The story in the 20 April issue of the Times about the incest dad who was apprehended shows why allowing abortion in the case of incest is counterproductive. Had the girls given in to abortion, the primary evidence against the father-namely, the children who were conceived-would have been destroyed. The girls might have been right back in the same abusive situation at home, and the children who were conceived-who were completely innocent of any wrongdoing-would have been killed. Thankfully, the girls were spared the trauma of abortion and the potential for further abuse. Praise for these girls and the others who helped them stand up for their own dignity and the lives of their children. Now, hopefully, justice can be done. Yes to life; no to abortion.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Err on the Side of Life
Whatever position one takes on abortion, everyone agrees that the abortion decision is a serious one. For some time in my own life, I did not know what position to take on the issue. I was a new Christian and I knew many Christians opposed abortion, but I had always assumed a woman's body was her own and no one should tell her what she can and can't do with it. I was truly in the undecided middle on the issue.
At this time I spoke to the mother of a friend of mine. In the course of our conversation I mentioned my ambivalence on this issue, that I really did not know what to think. She appreciated my uncertainty, but she also said that she had known women who had undergone abortions and she saw that abortion had wounded these women, leaving them with serious emotional damage. Because of this wise woman's words, my conviction moved subtly but firmly to the pro-life side. If abortion is supposed to help women but in fact damages them, I reasoned, then the best option-for both mother and child-is to err on the side of life.
My uncertainty about abortion was intellectual. How common is such uncertainty about abortion among women who go for the procedure, and what effect does this uncertainty have on these women later in their lives?
A 2004 study found 54% of post-aborted women had doubts about the decision; sadly, this study found 67% of these women received no counseling whatsoever before the procedure. Pro-choice sociologist Mary Zimmerman's book "Passage Through Abortion" studied a group of 40 post-abortion women. David Reardon summarizes Zimmerman's results this way: "Fully 70% of women studied expressed disapproval of abortion, seeing it as deviant or immoral. But seeing themselves as forced by others, by their circumstances, or by society at large, they frequently attempted to deny responsibility for what they believed was an immoral act. In other words, 70% of these aborted women felt forced to compromise their own values and ideals." In 1986 Uta Landy, then executive director of the National Abortion Federation, wrote "Some women's feelings about their pregnancy are not simply ambivalent but deeply confused." Sylvia Stengle, a later director of the National Abortion Federation, said in 1994 that 20% of women undergo abortions even though they believe the procedure is morally wrong. She identified these women as a "very worrisome subset of our patients" and that "Sometimes, ethically, an [abortion] provider has to say 'If you think you are doing something wrong, I don't want to help you do that.'"
Australian journalist and women's rights advocate Melinda Tankard Reist compiled "Giving Sorrow Words", a book of personal accounts of women describing their post-abortion experiences. Reist received 150 submissions after placing notices in newspapers, magazines and other locations. The submissions varied from a single page to book-length. Some of the accounts are chilling and heartbreaking.
The last entry in Reist's book, written by a woman named Lee, covers 24 pages. Her journal of both pre- and post-abortion is grueling reading. Portions are related below.
****************
"I said I didn't want a baby and hated my partner [for not having a vasectomy earlier]. I also said I was scared of feeling a great sense of loss after the abortion, that I was very ambivalent about the situation and while I didn't think it sensible to have a baby, I was really shocked that part of me wanted to keep it and couldn't bear to lose it. The counselor told me that ambivalence was normal. She said that she had seen women who were 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, even 51/49 about whether to have an abortion, and they were okay afterwards...I wanted to drop to the floor and sob, "But you don't understand, I want this baby." But I didn't. Such ambivalence was 'normal' and no one should have a baby just because they couldn't face an abortion.
I write to the abortion clinic:
Dear Counselor,
It's been just over two months since my abortion...I found it an extremely difficult decision to make and was very ambivalent right up to the time of the abortion. I believed it would be an easy thing to do and I would primarily feel relieved. I certainly didn't expect to feel completely devastated, cry for weeks on end and find myself swamped by full blown grief."
The counselor at the clinic responds by phone to my letter. She says, "But you were sure about not wanting another baby."
I say: "Yes I was sure about not wanting another baby, but I didn't know how it would feel to lose it."
I have thought since to say:
"Yes, I was sure about not wanting another baby, but I had one. To make the decision about another baby when you're not pregnant is one thing. To make the decision about another baby when you are pregnant can be a completely different thing. Yes I was sure about not wanting another baby but I was not sure about terminating the one I had."
Never did [the counselor] point out, and never did I anticipate, that you also have to be clear about wanting an abortion, to live with one."
*******************
Later, Lee decided to try for another child, hoping that it would help her to heal. She did get pregnant, and give birth to a baby boy. Soon after the delivery she said "I feel the most incredible and profound sense of relief. We [she and father] both spent the first two weeks crying at how we nearly didn't have the baby and how we'd finally made the right decision...it seems absolutely like the only thing I could have done-to heal, to soften, to make a new start, to begin to forgive...From great grief, pain, rage, regret, has come new life, new hope, a second chance, and a beautiful baby."
Ambivalence about abortion is widespread; the aftermath of abortion is potentially devastating. Let us support and protect women and children. No to abortion; yes to love and life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
At this time I spoke to the mother of a friend of mine. In the course of our conversation I mentioned my ambivalence on this issue, that I really did not know what to think. She appreciated my uncertainty, but she also said that she had known women who had undergone abortions and she saw that abortion had wounded these women, leaving them with serious emotional damage. Because of this wise woman's words, my conviction moved subtly but firmly to the pro-life side. If abortion is supposed to help women but in fact damages them, I reasoned, then the best option-for both mother and child-is to err on the side of life.
My uncertainty about abortion was intellectual. How common is such uncertainty about abortion among women who go for the procedure, and what effect does this uncertainty have on these women later in their lives?
A 2004 study found 54% of post-aborted women had doubts about the decision; sadly, this study found 67% of these women received no counseling whatsoever before the procedure. Pro-choice sociologist Mary Zimmerman's book "Passage Through Abortion" studied a group of 40 post-abortion women. David Reardon summarizes Zimmerman's results this way: "Fully 70% of women studied expressed disapproval of abortion, seeing it as deviant or immoral. But seeing themselves as forced by others, by their circumstances, or by society at large, they frequently attempted to deny responsibility for what they believed was an immoral act. In other words, 70% of these aborted women felt forced to compromise their own values and ideals." In 1986 Uta Landy, then executive director of the National Abortion Federation, wrote "Some women's feelings about their pregnancy are not simply ambivalent but deeply confused." Sylvia Stengle, a later director of the National Abortion Federation, said in 1994 that 20% of women undergo abortions even though they believe the procedure is morally wrong. She identified these women as a "very worrisome subset of our patients" and that "Sometimes, ethically, an [abortion] provider has to say 'If you think you are doing something wrong, I don't want to help you do that.'"
Australian journalist and women's rights advocate Melinda Tankard Reist compiled "Giving Sorrow Words", a book of personal accounts of women describing their post-abortion experiences. Reist received 150 submissions after placing notices in newspapers, magazines and other locations. The submissions varied from a single page to book-length. Some of the accounts are chilling and heartbreaking.
The last entry in Reist's book, written by a woman named Lee, covers 24 pages. Her journal of both pre- and post-abortion is grueling reading. Portions are related below.
****************
"I said I didn't want a baby and hated my partner [for not having a vasectomy earlier]. I also said I was scared of feeling a great sense of loss after the abortion, that I was very ambivalent about the situation and while I didn't think it sensible to have a baby, I was really shocked that part of me wanted to keep it and couldn't bear to lose it. The counselor told me that ambivalence was normal. She said that she had seen women who were 80/20, 70/30, 60/40, even 51/49 about whether to have an abortion, and they were okay afterwards...I wanted to drop to the floor and sob, "But you don't understand, I want this baby." But I didn't. Such ambivalence was 'normal' and no one should have a baby just because they couldn't face an abortion.
I write to the abortion clinic:
Dear Counselor,
It's been just over two months since my abortion...I found it an extremely difficult decision to make and was very ambivalent right up to the time of the abortion. I believed it would be an easy thing to do and I would primarily feel relieved. I certainly didn't expect to feel completely devastated, cry for weeks on end and find myself swamped by full blown grief."
The counselor at the clinic responds by phone to my letter. She says, "But you were sure about not wanting another baby."
I say: "Yes I was sure about not wanting another baby, but I didn't know how it would feel to lose it."
I have thought since to say:
"Yes, I was sure about not wanting another baby, but I had one. To make the decision about another baby when you're not pregnant is one thing. To make the decision about another baby when you are pregnant can be a completely different thing. Yes I was sure about not wanting another baby but I was not sure about terminating the one I had."
Never did [the counselor] point out, and never did I anticipate, that you also have to be clear about wanting an abortion, to live with one."
*******************
Later, Lee decided to try for another child, hoping that it would help her to heal. She did get pregnant, and give birth to a baby boy. Soon after the delivery she said "I feel the most incredible and profound sense of relief. We [she and father] both spent the first two weeks crying at how we nearly didn't have the baby and how we'd finally made the right decision...it seems absolutely like the only thing I could have done-to heal, to soften, to make a new start, to begin to forgive...From great grief, pain, rage, regret, has come new life, new hope, a second chance, and a beautiful baby."
Ambivalence about abortion is widespread; the aftermath of abortion is potentially devastating. Let us support and protect women and children. No to abortion; yes to love and life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Saturday, April 10, 2010
NGO Funding
On 20 March the Swazi News carried a story about a German named Mr. Albrecht, who was in the country visiting NGOs. Apparently Mr. Albrecht has a great deal of cash, and he was considering whether to give some of that money to Swaziland NGOs.
Mr. Musa Hlophe made some interesting comments. The Times paraphased Hlophe to the effect that the government's current budget proposal has no money allocated for NGOs. Let us remember what "NGO" stands for: "Non Governmental Organization". Mr. Hlophe is concerned that the government isn't giving a non-governmental organization money.
It is no secret that many NGOs make less-than-encouraging remarks about government policy and practices, and there is definitely room in any civil society for healthy and constructive debate. But it does seem odd that government would, and in some opinions should, give money to NON governmental groups which turn around and criticise the government that funds them. The Swazi proverb "hamba sandla, buya sandla" might be modified to hamba sandla, shaya sandla, with the addendum kepha ungadzinwa kusasa.
Secondly, Mr. Hlophe was quoted as saying "Bread for the World is found wherever there is human suffering something contrary to what the corporate world was doing. The world over the corporate world funds glamorous projects that do not involve ordinary people."
Now there's no denying that lots of aid and self-help schemes are big and expensive and useless, and don't help the people they are intended to. But not every scheme is a failure. Gone Rural, based in Malkerns, has a good reputation for employing bomake with traditional skills and then helping those mothers with their childrens' school fees, etc. Gone Rural harnesses market forces to give Swazi women income and other benefits. The genius of the corporate world is not that it "funds glamorous projects that do not involve ordinary people," but that it hires ordinary people so they can meet the needs of their family and even have money to share with others.
I don't know how Mr. Albrecht made his fortune, but is hard to imagine he made his billions of Emalangeni by only travelling around the world and giving it away. Despite its faults, free market capitalism (which does include some degree of corporatism) has generated lots of income and lifted lots of people to higher living standards. Why, it has even made it possible for some individuals to travel the world funding NGOs which seek to alleviate human suffering.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Mr. Musa Hlophe made some interesting comments. The Times paraphased Hlophe to the effect that the government's current budget proposal has no money allocated for NGOs. Let us remember what "NGO" stands for: "Non Governmental Organization". Mr. Hlophe is concerned that the government isn't giving a non-governmental organization money.
It is no secret that many NGOs make less-than-encouraging remarks about government policy and practices, and there is definitely room in any civil society for healthy and constructive debate. But it does seem odd that government would, and in some opinions should, give money to NON governmental groups which turn around and criticise the government that funds them. The Swazi proverb "hamba sandla, buya sandla" might be modified to hamba sandla, shaya sandla, with the addendum kepha ungadzinwa kusasa.
Secondly, Mr. Hlophe was quoted as saying "Bread for the World is found wherever there is human suffering something contrary to what the corporate world was doing. The world over the corporate world funds glamorous projects that do not involve ordinary people."
Now there's no denying that lots of aid and self-help schemes are big and expensive and useless, and don't help the people they are intended to. But not every scheme is a failure. Gone Rural, based in Malkerns, has a good reputation for employing bomake with traditional skills and then helping those mothers with their childrens' school fees, etc. Gone Rural harnesses market forces to give Swazi women income and other benefits. The genius of the corporate world is not that it "funds glamorous projects that do not involve ordinary people," but that it hires ordinary people so they can meet the needs of their family and even have money to share with others.
I don't know how Mr. Albrecht made his fortune, but is hard to imagine he made his billions of Emalangeni by only travelling around the world and giving it away. Despite its faults, free market capitalism (which does include some degree of corporatism) has generated lots of income and lifted lots of people to higher living standards. Why, it has even made it possible for some individuals to travel the world funding NGOs which seek to alleviate human suffering.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Jesus' Resurrection
Tuesday's Times (April 6, 2010) carried a wire story about Pope Benedict's Easter sermon. The story said that Easter is the time "when Christ is believed to be resurrected." Happily, that belief is an historically solid one. A casual reading of the four gospels will show that Jesus earned some powerful enemies near the end of his life, enemies who wanted (and managed to get) him killed. After Jesus' death, he was put in a solid rock tomb with a huge rock closing the entrance. A guard of soldiers was posted outside the tomb, to make sure no one tried to get the body out.
This past Sunday Christians worldwide celebrated the fact that on the first Easter Sunday, Jesus' body was not in that tomb. What are the possible explanations? Is it possible that a disheartened band of 11 former fishermen and tax collectors could overcome soldiers and move a huge rock to drag Jesus' dead body out of the tomb? Unlikely; but even if they had, how long could they run around Jerusalem proclaiming that he was alive? Eventually someone would ask to see him; if the apostles could not produce a real, breathing, alive Jesus, the game would be up. If Jesus were not resurrected, those who helped get him killed could end the apostles' preaching by simply taking Jesus' dead body out of the grave and trotting it around the city center for all to see.
The best explanation is that a really dead Jesus was really raised back to life. Jesus said he would die for the forgiveness of sins and be raised on the third day. He completed the death and resurrection part; it is safe to trust him about the forgiveness of sins. Try a prayer to Jesus this Easter season; he lives, and he wants to start a relationship with you, and give you his eternal life.
For more information on the truthfulness of the New Testament and the claims of Jesus, read Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
This past Sunday Christians worldwide celebrated the fact that on the first Easter Sunday, Jesus' body was not in that tomb. What are the possible explanations? Is it possible that a disheartened band of 11 former fishermen and tax collectors could overcome soldiers and move a huge rock to drag Jesus' dead body out of the tomb? Unlikely; but even if they had, how long could they run around Jerusalem proclaiming that he was alive? Eventually someone would ask to see him; if the apostles could not produce a real, breathing, alive Jesus, the game would be up. If Jesus were not resurrected, those who helped get him killed could end the apostles' preaching by simply taking Jesus' dead body out of the grave and trotting it around the city center for all to see.
The best explanation is that a really dead Jesus was really raised back to life. Jesus said he would die for the forgiveness of sins and be raised on the third day. He completed the death and resurrection part; it is safe to trust him about the forgiveness of sins. Try a prayer to Jesus this Easter season; he lives, and he wants to start a relationship with you, and give you his eternal life.
For more information on the truthfulness of the New Testament and the claims of Jesus, read Josh McDowell's book More Than A Carpenter.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Living Witnesses
Every one of us is a living testament to the pro-life position. How so? Because for each of us, our mom chose to give us life. Each of us can be thankful that our moms loved us enough to let us live. Let us pass the favour to future generations. Let us build a culture of life and love.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)