Say Goodbye to the holy-whore

 

Claude Monet: Sunrise Impression

A recent leaked paper in the US capitol suggests that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the Supreme Court sitting in judgment over some states’ wish for the legalization of a ban on abortion. Given that Canada suffers a cold any time the US sneezes, it looks like any such reversal on abortion rights there will reopen the conversation here. Knowing the past history of the debate before abortion was de-criminalized here (remember Henry Morgentaler?), it’s bound to be nasty … again! (See Why Canada's Roe v. Wade didn't enshrine abortion as a right | CBC News for a commentary on the legal situation regarding abortion in Canada.)

               Arguing the points for and against legal abortion will be futile as it’s always been. A demonstrator for the anti-abortion side gave as her reason the belief that abortion was murder, and she was only trying to save lives. A pro-Roe v. Wade demonstrator carried a sign saying, “You value lives before they’re born, but not after,” or words to that effect. Thoughtful, logical, courteous discussion on which approach governance should take on this issue is not to be expected; these trains ride on rails of outrage.

               What shouldn’t be forgotten is that anti-abortion pressure is driven much less by a passion for the life of the unborn than by an obsession with restoring men’s dominance over women. All through the 90s and into this century, the evangelical right in the US has waged a campaign to draw a clear line between what God wants men to be, and what God wants women to be. Reflected in the gun culture is the militant, powerful, head-of-the-house, head-of-the-nation vision of what constitutes God-ordained manhood. To say that women exist to be on call at all times to service men’s nutritional, sexual, emotional needs is no exaggeration of some of the rhetoric thrown around in circles calling themselves Christian. A good wife is destined by God to be maid, cook, au pair and 24-hour, on call holy-whore to her husband. (Numerous websites featuring testimonials of women leaving the Southern Baptist Convention style of “evangelical church,” can be found,  See one such at Beth Moore Says She Is 'No Longer A Southern Baptist' : NPR)

               And if his seed has started a pregnancy in her, she’d better suck up whatever pain, inconvenience, indeed any personal contingencies it entails, and bear and care for his child. Nothing can change; that’s the way God planned it. Obscure verses can be found in scripture to support every contention of the binary, male-dominant view of human gender and sexuality. That scribes of old put into God’s mouth “I have known you (Jeremiah) before you were born; I knit you together in the womb,” is, to one Texas preacher, irrefutable proof that a human life begins at conception. Ironically, the book of Joshua putting into God’s mouth the order to massacre all the already-born of Ai is not touted as proof that a genocidal massacre of one’s enemies is the right way to go. (Read about it at BATTLE of AI | Joshua 8; Achan's sin; Stealing the plunder; Tithing (godswarplan.com))

               Let’s be brutally honest: the so called “evangelical church” as we see it operating in the USA  doesn’t follow Jesus; it has put a leash around Jesus’ neck so that he shall follow them wherever their self-righteous rages take them.

               Were I to recite all the Biblical passages that do not support the binary gender spectrum, that don’t celebrate male gender superiority and militancy, I’d fill many pages. I might start with Second Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land,” and go on to “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:29).

               It may surprise you to hear me say that I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. Abortions are painful, distasteful medical procedures with multiple overtones of shame and guilt attached. I know no woman who would ever say, “I think I’ll get myself impregnated so I can have a delightful abortion, maybe blog about it!” The challenge for societies that can land a person on the moon and split the atom is to offer a science that gives any woman a way to prevent pregnancy until giving birth is her … oh, wait, we already have that.

               A CBC news story on this subject today cited a study saying that the reversal of the Roe v. Wade ruling would reduce the number of abortions in the US by 12%, +/- 2%. Legislating abortion and advocacy for abortions as crimes will not achieve what proponents are hoping for, anymore than murder laws eliminated killings or highway rules eliminated road accidents.

               Given the current climate of culture wars and political militancy, leaving pregnancy decisions up to the persons directly affected strikes me as the choice with the most integrity. Call it “the best of a bad lot,” if you must, it holds the best promise of children being started, birthed and raised in a nourishing, welcoming atmosphere … and avoids the folly of men who never face the physical, mental or emotional rigours of pregnancy haughtily deciding from their high towers what others shall and shall not do and think.

               I apologize to all those men who have done their thought and reading homework and have arrived at the conclusion that “lord of the manor simply because you have a penis” doesn’t reflect the suffering servant model your fellowship claims to follow. If y’all find yourself in a church that makes of women second class children of God by, for instance, banning them from the pulpit from which leadership is practiced, understandings dispensed, I strongly advise you to leave, find a church whose men have discarded illusions of their god-ordained superiority.

               I also apologize to you women who have done your thought and reading homework and concluded rightly that forced abandoning of self-esteem and personal integrity is not God’s will for you. Perhaps you’re one of those confident women who have been cajoled into the role of sycophants to the rantings of male militancy and have begun to take the road back to personal integrity. If you’re torn between uncomfortable acquiescence to men you love and the right to exercise freely the talents and understandings creation gave you, I empathize totally with your dilemma. Think of your sons and daughters; refuse to be silent when you’re pressured to make of them stereotypes of what others think they ought to be.

               That is, after all, the only thing that so many of us find ourselves able to do.  

Let me warm your feet a bit, it may help you to think!

Aaaahhh, autumn

What a difference a day makes, 24 little hours . . .

From CBC News online:

“Two convicted criminals, one of them still serving time, have been awarded Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals by a Conservative MP.”

    The Conservative MP awarding these medals was my MP, Maurice Vellacott, representing the constituency of Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. The two “criminals” referred to are anti-abortionist activists Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, both of whom have been convicted over the years for disobeying restraining orders prohibiting them from demonstrating at and/or interfering with the normal activities at abortion clinics.

    I didn't know about these medals, nor that MPs each had the privilege of recommending 30 people to receive them. Vellacott's choice has been questioned by the opposition and others inasmuch as the two recipients have demonstrated contempt for the law which MPs are expected to uphold.

    Vellacott's defence was also reported in the article:

“Unlike the justice minister, Vellacott was unable to award these medals to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead, so instead the award to those 'heroines of humanity' Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons who are trying to protect defenceless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death, and trying to let vulnerable women know that there are other options and support and adoption possibilities,” Vellacott said in his statement: “It's what you would expect in a caring, compassionate society.”

    Vellacott continued, “It's a pretty upside down world when we honour abortionists like Henry Morgentaler for killing over 5,000 babies and imprison precious women, like Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons, who try to save babies from such savagery. They are the real heroes of humanity!”

    I'd be the last to condemn the women for exercising civil disobedience in support of their strongly-held beliefs. Their courage, considering the consequences to themselves, seems clear whether you agree with their stand or not.

    Vellacott's actions in awarding them the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal, however, shows a lack of judgement many of his constituents recognize as being consistent with a chain of missteps. Vellacott needs to decide whether he represents his constituents or a few ideological hot buttons. I know the distinction isn't clear-cut, but the laws regarding abortion must either be upheld or changed by the orderly processes of parliament and the recent rejection by that body of any revival of debate on “when life begins” seems not to have taught Vellacott anything.

    And then there's the language: savagery, killing, butchery in relation to abortion are words that suggest the speaker has lost his objectivity, an objectivity constituents have a right to expect from their representative in Ottawa.

    But then, “orderly processes of democracy” is something the current government doesn't seem to be concerned about: omnibus bills, proroguing parliament to avoid difficulties, announcing controversial decisions at two minutes to midnight, the list goes on and on by now. If Vellacott acts without an understanding of how democracy ought to function and what the role of an MP is in a democratic state, he's in good company with Stephen Harper, Vic Toews, Bev Oda, Peter McKay, John Baird and the rest, all of whom have demonstrated their contempt for parliamentary debate at various times.

    The awarding of a few Queen's Diamond Jubilee medals is not a big thing, and maybe I'm just piqued because I didn't get one. The behaviour of MPs in a democracy is a big thing, however, and I wish my fellow constituents would hold Maurice Vellacott's feet to the fire more often than they do.

    There's no point in my doing so; he won't acknowledge my messages anymore.

If you don't believe in it, don't do it!

Academy Bed & Breakfast now

Academy Bed & Breakfast after September

John Irving, author of The World According to Garp, The Cider House Rules and A Prayer for Owen Meany, was on George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight the other night. (See http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/George_Stroumboulopoulos_Tonight/1595682788/ID=2235874723) Irving has been a stalwart supporter of equal treatment for people regardless of differences—in gender preference particularly. Stroumboulopoulos played a clip of Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry, on a homophobic rant while he was still in the running and trying to turn a tide that was quickly shifting against him. (Remember the “I would close three federal agencies: commerce, education and . . . and . . .” speech?) The question to Irving was, “What do you think of comments like that?” If you click on the link above, you can hear his reply; if not, it was something like: “If you don’t believe in gay marriage, my best advice to you is to avoid falling in love and marrying someone of the same gender. Likewise, if you’re not pro-choice regarding abortion, don’t abort your foetuses. We don’t tell you hard liners what to do, why do you feel you have to direct us?”

There’s something of American “individual rights” mentality in that response, but there’s some food for thought as well. In a similar vein to Irving’s point of view, I would tend to add: “If you believe the Bible literally read to be the one and only true source of instruction and guidance for humans, read it carefully and apply it to yourself as best you can, but refrain from applying it to your neighbours. Encourage them, rather, to study it for themselves and act upon it if it moves them.” The urge to use civil government to enforce a uniform ethic is always there, as witness the current attempt to hold a parliamentary debate on “when life begins,” a conundrum that can’t possibly be resolved in a debate in the Canadian parliament at this time.

Is human biology ethical? moral? We’re designed for a scenario in which procreation was mandatory for survival, so important that the urge to copulate had to be as strong as the urge to eat lest indifference cause our species to dwindle. Unfortunately, in our age survival hinges on our ability to limit procreation, while the libido designed for an earlier aeon ticks on. Imagine what the world would be like if we could devise a new way to procreate. In order to have a baby, suppose two people would have to face each other for ten minutes while kneeling on dried peas, tapping each other on the shoulders continuously with peeled birch sticks and chewing a special gum. After ten minutes, they would exchange DNA by swapping their wads of gum and one of them would develop and pass an egg, which they would take turns tending until it hatched nine months later. Accidental or unwanted pregnancies would be rare and we would certainly have resolved the abortion debate. Sexual union would be just the most pleasurable way of expressing intimacy and love, or, perhaps, be available as an alternative to Scrabble.

I thought I detected the exasperation of weariness on John Irving’s face at the question; that “must it always be about this?” ennui that we’re all beginning to feel over the questions of same-gender marriage and abortion. His “If you don’t believe in it, don’t do it” may be as close to an answer as it’s possible to get on these issues

 . . . and a few others you could undoubtedly name.

Take Action

Grasslands National Park: top-bottom - rabbit, lichen, Frenchman River, 70-Mile Butte.

We spent the better part of the long weekend exploring the Grasslands National Park near Val Marie, Saskatchewan. You should go there. It’s a phenomenal glimpse into the sights, sounds, smells and feel of the prairies after the ice age and before mankind. Enough said; discover it for yourself, preferably on a hot day in summer when the desert positively hums with crickets and the clicking of grasshopper wings.

We stayed in the Convent Country Inn (http://convent1.sasktelwebsite.net/), an old brick building in which the Sisters of the Assumption of Mary lived and taught school until the end of that era. The food was great, the hosts gracious and the room was a tad warm, but it was a great place to spend the nights. From our room (8; the best room in the Inn we were assured) we could see the Catholic Church and a billboard: “Abortion stops a beating heart; take action.” We wondered as we read the faded words on the weathered billboard what action we were being urged to take. Should we join in the pro-life movement and demonstrate? Should we write to our MP and tell him we’d like to see abortion re-criminalized? Should we refrain from aborting our unexpected pregnancies and urge our family and community to do likewise? What action were we being urged to take?

Everything about abortion is tragic, from the first awareness of an inappropriate, possibly shameful, pregnancy to the contemplation of the probing of instruments and the expulsion of human tissue and finally, to the guilt of knowing that but for this decision, a person would exist who now doesn’t. No one—I’m guessing—is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is a question of who decides what is to be done when unexpected pregnancy presents itself. Should it be the state? Should it be the individuals involved? Should it be the church?

I can only think of one action I can appropriately take in this regard, and that is to support efforts to prevent inappropriate pregnancy. And what form might that take? Education is good, properly done. People need to know how to prevent pregnancy safely. Availability of the apparatuses of prevention is good; I would rather see easily-obtained birth-control pills than abortions, than children being raised by children, or unwanted and resented children growing up in an environment that lacks nurturance. Abstinence is good if it doesn’t become a religion; doing without coitus doesn’t actually cause acne.

What does all this have to do with Grasslands? You’d have to ask the people who put up the billboard, I guess. But the quiet, “natural” unfolding of life in this wilderness said something to me about the tranquility of creation . . . as opposed to the anxieties we humans create, even about as natural a thing as reproduction.