.
So pregnancy can be an economic crisis for a woman without a partner willing to contribute financially or personally to the raising of the child. A male-dominant individualistic society leaves her and her child on her own.
People in my church are under the illusion that “the government takes care of people like her.” They are unaware that income assistance is less than half the income she requires to support herself and her child. And it ends when the child is three.
Adoption, the alternative proffered by many pro-life people, is also anti-life, particularly if the adoption is closed. It ignores the child's lifelong feelings of abandonment as well as the mother's pain.
One woman who had given up a child said to me, years later, “Every time I read about a child molested or killed I wonder, “Is that my child? “
So after one adoption, next time she will have an abortion. There often is a next time, because her grief, her low self-esteem and her lifelong training in subordination will drive her into another man's arms. As a society, we have made a “life choice” very difficult for her.
Many people see all this as “no more than she deserves,” but that's blaming the victim. A truly pro-life society would work on male responsibility, different socialization, better wages for women, more affordable regulated child care programs and improved income assistance. Changing the world is harder than we think.
* Title of a sermon by John Sutherland
**There was one beautiful billboard picturing a mother and a baby with the message: LOVE THEM BOTH. Unfortunately men probably don't learn to take responsibility by looking at a billboard.
2 comments:
Women aren't victims of unwanted pregnancy. They are responsible for the consequences of their actions like anyone else.
What frustrates me is immoral people who subjugate their personal values to the changing political dynamics of law.
Roe vs Wade was a subjective decision in 1973 to appease the feminist lobby. DNA fingerprinting proved the individuality of the fetus in 1989 and made Roe vs Wade logically irrelevant.
Laws are supposed to reflect justice. Justice is based on both the social value to discriminate between right and wrong and our perception of the truth that changes with our understanding of logic and science.
While time tested religions do oppose abortion, they are not the reason for doing so.
I find it interesting that Rob Misek is very willing to condemn women for the choices they make, even when faced with the factors that determine those choices. Is he willing to take any responsibility at all for his role in that subjugation? It seems unlikely. How can you support a law that only applies to half the population?
You are welcome to your beliefs, Rob. But get them the hell off my body.
Post a Comment