Choosing death vs. choosing life

Sunday was the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.  Today is the March for Life in Washington, D. C.

Those who believe in abortion call themselves “pro-choice.”  Women indeed do have the “choice” of whether to get an abortion or let the child live.  Rev. James Lamb, director of Lutherans for Life, has some provocative reflections on “choice”:

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Just saying, “Choose life!” can stir things up because it is associated with abortion. But this verse is not about abortion. It is about what we as God’s people base our choices upon. We base our choices upon who has chosen us. . . .

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). We are special because we have been chosen. God in Christ rescued us from the slavery of sin and set us on the path to the Promised Land of heaven. . . .

Death is the god of choice in our culture today. We choose death through abortion to rescue us from a crisis pregnancy. We choose death through the destruction of human embryos to rescue us from disease. We choose death through assisted suicide to rescue us from pain and suffering. Luther says in the Large Catechism that whatever we turn to for more “good and help than God” becomes our god (Tappert, 368, 28). But the god of death only seems to offer “good and help.” In reality, “evil and curses” follow in its wake. . . .

The choice of death as our rescuer-god always leads to “evil and curses.” There has never been a choice of death that rescues us from our problems and leads to life. Well, there was that one time! “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Hebrews 2:14-15). Jesus chose death and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10b). Jesus chose death to rescue us. We never have to!

That is our assurance that we can trust Him. That is our assurance we can choose life. We can trust God because He loves us and has proven that love in the death and resurrection of Jesus. We can trust God because He “sets His love upon us” every time we come to His holy meal to receive the very price paid for our rescue.

Talking about life issues in our churches is more than just speaking against something going on in our culture. It is speaking for those who face these issues and are being tempted to choose death. What a message we have to share with one another. We belong to God. We can choose life. We can choose life and defend the life of the vulnerable. We can choose life and care for those who are weary and burdened. We can choose life and share the forgiveness of Christ when mistakes are made.

via Lutherans For Life | Chosen People Choose Life.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Booklover

    May our loving God give us the strength to choose life, and to be the strength for those who must make hard decisions, and to offer hope and help to those who are tempted to choose death.

  • Booklover

    May our loving God give us the strength to choose life, and to be the strength for those who must make hard decisions, and to offer hope and help to those who are tempted to choose death.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Thank the Lord for Pastor Lamb and Lutherans For Life helping keep our “for life” message in our churches faithful, loving, and clear.

    As a pastor, I really appreciate how faithful and well-reasoned the Lutherans For Life resources have been of late – also how they seem to be trying to stay above the fray of the political ditches that surround these issues.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    Thank the Lord for Pastor Lamb and Lutherans For Life helping keep our “for life” message in our churches faithful, loving, and clear.

    As a pastor, I really appreciate how faithful and well-reasoned the Lutherans For Life resources have been of late – also how they seem to be trying to stay above the fray of the political ditches that surround these issues.

  • DonS

    God bless those marching today, for their courage and persistence in the face of a great evil. We seem to be winning the hearts and minds of young people on this issue, to the understanding that abortion takes an innocent human life, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade seems to be an eventual inevitability. This will mark the end of the second great era of evil in U.S. history, the first of which ended with the overturning of the Dred Scott decision.

  • DonS

    God bless those marching today, for their courage and persistence in the face of a great evil. We seem to be winning the hearts and minds of young people on this issue, to the understanding that abortion takes an innocent human life, and the overturning of Roe v. Wade seems to be an eventual inevitability. This will mark the end of the second great era of evil in U.S. history, the first of which ended with the overturning of the Dred Scott decision.

  • https://profiles.google.com/114761676313688657626#114761676313688657626/about P. C.

    Bless those that are marching today in Washington, D.C., my daughter being one of them, in support of all unborn children being given the gift of life by rescinding the despicable Supreme Court decision infamously labeled Roe versus Wade.

    Proactively, as Christians, we should wholeheartedly support organizations like Lutherans for Life, Christian Life Resources, and its affiliate New Beginnings, A Home for Mothers, as well as Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRC) that are located in many cities throughout the United States with our time, prayers, and gifts of money and baby items. All of these organizations provide Christian counseling; fetal development, baby and parenting classes; ultrasounds (a very useful pro-life tool); abortion physical and emotional outcomes; STD information; and Bible classes to expectant mothers and fathers.

    Also, we need to keep our leaders, pro-life volunteers, and the Congressional and state Pro-Life Caucuses in our prayers continually. The battle to protect the unborn children can be won but only because of God’s will working through our actions.

  • https://profiles.google.com/114761676313688657626#114761676313688657626/about P. C.

    Bless those that are marching today in Washington, D.C., my daughter being one of them, in support of all unborn children being given the gift of life by rescinding the despicable Supreme Court decision infamously labeled Roe versus Wade.

    Proactively, as Christians, we should wholeheartedly support organizations like Lutherans for Life, Christian Life Resources, and its affiliate New Beginnings, A Home for Mothers, as well as Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRC) that are located in many cities throughout the United States with our time, prayers, and gifts of money and baby items. All of these organizations provide Christian counseling; fetal development, baby and parenting classes; ultrasounds (a very useful pro-life tool); abortion physical and emotional outcomes; STD information; and Bible classes to expectant mothers and fathers.

    Also, we need to keep our leaders, pro-life volunteers, and the Congressional and state Pro-Life Caucuses in our prayers continually. The battle to protect the unborn children can be won but only because of God’s will working through our actions.

  • Jon

    If Roe is overturned, then what?

  • Jon

    If Roe is overturned, then what?

  • DonS

    Jon @ 5: The issue returns to the people, in the various states, the Constitution is returned to its rightful role as a guarantor of the rights it expressly enumerates, and millions of human lives are potentially saved in the future.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 5: The issue returns to the people, in the various states, the Constitution is returned to its rightful role as a guarantor of the rights it expressly enumerates, and millions of human lives are potentially saved in the future.

  • Jon

    @6 What if the people in one state refuse to criminalize abortion?

  • Jon

    @6 What if the people in one state refuse to criminalize abortion?

  • DonS

    Jon @ 7: That’s their choice, Jon. You’re pro-choice, right?

  • DonS

    Jon @ 7: That’s their choice, Jon. You’re pro-choice, right?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutheran Culture Warrior Dr. Gene Veith: “Sunday was the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Today is the March for Life in Washington, D. C.”

    Thanks for reporting this and letting your readers know.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Lutheran Culture Warrior Dr. Gene Veith: “Sunday was the anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Today is the March for Life in Washington, D. C.”

    Thanks for reporting this and letting your readers know.

  • Jon

    If abortion is first-degree murder, it’s hard to understand how the act can be left to the states to sort out. Some, certainly, will refuse to criminalize it, though it may be strictly regulated. Pre-Roe, states did not regard it as murder; it was an outlawed medical procedure (doctors were punished with up to, say, 5 years). No one got a life term for having an abortion.

    But since Roe, the conviction that the act is always first-degree murder has become prevalent, so it’s hard to understand how people of this view would stand for anything less than a constitutional amendment to outlaw it (as was done for slavery or, for a time, the sale of liquor – realizing that leaving such matters to the states only exacerbated things).

    I personally find abortion abhorrent, though I would not support an outright criminal ban of the act in all circumstances. Even homicide can, under the law, be justified sometimes. But I’ve yet to see those who hate Roe really comes to grips with a post-Roe solution.

  • Jon

    If abortion is first-degree murder, it’s hard to understand how the act can be left to the states to sort out. Some, certainly, will refuse to criminalize it, though it may be strictly regulated. Pre-Roe, states did not regard it as murder; it was an outlawed medical procedure (doctors were punished with up to, say, 5 years). No one got a life term for having an abortion.

    But since Roe, the conviction that the act is always first-degree murder has become prevalent, so it’s hard to understand how people of this view would stand for anything less than a constitutional amendment to outlaw it (as was done for slavery or, for a time, the sale of liquor – realizing that leaving such matters to the states only exacerbated things).

    I personally find abortion abhorrent, though I would not support an outright criminal ban of the act in all circumstances. Even homicide can, under the law, be justified sometimes. But I’ve yet to see those who hate Roe really comes to grips with a post-Roe solution.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 10:

    If abortion is first-degree murder, it’s hard to understand how the act can be left to the states to sort out.

    With few exceptions, related to specifically federal crimes, the states “sort out” first-degree murder today. And every other kind of murder, including whether to classify particular crimes as first degree murder.

    But since Roe, the conviction that the act is always first-degree murder has become prevalent

    Very few people I know of advocate classifying most abortions as first degree murder, and I don’t think there are any jurisdictions where typical abortions would be criminalized and categorized as capital murder. In most states, I doubt that early-term abortion would even be criminalized, fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view. And recall that the legitimate and express rights granted in the Constitution apply to the states, so that a state that went overboard in infringing individual liberty by mis-classifying certain activities as crimes, passing unconstitutionally vague statutes, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment would still be checked by the courts.

    Pre-Roe, states did not regard it as murder; it was an outlawed medical procedure (doctors were punished with up to, say, 5 years). No one got a life term for having an abortion.

    No one will get a life term, post-Roe, for having an abortion, at least absent the most egregious of circumstances. Most statutes will be directed to the practitioner, not the woman.

    I personally find abortion abhorrent, though I would not support an outright criminal ban of the act in all circumstances. Even homicide can, under the law, be justified sometimes. But I’ve yet to see those who hate Roe really comes to grips with a post-Roe solution.

    I agree with the first part of your statement. I doubt that there will be any statute in any state outlawing the procedure in the event that the woman’s life is otherwise at substantial risk. In those circumstances, where the decision is tragic either way, it is best for the patient, her loved ones, and the physicians to make the ethical and moral call. And I also agree with the general tone of your comment, which is that the Court’s brash decision to take this difficult issue out of the hands of the people, on the basis of its own private moral and value judgments, has made things far worse. Besides the fact that 60 million innocent children have lost their lives in the 40 years since Roe came down, the Court also cut off debate on a hard topic and hardened the views of the people, making it a political, rather than difficult moral matter. Compassion was wrung out of the issue, and divisions were indelibly formed among the people. For those on the pro-abortion side, they got their will, but at the price of long-term damage to their cause because the pro-life movement was galvanized by the sheer injustice of it all.

    It’s a sad and tragic history. But, society will need to resume the debate that the Court unlawfully cut short, on a state-by-state basis, to come to a post-Roe solution. Most pro-lifers just want to have an opportunity to have a genuine debate, and to craft solutions that are compassionate to needy and emotionally fragile moms, while ultimately respecting the human lives God has placed within their wombs.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 10:

    If abortion is first-degree murder, it’s hard to understand how the act can be left to the states to sort out.

    With few exceptions, related to specifically federal crimes, the states “sort out” first-degree murder today. And every other kind of murder, including whether to classify particular crimes as first degree murder.

    But since Roe, the conviction that the act is always first-degree murder has become prevalent

    Very few people I know of advocate classifying most abortions as first degree murder, and I don’t think there are any jurisdictions where typical abortions would be criminalized and categorized as capital murder. In most states, I doubt that early-term abortion would even be criminalized, fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view. And recall that the legitimate and express rights granted in the Constitution apply to the states, so that a state that went overboard in infringing individual liberty by mis-classifying certain activities as crimes, passing unconstitutionally vague statutes, or inflicting cruel and unusual punishment would still be checked by the courts.

    Pre-Roe, states did not regard it as murder; it was an outlawed medical procedure (doctors were punished with up to, say, 5 years). No one got a life term for having an abortion.

    No one will get a life term, post-Roe, for having an abortion, at least absent the most egregious of circumstances. Most statutes will be directed to the practitioner, not the woman.

    I personally find abortion abhorrent, though I would not support an outright criminal ban of the act in all circumstances. Even homicide can, under the law, be justified sometimes. But I’ve yet to see those who hate Roe really comes to grips with a post-Roe solution.

    I agree with the first part of your statement. I doubt that there will be any statute in any state outlawing the procedure in the event that the woman’s life is otherwise at substantial risk. In those circumstances, where the decision is tragic either way, it is best for the patient, her loved ones, and the physicians to make the ethical and moral call. And I also agree with the general tone of your comment, which is that the Court’s brash decision to take this difficult issue out of the hands of the people, on the basis of its own private moral and value judgments, has made things far worse. Besides the fact that 60 million innocent children have lost their lives in the 40 years since Roe came down, the Court also cut off debate on a hard topic and hardened the views of the people, making it a political, rather than difficult moral matter. Compassion was wrung out of the issue, and divisions were indelibly formed among the people. For those on the pro-abortion side, they got their will, but at the price of long-term damage to their cause because the pro-life movement was galvanized by the sheer injustice of it all.

    It’s a sad and tragic history. But, society will need to resume the debate that the Court unlawfully cut short, on a state-by-state basis, to come to a post-Roe solution. Most pro-lifers just want to have an opportunity to have a genuine debate, and to craft solutions that are compassionate to needy and emotionally fragile moms, while ultimately respecting the human lives God has placed within their wombs.

  • Jon

    DonS, to continue your thread: an irony of Roe is that it cut short what was a trend of loosening abortion regulations in the states, i.e., states were taking a second look their laws and some were beginning to make it easier to obtain abortions. This was done by state legislatures and in the midst of robust, civil debate. Roe halted that trend and helped create an enormous prolife backlash, which I have trouble joining. Not because I’m not pro life (I am, though of the pre Roe variety), but because I can’t see the current heated situation allowing the matter to return to the states, once Roe is overturned. Who would put ‘life’ to a public vote? Yet, if it were to be voted on, a majority of Americans, in my view, would vote to allow abortions, with various regulations.

  • Jon

    DonS, to continue your thread: an irony of Roe is that it cut short what was a trend of loosening abortion regulations in the states, i.e., states were taking a second look their laws and some were beginning to make it easier to obtain abortions. This was done by state legislatures and in the midst of robust, civil debate. Roe halted that trend and helped create an enormous prolife backlash, which I have trouble joining. Not because I’m not pro life (I am, though of the pre Roe variety), but because I can’t see the current heated situation allowing the matter to return to the states, once Roe is overturned. Who would put ‘life’ to a public vote? Yet, if it were to be voted on, a majority of Americans, in my view, would vote to allow abortions, with various regulations.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 12: I think you’re probably right. The pro-abortion lobby was winning the issue in 1973 — I’m not sure there was even all that much organized opposition to abortion at that time. Christians were largely asleep on many of the social issues of the day. In a sense, rather than continue to make gains democratically, they chose to go for the home run, taking the issue out of the people’s hands by arguing for a constitutional right to abortion, using the Griswold case and its finding of a “right to privacy” as a foundation, and hit that home run. In the long run, though, it hurt their cause in the eye of the public. The pro-life movement was born out of the egregiousness and overreaching of that decision, and a whole generation of young Americans is predominately pro-life in its outlook as a result.

    Democracy is a messy process. Ultimately, though, an overreaching and unlawful court decision, which did a wrenching injustice to the notion of express enumerated rights in the Constitution, cannot be allowed to stand because of fear over how the democratic process will play out.

    By the way, the gay rights lobby is playing the same undemocratic hand on the issue of gay marriage. They are probably winning the issue democratically, but by resorting to the courts in an attempt to short circuit the will of the people by having it declared to be a constitutional right, they are likely to do long term damage to their political goals.

  • DonS

    Jon @ 12: I think you’re probably right. The pro-abortion lobby was winning the issue in 1973 — I’m not sure there was even all that much organized opposition to abortion at that time. Christians were largely asleep on many of the social issues of the day. In a sense, rather than continue to make gains democratically, they chose to go for the home run, taking the issue out of the people’s hands by arguing for a constitutional right to abortion, using the Griswold case and its finding of a “right to privacy” as a foundation, and hit that home run. In the long run, though, it hurt their cause in the eye of the public. The pro-life movement was born out of the egregiousness and overreaching of that decision, and a whole generation of young Americans is predominately pro-life in its outlook as a result.

    Democracy is a messy process. Ultimately, though, an overreaching and unlawful court decision, which did a wrenching injustice to the notion of express enumerated rights in the Constitution, cannot be allowed to stand because of fear over how the democratic process will play out.

    By the way, the gay rights lobby is playing the same undemocratic hand on the issue of gay marriage. They are probably winning the issue democratically, but by resorting to the courts in an attempt to short circuit the will of the people by having it declared to be a constitutional right, they are likely to do long term damage to their political goals.

  • Michael B.

    @DonS@13

    /sarcasm: I’m sure the pro-choice movement and gay-rights movements really could use your advice. After all, the anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights movements have been doing so well. What a bunch of winners.

    By the way, speaking of how successful social conservatives have been, wasn’t it only a couple decades ago when we were discussing whether gay sexual activity should even be legal (let alone gay marriage)? Another fun fact: Only 16 years ago in 1996, Bill Clinton, a liberal, signed the Defense of Marriage act.

  • Michael B.

    @DonS@13

    /sarcasm: I’m sure the pro-choice movement and gay-rights movements really could use your advice. After all, the anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights movements have been doing so well. What a bunch of winners.

    By the way, speaking of how successful social conservatives have been, wasn’t it only a couple decades ago when we were discussing whether gay sexual activity should even be legal (let alone gay marriage)? Another fun fact: Only 16 years ago in 1996, Bill Clinton, a liberal, signed the Defense of Marriage act.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “a majority of Americans, in my view, would vote to allow abortions, with various regulations.”

    With very heavy regulations. In other words, like they do in Europe.

    In Germany, a woman must go through counseling that is specifically designed to get her to choose not to abort. If after all that pro-life pressure from counselors and doctors, she still chooses to abort, it has to be done by yet a third party. It cannot be done like it is here where the clinic that she goes to get a pregnancy test also does the counseling and the abortion. That is strictly prohibited. The doctor who diagnoses the pregnancy must refer to an outside counseling agency, and they must refer her to a different doctor from the one who referred her. It is a good faith attempt to dissuade her from aborting. It is exactly contrary to Roe v. Wade because it is intended to put a burden on her and her decision. The burden on her decision is legally mandated.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “a majority of Americans, in my view, would vote to allow abortions, with various regulations.”

    With very heavy regulations. In other words, like they do in Europe.

    In Germany, a woman must go through counseling that is specifically designed to get her to choose not to abort. If after all that pro-life pressure from counselors and doctors, she still chooses to abort, it has to be done by yet a third party. It cannot be done like it is here where the clinic that she goes to get a pregnancy test also does the counseling and the abortion. That is strictly prohibited. The doctor who diagnoses the pregnancy must refer to an outside counseling agency, and they must refer her to a different doctor from the one who referred her. It is a good faith attempt to dissuade her from aborting. It is exactly contrary to Roe v. Wade because it is intended to put a burden on her and her decision. The burden on her decision is legally mandated.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    only a couple decades ago when we were discussing whether gay sexual activity should even be legal

    It shouldn’t.

    It is a serious public health threat.

    Fun fact: White heterosexual males have the lowest incidence of HIV according to the CDC.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    only a couple decades ago when we were discussing whether gay sexual activity should even be legal

    It shouldn’t.

    It is a serious public health threat.

    Fun fact: White heterosexual males have the lowest incidence of HIV according to the CDC.

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 14: Well, I’m not in the business of giving advice to the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage lobbies. But, as for the pro-abortion lobby, you are very much mistaken, my friend. The tide of public opinion has turned very significantly against the very rapidly aging feminist movement and its abortion on demand, without restrictions views. An energetic and motivated pro-life lobby and much better imaging technology has made it very clear to young people that pregnant mommies are harboring a human life in their womb, and the injustice and absurdity of thinking that the Constitution requires citizens to have an unfettered, unrestricted right to kill that life for convenience is too much for them to bear. Check the polls, sir, and you will see how dramatic the shift has been. It’s only a matter of time until Roe v. Wade is greatly weakened or overturned outright.

    As for the gay rights movement, read my comment @ 13 (last paragraph) with a bit less sarcasm and a bit more insight. I agree with you that as America strays farther from its Christian roots the organization and persistence of the gay rights movement is having its effect on the American population and its views. That’s why I don’t understand their desire to run to the courts and gain their rights illegitimately, risking similarly galvanizing the traditional population, instead of pursuing democratic routes, and gaining their rights legitimately.

    One clear advantage the gay rights movement has over the abortion rights movement politically, of course, is that supporting their rights doesn’t involve killing another human being.

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 14: Well, I’m not in the business of giving advice to the pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage lobbies. But, as for the pro-abortion lobby, you are very much mistaken, my friend. The tide of public opinion has turned very significantly against the very rapidly aging feminist movement and its abortion on demand, without restrictions views. An energetic and motivated pro-life lobby and much better imaging technology has made it very clear to young people that pregnant mommies are harboring a human life in their womb, and the injustice and absurdity of thinking that the Constitution requires citizens to have an unfettered, unrestricted right to kill that life for convenience is too much for them to bear. Check the polls, sir, and you will see how dramatic the shift has been. It’s only a matter of time until Roe v. Wade is greatly weakened or overturned outright.

    As for the gay rights movement, read my comment @ 13 (last paragraph) with a bit less sarcasm and a bit more insight. I agree with you that as America strays farther from its Christian roots the organization and persistence of the gay rights movement is having its effect on the American population and its views. That’s why I don’t understand their desire to run to the courts and gain their rights illegitimately, risking similarly galvanizing the traditional population, instead of pursuing democratic routes, and gaining their rights legitimately.

    One clear advantage the gay rights movement has over the abortion rights movement politically, of course, is that supporting their rights doesn’t involve killing another human being.

  • Michael B.

    “The tide of public opinion has turned very significantly against the very rapidly aging feminist movement”

    No, the feminists have also done their job. What was once considered “feminist” 40 years ago is now accepted as mainstream. People are often feminist without even knowing it. Should women go to college? Is it okay for a mother to have a career? Can a woman be a political leader? Can women do most jobs just as well as men? These were once hotly debated questions, and a “yes” to any one would have classified one as a feminist.

  • Michael B.

    “The tide of public opinion has turned very significantly against the very rapidly aging feminist movement”

    No, the feminists have also done their job. What was once considered “feminist” 40 years ago is now accepted as mainstream. People are often feminist without even knowing it. Should women go to college? Is it okay for a mother to have a career? Can a woman be a political leader? Can women do most jobs just as well as men? These were once hotly debated questions, and a “yes” to any one would have classified one as a feminist.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What was once considered “feminist” 40 years ago is now accepted as mainstream.”

    So what? 40 years is not a long time. There is no reason to think this is a durable trend.

    “People are often feminist without even knowing it.”

    Yeah, I agree, but that shouldn’t encourage you much.

    “Should women go to college?”

    Why should she?

    “Is it okay for a mother to have a career?”

    Not if you want good results. Also, employers only hire them because they have to. The government has onerous discrimination laws that don’t allow employers to just hire whomever they want. Without the government forcing employers to take them, it would be much harder for them to have careers in the first place.

    “Can a woman be a political leader?”

    Check history for your answer there. Most were either figureheads or failures. Those who did any better either had highly talented advisors or were infinitesimally rare.

    “Can women do most jobs just as well as men?”

    No.

    The more dedication, intelligence, strength, sacrifice and perseverance that are required, the worse they do. Representation of women at the top of any field is either minuscule or absent.

    “These were once hotly debated questions, and a “yes” to any one would have classified one as a feminist.

    Given the accumulated evidence of the past 40 years, a “yes” to any of them now indicates one is in denial of the obvious because he was so indoctrinated that he can’t see the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “What was once considered “feminist” 40 years ago is now accepted as mainstream.”

    So what? 40 years is not a long time. There is no reason to think this is a durable trend.

    “People are often feminist without even knowing it.”

    Yeah, I agree, but that shouldn’t encourage you much.

    “Should women go to college?”

    Why should she?

    “Is it okay for a mother to have a career?”

    Not if you want good results. Also, employers only hire them because they have to. The government has onerous discrimination laws that don’t allow employers to just hire whomever they want. Without the government forcing employers to take them, it would be much harder for them to have careers in the first place.

    “Can a woman be a political leader?”

    Check history for your answer there. Most were either figureheads or failures. Those who did any better either had highly talented advisors or were infinitesimally rare.

    “Can women do most jobs just as well as men?”

    No.

    The more dedication, intelligence, strength, sacrifice and perseverance that are required, the worse they do. Representation of women at the top of any field is either minuscule or absent.

    “These were once hotly debated questions, and a “yes” to any one would have classified one as a feminist.

    Given the accumulated evidence of the past 40 years, a “yes” to any of them now indicates one is in denial of the obvious because he was so indoctrinated that he can’t see the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 18: We were talking about abortion. We can get into the other issues if you want to — sg has given her opinion — but my point was that the tide has turned against the aging radical feminist movement with respect to the abortion issue.

    Some of the other issues of female equality were advocated by much more reasonably balanced women, and were good and right societal advances. Others have swung too far, causing men to be left in the rear and to oftentimes be unable to meet their roles as providers, forcing women into provider roles they don’t want to have. I don’t think it’s good that the ratio of men to women in higher education has fallen to about 40/60. High taxes and increasing costs due to government regulatory policies and runaway entitlement programs have forced many families into two-earner status — also not a societal advance, in my opinion. One of the things that men do well and offered them a way into college — athletics — has been a greatly diminished opportunity for them because of Title IX — also not a good thing. Many younger women are beginning to realize that feminism cost them more than they gained, in lost opportunities to do what they are wired to do and want to do, because now they have to be in a man’s world. I think that’s another reason why you are seeing a shift away from the radical feminism of a generation ago.

  • DonS

    Michael B. @ 18: We were talking about abortion. We can get into the other issues if you want to — sg has given her opinion — but my point was that the tide has turned against the aging radical feminist movement with respect to the abortion issue.

    Some of the other issues of female equality were advocated by much more reasonably balanced women, and were good and right societal advances. Others have swung too far, causing men to be left in the rear and to oftentimes be unable to meet their roles as providers, forcing women into provider roles they don’t want to have. I don’t think it’s good that the ratio of men to women in higher education has fallen to about 40/60. High taxes and increasing costs due to government regulatory policies and runaway entitlement programs have forced many families into two-earner status — also not a societal advance, in my opinion. One of the things that men do well and offered them a way into college — athletics — has been a greatly diminished opportunity for them because of Title IX — also not a good thing. Many younger women are beginning to realize that feminism cost them more than they gained, in lost opportunities to do what they are wired to do and want to do, because now they have to be in a man’s world. I think that’s another reason why you are seeing a shift away from the radical feminism of a generation ago.

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “People are often feminist without even knowing it.”
    Yeah, I agree, but that shouldn’t encourage you much.

    Good, I think we can at least agree on this. A lot of conservatives have ideas that would have been considered very feminist not many years ago. You bring up the future of gender relations. It’s true that women’s equality is new on the scene, but so are a lot of institutions. I think both women’s equality and civil rights have revealed a lot of truths that will be hard to just put back in the box. At the college I attended, many of the professors thought that women couldn’t become lawyers or doctors because of their periods and they just didn’t have the brains. And this was a sincere belief from a secular university. Now half the law school and medical classes are female. Apparently women can be doctors. Why are you so threatened by that?

  • Michael B.

    @SG

    “People are often feminist without even knowing it.”
    Yeah, I agree, but that shouldn’t encourage you much.

    Good, I think we can at least agree on this. A lot of conservatives have ideas that would have been considered very feminist not many years ago. You bring up the future of gender relations. It’s true that women’s equality is new on the scene, but so are a lot of institutions. I think both women’s equality and civil rights have revealed a lot of truths that will be hard to just put back in the box. At the college I attended, many of the professors thought that women couldn’t become lawyers or doctors because of their periods and they just didn’t have the brains. And this was a sincere belief from a secular university. Now half the law school and medical classes are female. Apparently women can be doctors. Why are you so threatened by that?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    At the college I attended, many of the professors thought that women couldn’t become lawyers or doctors because of their periods and they just didn’t have the brains. And this was a sincere belief from a secular university. Now half the law school and medical classes are female. Apparently women can be doctors.

    Of course, women are doctors and lawyers, those are the high paying, high prestige jobs that the bored upper class squeaky wheels wanted. Of course they also quit those jobs much more often than men, too, so there is a lower return on investment there. Where are the women clamoring to be trash collectors, coal miners and concrete contractors? Yeah, there aren’t many. Those jobs aren’t cool, fun, powerful, or prestigious and worst of all, no A/C or heat. They pay fairly well, but are dangerous, humble and most of all, necessary. Women aren’t interested in that. So, even today most of all the real work that actually has to be done is done by men. Women didn’t want jobs so they could serve others. We wanted glory and power like any other sinful being.

    It all goes back to not respecting women who do what women do. The low regard for motherhood and children. After all, a very smart woman can’t really be too smart unless she goes out and gets a career and proves herself. Of course, doing that often means she gets enough self confidence to admit she never wanted that stuff in the first place. Not always, but far too often for it to be ignored. Anyway, there is this prevailing notion that somehow being a mother isn’t good enough; that the job is worthless or just a hobby.

    http://concordiansisters.blogspot.com/2012/01/thanks-for-nothing_22.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    At the college I attended, many of the professors thought that women couldn’t become lawyers or doctors because of their periods and they just didn’t have the brains. And this was a sincere belief from a secular university. Now half the law school and medical classes are female. Apparently women can be doctors.

    Of course, women are doctors and lawyers, those are the high paying, high prestige jobs that the bored upper class squeaky wheels wanted. Of course they also quit those jobs much more often than men, too, so there is a lower return on investment there. Where are the women clamoring to be trash collectors, coal miners and concrete contractors? Yeah, there aren’t many. Those jobs aren’t cool, fun, powerful, or prestigious and worst of all, no A/C or heat. They pay fairly well, but are dangerous, humble and most of all, necessary. Women aren’t interested in that. So, even today most of all the real work that actually has to be done is done by men. Women didn’t want jobs so they could serve others. We wanted glory and power like any other sinful being.

    It all goes back to not respecting women who do what women do. The low regard for motherhood and children. After all, a very smart woman can’t really be too smart unless she goes out and gets a career and proves herself. Of course, doing that often means she gets enough self confidence to admit she never wanted that stuff in the first place. Not always, but far too often for it to be ignored. Anyway, there is this prevailing notion that somehow being a mother isn’t good enough; that the job is worthless or just a hobby.

    http://concordiansisters.blogspot.com/2012/01/thanks-for-nothing_22.html

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why are you so threatened by that?”

    I am not, but the women whose husbands would be doing those jobs are. Those women have to work to make ends meet because their husbands don’t make enough. I don’t. So, it’s not personal, but principle.

    Can you say growing gap between wealthy and poor?

    Every woman who makes $200k is very likely married to a guy making $200k. So, that is one less guy making that salary, and one more nanny making peanuts, aka growing wealth disparity. The choice for upper class women isn’t make $200k or face poverty. It is between having a household income of $200k or $400k. Upper class women are fine either way. Not so much for all the men who are displaced. So, it is a heavy burden on everyone except upper class women. Upper class women, and the men who get them are the only winners. All the women working crappy jobs are not the winners of the women’s movement. The men with lower salaries aren’t the winners.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Why are you so threatened by that?”

    I am not, but the women whose husbands would be doing those jobs are. Those women have to work to make ends meet because their husbands don’t make enough. I don’t. So, it’s not personal, but principle.

    Can you say growing gap between wealthy and poor?

    Every woman who makes $200k is very likely married to a guy making $200k. So, that is one less guy making that salary, and one more nanny making peanuts, aka growing wealth disparity. The choice for upper class women isn’t make $200k or face poverty. It is between having a household income of $200k or $400k. Upper class women are fine either way. Not so much for all the men who are displaced. So, it is a heavy burden on everyone except upper class women. Upper class women, and the men who get them are the only winners. All the women working crappy jobs are not the winners of the women’s movement. The men with lower salaries aren’t the winners.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think it’s good that the ratio of men to women in higher education has fallen to about 40/60″

    yeah, and only 15% of all are in STEM fields. Mostly guys, of course.

    All of the truly great schools are at least about 50/50. Many are majority male. No surprise there. I love the ones that don’t report. You know they aren’t majority female, LOL.

    http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1300&profileId=0

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I don’t think it’s good that the ratio of men to women in higher education has fallen to about 40/60″

    yeah, and only 15% of all are in STEM fields. Mostly guys, of course.

    All of the truly great schools are at least about 50/50. Many are majority male. No surprise there. I love the ones that don’t report. You know they aren’t majority female, LOL.

    http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1300&profileId=0

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “A lot of conservatives have ideas that would have been considered very feminist not many years ago.”

    Supports the assertion by some that conservatives are dumb.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “A lot of conservatives have ideas that would have been considered very feminist not many years ago.”

    Supports the assertion by some that conservatives are dumb.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Men are only 40% of college students?!

    Oh, the humanity. We will have to do something to increase their level of participation! Oh, wait, even marginal guys are too smart for that ploy! Lot’s of debt and opportunity cost? Little chance of being able to actually graduate and get a job in a remunerative field? Hmm? No, thanks. Let the ladies have all that. Installing cable is a better deal.

    Anyway, the title almost says it all. Being a woman just isn’t good enough for the social engineers:
    http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Men are only 40% of college students?!

    Oh, the humanity. We will have to do something to increase their level of participation! Oh, wait, even marginal guys are too smart for that ploy! Lot’s of debt and opportunity cost? Little chance of being able to actually graduate and get a job in a remunerative field? Hmm? No, thanks. Let the ladies have all that. Installing cable is a better deal.

    Anyway, the title almost says it all. Being a woman just isn’t good enough for the social engineers:
    http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man

  • Michael B.

    @sg@23

    I think your logic is that women shouldn’t go to law school or med school because they are taking that spot from a man? Is that right? Does that work in reverse? Could a woman say a man shouldn’t attend school because he is taking that spot from a woman who wanted to go?

  • Michael B.

    @sg@23

    I think your logic is that women shouldn’t go to law school or med school because they are taking that spot from a man? Is that right? Does that work in reverse? Could a woman say a man shouldn’t attend school because he is taking that spot from a woman who wanted to go?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X