« Merry Christmas | Main | and now for something completely different »
December 26, 2004
isn't it ironic?
While catching up on 4 days of news and blogs, I ran across this gem. Planned Parenthood is having Pledge-a-Pickets, in which Planned Parenthood supporters can pledge .25 to 1.00 per picketer at certain Planned Parenthood locations. Genius. Picketers want to picket the "evil" pro-choice organization, but by doing so they put money in the pockets of their enemies. Win-win for Planned Parenthood, lose-lose for obnoxious people who want to impose their will on others.
Whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice, you have to admit this is very clever.
Current Affairs 10:21 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834204a9153ef00d8343ecb5053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference isn't it ironic?:
Comments
The ones who will support this effort and put "money in the pockets of their enemies" are anti-life and support organizations like planned parrenthood anyway, so I see at as a zero sum gain.
*stands back to watch the fireworks*
;)
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Dec 26, 2004 4:04:06 PM
Interesting idea. Whether or not it demoralizes the picketers, reduces their numbers, or makes significant money, their idea is certainly a lot more creative and less likely to cause an escalation of violence than other sorts of possible responses.
Posted by: Tvindy at Dec 26, 2004 7:44:07 PM
I support this effort and I am not "anti-life." Pro-choice doesn't equate to anti-life, which is why I used the phrase "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life."
How is it a zero sum game if the anti-choice movements aren't making any money as well?
No fireworks, no flame wars. This space is reserved for civilized debate, and I'll do something nasty to people who attack other people rather than calmly state their cases. That goes for either side here, I am not biased in the case of arguments on my board. :)
Posted by: Alicia at Dec 27, 2004 11:54:31 AM
I see it as a zero sum gain because the "pro-choice" movements are getting money from people who are supporting them anyway. I personally doubt they will get much, if any, "new money". It doesn't affect the pro-life group members at all, and they will just go about their business trying to save the lives of the inconvenient unborn (although with largely ineffective tactics).
It may give a temporary uptick in pledges, but as someone who was worked on pledge drives and such before, I've seen time and time again that clever little stunts like this rarely materialize into any additional money.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Dec 27, 2004 10:55:49 PM
...and since the ultimate ends of the pro-choice movement is to allow the death of the unborn, and I see the unborn as life, I see the pro-choice movement as anti-life, the same way you see the pro-life movement as anti-choice.
Posted by: *Name Hidden* at Dec 27, 2004 10:59:15 PM
My two cents is that pro life organizations are bullshit because they continue to foster this idea that "kids are special", as if childbirth is some miracle, when having sex and having children is no more special then me drinking a cup of coffee and then having to piss.
These people are picketing for the children but I don't see any of them in hospital wards for the elderly, or nursing homes, what, someone gets old enough and their off your love list?
If pro-life groups want to impress me they can lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed they are to this little stance of theirs. Lock arms and stop the eighty year old woman who was hit by a bus from getting into that cemetery.
But your post is about irony. So I'll just say that pro-lifers killing doctors that perform abortions is about the most ironic thing I've ever seen. It's irony on a base level but it's a hoot nonetheless.
Posted by: David at Dec 28, 2004 8:49:33 AM
David,
Your view of childbirth belies the incredible amount of moral indifference that has come to represent much too large a portion of our society.
FYI, the reason you don't see pro-life people in nursing homes, hosptial wards, and prisons (which you left out) is that there is no need to carry pickets into this environment. We are simply there doing God's work quietly and compassionately - focusing on re-inforcing the dignity of life across the entire spectrum. There is no need to make a fuss, at least not yet. Not until the legions of the pro-death succeed in spreading their 'life only when convenient' philosophy to the elderly, infirm and disabled.
Think of how much more fun drinking coffee and pissing would be if it wasn't interrupted by cares and concerns for the grandmother (or mother) with Alzheimer's, or the kid brother with Down's Syndrome, or your quadrapalegic neighbor.
In fact, why don't we re-write the Golden Rule altogether? Instead of "Do unto others...", let's make it something like: "If it's inconvenient, kill it."
Posted by: The Data Nazi at Dec 28, 2004 1:03:06 PM
Stratification.
"Stratification is the point on which all the others ultimately rest. There can be no more myth of "equality" for all -- it only translates to mediocrity. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists.
The current third world war - human locusts overrunning the world, necessitating the thinning out of populations because the Rule of the Fool has, for the first time in history, threatened to destroy civilization and evolution."
-Anton LaVey
And, because I love the hypocritical nature of Christians, I find it highly amusing that you claim a pro life stance because of the writings of the Bible, though you've been married three times, thus ignoring Jesus' teaching on that issue.
Posted by: David at Dec 28, 2004 5:53:47 PM
Okay, so I am gonna step in here.
As someone who wants kids and hasn't had any yet, I do see childbirth as special. More special than making a cup of coffee and pissing. Everyone can piss. Not everyone can have children. My editor at HID can't, and she is adopting.
On the other hand, not everyone who has an abortion does so because having a child is inconvenient. All of the pro-choice people I know, Data Nazi, and I realize that doesn't mean "all pro-choice people," do not believe in the maxim "if it's inconvenient, kill it." Both views do disservice to the honorable, ethical, moral people of either side. If you look, most pro-choice people don't make it an issue of murdering unborn babies, but of the government's ability to regulate that. Smaller government is acheived by keeping rules away from such things. What I gather the argument against that is that the abortion affects a human being. Because it does, it is considered murder. That a mother should not have the authority to terminate pre-born children.
I should know better than to bring up abortion here, but oh well. I honestly can see both sides. But I still believe that abortion should be legal for so many reasons which I will outline in a post rather than a comment. What I really abhor is name-calling and sarcastic retorts in place of meaningful debate.
David, if pro-life groups want to impress me, they can start an organization that adopts the children that would have been aborted, they can start adopting children themselves, and also they can start volunteering to teach true, scientific sex ed so that people understand what causes children in the first place, and they can hand out condoms and fund birth control for the indigent so that these people can have sex too without fear of reproduction. I am all for stopping it before it even happens. I disagree with abortion as birth control, which is why I think birth control should be readily available to all people. I am sure that there are many pro-lifers who do practice what they preach and do some of these things. I just wish they were in the majority and got more media coverage for their good deeds.
Posted by: Alicia at Dec 28, 2004 7:13:58 PM
Well said Alicia. And I agree with absolutely all of it. I abhor the idea of abortion as birth control, but for all other reasons (the most important being that I don't view a bunch of congregated cells in someone's body as a human being (though I -am- staunchly against partial-birth abortion unless needed in dire medical emergences)) and the fact that I, as a human being, have no place telling anyone what to do or not to do with -their- bodies.
On the topic of children. Children are not my forte, but I wouldn't be opposed to ever having one. My crack about childbirth not being special was not meant to demean anyone who has or wants children, but to bring people back down to earth that we, as mammals, give birth. It is a natural reaction to sex and not at all special in that sense. I'm not saying children are not special (they are to their parents and loved ones). But the natural fact is that the majority of people are able to conceive children and those that can't are genetical flukes (albeit heartbreaking ones). This is why we have such agencies for adoption.
My point, though, is very simple. People who picket for stopping abortion are exercising their free will to do so and I will not stop them, for it is their will and right to do so. But I simply cannot understand how they do not turn around and see that the same God-given free will they have everyone else has as well. Which includes all those who choose abortion over giving birth. These people (who picket and rave) are not respecting anyone's right to freedom. They choose to close off their families and children to the option of abortion in medical emergences. To scientific data in favor of creationism. To the natural urges of sex in favor of sin. To the real information about sexual intercourse, disease, and pregnancy in favor a world wherein they get to hold on to some sense of power and morality that is only harming those it is inflicted upon.
My point, again, is that love should be for everyone. Love for everyone of all ages, all races, all genders, all faiths or no faiths, with regard to science and the information we uncover each and every day, and regard to the law, which should be minimum to keep people free willed and strong, and able to cope with their own choices and decisions in life.
Nature assumes we have no "rights". Mankind has created a system of human rights that should be to keep us in brother and sisterhood with one another. Instead we choose to use them to divide and conquer each other. We call things "right" or "wrong". Black or white. Many of us need to learn to find some middle ground. We need to be as Christ or the very name of Islam implies - we need to submit to some idea of a common goal, that meets criteria on both sides, if we are ever to leave this ugliness behind.
Posted by: David at Dec 28, 2004 9:30:13 PM
Despite the evident futility of it, I will attempt to insert some clarity regarding the pro-life position into this discussion.
David decided to take the "all Christians are hypocrites" as a response to my stance. Fine. Sure, my life history is not a example of exemplary Christian virtue, but that's really beside the point. Anyone who has taken time to actually study the Bible will know that most of the important characters were far from perfect. Abraham allowed his wife to be taken by a powerful king, who was only prevented from raping her by God's direct intervention. Yet he 'believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'. David committed adultery and conspired to murder the husband of his conquest when she became pregnant. Yet God promised that his throne and rule would endure forever, because Jesus is a direct descendant. These are just a few of the examples of the many thieves, whores, sexual deviants and other miscreants who found redemption by embracing the truth and falling on the mercy of the Living God.
The point isn't that Christians are better than anyone else. The point is that all of us have sinned and deserve condemnation, but God has provided us with an alternative. This alternative requires honesty, humility, and a willingness to turn from our own devices to the provisions of a merciful God.
My blog is a somewhat blighted attempt to reflect that journey in the life of one woeful sinner. Yes, I was divorced twice and am now married for the third time. If you think that I suffered no consequences for that, then you are sadly mistaken.
The problem with abortion is that the consequences are either muted or delayed by the current legal and cultural lies about the unborn. You can go ahead and think that an unborn child is a mass of undifferentiated cells. You can also choose to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so. There are tons of studies done that clearly indicate that a fetus deserves the legal status of personhood, but you will never hear them in the media.
I urge any woman considering abortion to go and have a sonogram before carrying out this act of murder. As early as ten weeks' gestation, the human form, heartbeat and reaction to stimuli can be witnessed in the sonogram. If you can still go through with it, then you are certainly legally entitled. However, the consequences still must come, delayed though they might be.
Alicia, you stated "I am sure that there are many pro-lifers who do practice what they preach and do some of these things. I just wish they were in the majority and got more media coverage for their good deeds." The fact is that true followers of Christ are seldom in the majority, even in our churches. However, I know that there are many organizations and individuals who promote and pursue adoption of unwanted children. But you will never hear about this in the media, because they have no interest in giving Christian practices and organizations any positive ink.
Sex education? Here's all you need to know if you are not married. Sex is a gift from God reserved for marriage. Consequences ensue when this gift is misused, and the Christian church has no interest in nullifying those consequences. Why? Because consequences of sin are the means by which people come to repentance and salvation.
There is not a true Christian in the history of this planet who has not been brought to the point of despair by the depth and darkness of their sin.
The point here is that there is grace and forgiveness for us all, no matter what the crime, but only when the cloak of denial is shed.
Posted by: The Data Nazi at Dec 30, 2004 9:04:37 AM
For the record, I've never participated in a pro-life protest, and I never will. This strategy strikes me as largely un-Christian in its approach, relying on harassment, manipulation and public shaming to achieve its purpose.
My personal belief is that we must continue to strive to bring people to the WHOLE truth, not just this one little piece of it. Nothing short of turning the cultural tide of this country back to its moral foundation will make much of a difference. Roe v. Wade MUST be thrown on the trash heap, where it belongs. And Christians everywhere in this land MUST be ready to offer real help to the women who find themselves in trouble.
We need to find the right blend of compassion and accountability. As for David's last comment, we will NEVER leave the ugliness of this issue behind us until we stop committing these crimes against humanity.
Posted by: The Data Nazi at Dec 30, 2004 9:26:22 AM
Thanks for your comments, Data Nazi. You and I definitely come from different philosophies, but I respect the fact that you seem to be one of the Christians who has actually thought about his faith. I disagree with you on many points, but I have different beliefs from you.
I will not say that I believe Christians think they are perfect. I do know some fundamental crazies who are rabid in the fact that I am more imperfect than they are. But I also realize all faiths and belief systems have those folks. Look at Islam. However you don't see it so much in Buddhism or even Judaism as you do in Christianity and Islam.
By the way, would you clear this up for me. If David is Jesus' ancestor, but Joseph is the descendent of David, not Mary, and Joseph had no part in the creation of Jesus as a human, how is Jesus a direct blood descendent of David? I never have understood how that can be. Is it one of those articles of faith, or is it supposed to be biological reality?
Posted by: Alicia at Dec 30, 2004 10:10:49 AM
Alicia, it goes back to the Roman Church. They declared in one of their councils (not sure which off hand) that Jesus was fully divine AND fully human. Thus making Him the son of God and the son of Joseph. I guess you can call it an article of faith. It's only a biological reality if you make a visit to the south of France :-)
Posted by: David at Jan 2, 2005 9:50:40 AM
David is referring to the Council at Nicaea called by the Emperor Constantine in 325 AD in an attempt to ameliorate a growing schism in the early Church concerning the essential nature of Christ and His relationship to the God the Father. One of the outcomes of this council was the Nicene Creed, which is the first institutional formulation of the Christian Church's doctrines of both the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.
However, that doesn't really address Alicia's core question. Jesus is considered of the line of David because of the patriarchal nature of Jewish society. Jesus lived His life as the son of Joseph in Nazareth of Galilee, and was therefore conferred the lineage of David -- despite the fact that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception. The geneaology of Jesus from Abraham presented in the first chapter of Matthew alludes to this cultural bias quite clearly and, interestingly enough, inserts a few details about how the line was propagated through less than 'pure' unions. There are four times during this geneaology where women are mentioned as the mothers of various progenitors in the line of David -- besides Mary, who is the fifth. Each of these women represent an injection of 'impurity' into the bloodline which essentially passes judgement on the patriachal abuses of specific men and the hypocrisy inherent in the view of the Jews at the time of Christ of their status as a separated and holy nation.
These women are, in order, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba(who is referred to in various translations only as the former wife of Uriah). Tamar seduced her father-in-law Judah to conceive a son by posing as a prostitute because Judah was unwilling to fulfill his obligation to her to provide her with a son under Jewish law after her husband died leaving her childless.
Rahab really was a prostitute in the city of Jericho when God sent Israel under Joshua to conquer the city. She sheltered spies who came into the city prior to the miraculous destruction of the city's walls by God and was spared from the total slaughter ordered by God and adopted into Israel by marriage.
The story of Ruth is contained in a book in the Old Testament, and is yet another story of the adoption of a foreigner and outsider into the family of God (read Israel) by virtue of saving faith and the righteousness of her husband Boaz.
And everyone knows the story of Bathsheba, who was taken by David away from her faithful,loyal and righteous husband Uriah to satisfy his carnal desires while Uriah was away fighting David's wars.
I believe the point of this is to minimize the importance of blood in the geneaology while satisfying the Old Testament prophecies concerning the line of David. And to highlight God's compassion and grace throughout history in response to honest faith and repentance from people in degraded circumstances.
As for Jesus' divinity, all anyone needs to understand it is the illumination of the Holy Spirit in reading John 1:1-18.
Creeds, theological dissertations, and even woefully inadequate explanations such as I've offered here are all well and good in their place, but the real power of faith-generating, life-changing understanding of Jesus comes in the living out of His character by His people. This is a huge problem for us. We preach to ourselves and debate minor points of doctrine, instead of taking the miracle of this life to the hurting, seeking and dying people all around us. This is no more evident than in the issue of abortion, where Christians too often inflict pain and devise strategies that focus on protecting the unborn, but neglect to love and care for the expectant mothers.
That doesn't mean that we should shy away from the hard truth that abortion is murder. It is, and no amount of intellectual Twister will change that. But when we fail to take into account the pain and suffering of these women - both from the circumstances surrounding their pregnancies and the horrible consequences of having taken their unborn children's lives - and respond with compassion, love and the healing message of Christ's forgiveness and grace, we risk being responsible for pushing them away from the One Who can heal their pain.
Posted by: The Data Nazi at Jan 5, 2005 10:10:36 AM
Thank you, DN, for a wonderfully in depth explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to write that all out here. Now we come to my next question, if anyone has an answer.
In the ten commandments, there is one that says Thou Shalt Not Murder. Not "thou shalt not kill" as some people think. What is the difference between murder and killing, in the Christian faith?
Posted by: Alicia at Jan 5, 2005 10:58:08 AM
Alicia, the 6th Commandment, as listed in Exodus 20, is not universally translated as murder, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of evangelical believers would take the word kill to mean murder. The NIV is one translation that uses the word murder, and is widely considered to be the best 'thought-by-thought' translation in English. The distinction between killing and murder is very significant to many of the positions taken by evangelical Christians in the current cultural climate.
The essential differences can be summed up in the evaluation of two important criteria: first, the intent of the killer; and second, the innocence of the victim.
The taking of human life for reasons of anger, revenge or personal gain from the death of the victim constitute murder in my interpretation of what the Scriptures say on the subject.
This criteria is an overriding one. If someone takes a human life in this way, it doesn't matter whether the victim is an innocent, unborn child or a hardened murderer themselves.
However, in an appropriate judicial framework, I believe the Scripture validates a death penalty for certain crimes. Old Testament law prescribes execution as the penalty for murder, adultery, idol worship, and cursing your parents -- among other things. The history of God's dealings with Israel and the teachings of Jesus, however, make it clear that such penalities ought not to be lightly delivered and that every opportunity should be given to a murderer to repent and be cleansed through the experience of other consequences. David Berkowitz is a perfect example of why this path is preferable.
Furthermore, the execution of enemies in battle can also be allowed without incurring blood guilt. This concept is extended from the self-defense absolution outlined elsewhere in the Old Testament, but scaled up to a national or societal level.
This is why I support the death penalty for severe crimes and the war in Iraq, albeit with some reservations about whether or not justice is applied with an eye to restoration -- which I believe is more important to God.
Posted by: The Data Nazi at Jan 5, 2005 12:35:29 PM
