New Episcopal Divinity School prez: “Abortion is a blessing… holy work,” abortionists are “saints”
Here’s one I missed last week while on vacation. From the Boston Globe, April 4:
Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge… the Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale will be its new president…
Ragsdale… is best known as an abortion rights activist who has sat on the boards of NARAL… and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice….
She is also openly gay….
Ragsdale… recalled that 3 women, spying her collar, once tried to keep her out of a meeting room for NARAL – even though she was a member of the league’s board.
“I’ve experienced far more resistance and discrimination in the progressive community for being a Christian than I do in the Christian community for being a lesbian,” she said….
But conservative bloggers are furiously criticizing the appointment, citing some of Ragsdale’s remarks about abortion rights.
Interesting that the Globe didn’t post those remarks, from a NARAL speech Ragsdale gave in 2007…
The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.
These are the 2 things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.
I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing… the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you.
You’re engaged in holy work.
[Photo courtesy of European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development ]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Killing babies is “holy work” and abortion is a “blessing”?
That would be sick coming from an athiest but someone claiming to be a Christian?
It’s an abomination.
Oh, dear God. This is appalling.
She could not have ever said that because as we know from the pro-choice side, there is no such thing as someone who is pro-abortion. This fact obviously nullifies the existance of this person and her statements.
Ragsdale wants to change the face of Christianity to appease the progressive community. She’s got it all backwards. How do people like this get so messed up in their thinking?
Maybe she was…
I dunno, drinking?
I suppose she would not object to us showing pictures of this “blessing” then?
Ugh. Ew. What’s in her head?
If you read her speech to NARAL its absolutely chilling.
Even killinga baby simply because its an inconvenient time for the mother to be pregnant is a “blessing.”
There arent enough words to describe how sick that is. Abortion is doing the devil’s work.
I suppose that God’s commandments to love one another get pushed aside when it comes to the preborn, then? I missed that part in the Bible. Blast. Does anyone happen to know where the verses are that Jesus advocated abortion as God’s gift to the world (education? the flip? no, it’s not hope, either)?
Sad day. As a woman who rose to the top as a preacher in a field that women are often not aloud to even set foot in…she certainly doesn’t seem to have difficulties dehumanizing anyone else. We must all pray for her rather than be bitter, though.
Vannah –
You are right, we need to pray for Rev. Katherine, especially in this Holy Week where we revisit Jesus’ selfless sacrifice for all of mankind.
* * * * *
Babies are not an unfortunate result of expressing our sexuality. Babies are God’s gifts to the world.
Joanne – “Abortion is doing the devil’s work.”
I agree.
* * * * *
She’s right, you know.
I find it very selfish of church officials to hijack their positions to advance political ideology that they know is blatantly against sacred texts. If they feel very strongly about an issue that they know would be very divisive and hurtful to the church, then the responsible thing to do would be to resign as a church leader and pursue those political goals without dragging the church along with you. Why destroy the integrity and unity of the church to assert your controversial opinions? Wouldn’t another format be more appropriate and effective? As previously stated, this is just selfish.
No, Reality. She is as wrong as is possible.
Please though, enlighten us. Why, exactly, do you think she is right?
some good news: The rabid, pro-abort, pro-gay marriage Boston Globe may be shutting down, they lost 85 million dollars last year.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2223233/posts
This woman knows nothing of Yahweh, Jehovah or Jesus Christ.
She is an abomination and in open rebellion to the Bible and God’s word.
I pity her soul.
Let us not be surprised as the Bible predicted that these type of people would everywhere be found holding to doctrines of demons:
Jude 1
The Warnings of History to the Ungodly
1Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:
2May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you.
3Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
5Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
6And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
8Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.
9But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”
10But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.
11Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.
12These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;
13wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.
14It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones,
15to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
16These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.
Keep Yourselves in the Love of God
17But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,
18that they were saying to you, “In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.”
19These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.
20But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.
22And have mercy on some, who are doubting;
23save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.
24Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,
25to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
She is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Hell will be double hot for those that claim to be spiritual leaders and mislead people that want truth.
Reality: “She’s right, you know.”
So apparently you are also pro-abortion. Good to know.
Reality is antithetical to everything holy and godly.
haha “pro-choice”.
Why do people get offended when they are called pro-abortion when that’s clearly what they are?
Abortion a blessing? The devil sure is working through that woman.
Abortion is a blessing? Not to the dead baby. Not to the mother who will suffer a broken heart. What about fathers and grandparents? Oh it’s just maddening! Sick, sick, sick woman!!
Did she say abortion was a blessing or depressing?
Okay – what does she mean by “work”?
Could she define what “work” is in the context of abortion being a blessing?
Chris, good point. What work? Kill more babies? I mean, abortions only been legal for 36 years. No restrictions. O-bortion is our most anti-life president ever. What work? Legalized killing of our 2 year olds. Maybe we can kill our teens when they act up. What next? Maybe folks in wheelchairs…. Yeesh!!! What a creepy woman!
She obviously does not live the scripture so that pretty much wipes that out for her… She makes her own rules up as she goes. We already know how God feels about these things. She knows the TRUTH of these matters and I’m sure she’s read the scripture regarding the issues she has stated above. Therefore, she is accountable. (as scripture also tells)
Let’s remember even Satan could quote the Scripture. And did.
Okay – what does she mean by “work”?
Could she define what “work” is in the context of abortion being a blessing?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 6, 2009 7:34 PM
Chris,
If you read the speech she gave to NARAL, I think the “work” she is referring to is convincing everyone on earth that abortion is a “blessing” and that every doctor or nurse should be forced to participate in abortion regardless of their personal belief. The only “choice” she believes in is total abortion on demand no questions asked.
It’s one of the most evil things I have ever heard anyone say about abortion.
If pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning after pill due to their conscience, then members of the clergy can endorse abortion as a reflection of their conscience as well. You don’t have “the” hotline to God.
So she wants to force those who have a conscience to give up medicine.
“claiming it’s an act of conscience”
She is a truly poor wretched man-hating soul. Someone has trampled so hard upon her heart, she’s got no love left in it. She hates men with a deep-deep passion.
I wouldn’t speak I’ll or condemn her at all – she’s clearly bringing wrath down upon herself.
Pretty sad considering this from the EDS website:
She worships feminism. And undeniably hates men. How do I know?
The husband or man has no say, even in a loving supportive relationship? That’s the epitome of self-centered feminist worship.
Cold.
YLT: “If pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning after pill due to their conscience, then members of the clergy can endorse abortion as a reflection of their conscience as well. You don’t have “the” hotline to God.”
I was going to post to disect your absurd comparison, but then I remembered who you are and realized that itd be a waste of time.
It’s one of the most evil things I have ever heard anyone say about abortion.
Posted by: Joanne at April 6, 2009 8:24 PM
—————————————————–
The homosexual activists have hijacked the ‘rainbow’ and the word ‘gay’.
Now they have misappropriated the term ‘christian’, which literally means, ‘Christ like’ or ‘like Christ’.
One should remember term ‘christian’ as first applied by pagans to believers in Jesus was not a compliment. It was meant to ridicule not only believers but the ONE in whom they believed.
Katherine Hancock Ragsdale professing to be a ‘christian’ makes we want to disavow the term as means to identify people who believe in the One who said the greatest measure of frienship was to willingly sacrifice your life for another.
Ragsdale and Barack Hussein Obama defile themselves, demean the word ‘christian’ and dishonor the Christ.
I have no connection, no relation, no identification with these people except that I was once as pervertd, wicked, and deluded as they are.
If being ‘born again’ is precipitated and/or coincidental with believing in your heart, then their hearts are so darkened that whatever words might pass their lips concerning Jesus as the risen and living LORD, can not possibly be something that ushered from a heart ‘changed’ by the ONE who is LOVE.
To say that Jesus is Lord and have an inkling of what that means can only come from the revelation of the Holy Spirit which produces authentic observable acts of repentence.
These people are self deceived lovers of self.
If they do not even honor GOD with their lips, then their hearts can be nothing but cold hard stone that is foreign to the concept of the GOD who says, “Choose life.”
God help them. HE is the only one who can I as know full well my own experience.
yor bro ken
The pregnant woman consents, though not always fully informed, but the prenatal child, though never consenting, is fully ‘subjected’ to the violent act of abortion.
yor bro ken
The message clearly puts the cart before the horse. This woman should be telling women that the real blessing is in a woman who respects herself. Want a career instead of children? Try abstinence. You will get the respect you’re looking for. TRUST ME!! Good men don’t want women who are easy.
Chris, I understand what you’re trying to say here, but you know, you CAN be a feminist and not hate men. The two aren’t inextricably linked.
Lets not forget she isn’t just any “Christian” but soon will be the President of Episcopal Divinity School.
So their new President is a rabid pro abort and anti-men. Yet if you go to their site you can see lots of videos from other faculty as well as students praising this selection.
I think she’s not the only one who is sick.
Posted by: AM at April 6, 2009 9:51 PM
—-
I would agree that feminism doesn’t imply hatred of men, although Ragsdale provides ample evidence for that in her speech.
I also know that feminism came about as a reactionary movement against injustices that were suffered too long by too many. I’m not claiming it doesn’t have it’s uses, but it is an imperfect solution because it’s focus is uniquely upon gender issues, and it’s reliance is upon gender victimization.
You can test the rationality of feminism as a social solution by considering the reactionary male counterpart – masculism which arose in the 1990s as a result of political pandering to feminists.
Both focus on victimization and rights advocacy based on gender make them ripe for political control. Compared to true empowerment of Christ and biblical living, they are deceptively dangerous, because gender specific concerns are exploitable. Feminism started when the woman took the fruit and without inquiring of her husband, decided to eat it on her own.
So much for unity and marriage!
It’s obvious her agenda is lesbianism and pro-abortionism as she is totally devoid of the Spirit of God.
This woman is mostly to be pitied for she is using the name of God in vain and is very close to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, an unforgivable sin, if she continues in this gross practice of evil.
The Episcopal Church leadership is at the root cause of this for leaving the word of God and relying instead on the doctrines of men and demons.
The fact that they are not being convicted of their sin is evidence that God has given them up to their debauched nature and licentiousness and rebellion. Of all people in the world, these are the most to be pitied as they don’t even realize that they are just a breath away from eternal damnation and hellfire.
I just can’t express my thorough and utter sorrow for this lost soul.
“Feminism started when the woman took the fruit and without inquiring of her husband, decided to eat it on her own.
So much for unity and marriage!
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 6, 2009 10:29 PM”
Actaully Chris, it was Adam who sinned. His sin was listening to his wife and not God.
There used to be a woman (“reverend”) pastor at a First Congregational Church where I live. She was also rabidly pro-abortion and was always out at political gatherings holding her infernal blue and white “Keep abortion safe and legal” sign.
She wasn’t a lesbian though…she was married to a man…not that that means anything anymore.
This womans views were just as radical as this whack job Episcopal minister’s.
These women number more than you’d imagine.
They’re digging their own graves and flinging the soil at The Almighty.
I say “Let them”. God will have the last laugh.
We need to pray more for their followers.
Ok, this is WAY off topic, but I just saw the most ridiculous headline and I have to share it with the world. Get ready to be shocked, people!
“Kids who lack self control may be prone to weight gain.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090407/hl_hsn/kidswholackselfcontrolmaybepronetoweightgain
Really!? Did we really need a study to tell us this?
Lauren:
Was stimulus money wasted on this?
LOL Lauren. Yes, we have become a society where we have to do in-depth studies about everything anymore because the population at large has lost all common sense and ability to think on their own.
oh my goodness, Lauren…I am so cracking up over that title. I can’t believe that is even serious. LOL
“Woe to you who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).
Hisman, it looks like they did the study a while ago. Of course, I’m sure it got funding from the government somehow.
And so we have the Episcopalians having reached the theology of God blessing abortion.
Oh well, God is the author of death, and since he/she/it knew from the beginning that humans would murder each other, she is doing God’s work killing his creation.
Yep, add Abortion, as a charge of “crimes against humanity”, as so called Christians were charged with witch burning, Inquisitions, mass murder of natives, etc. Since all moral relativist claim, that morality is not fixed or unchanging, and abortion might be judged to be a act of genocide in the future, this Episcopal preacher will be a useful example of God being cruel, vengeful, and just flat out wanting to make humanity suffer.
And so we have the Episcopalians having reached the theology of God blessing abortion.
Oh well, God is the author of death, and since he/she/it knew from the beginning that humans would murder each other, she is doing God’s work killing his creation.
Yep, add Abortion, as a charge of “crimes against humanity”, as so called Christians were charged with witch burning, Inquisitions, mass murder of natives, etc. Since all moral relativist claim, that morality is not fixed or unchanging, and abortion might be judged to be a act of genocide in the future, this Episcopal preacher will be a useful example of God being cruel, vengeful, and just flat out wanting to make humanity suffer.
God help us.
Regarding feminism- there is a difference between feminism and our contemporary conjectures of feminism. It really did used to mean equality for women, purely and simply. However, around the 1960’s, that changed. Not it is based off of victimization and social control. There are feminists still who believe in equality and not privilege. It is, in essence, as though there are two different ideologies inhabiting the exact same name. One is good and the other is bad. Sadly enough, the latter is the one that is in charge; the latter is the one that disagrees with human rights, though likes to say that it adores human rights for the sake of a good face. No one ought to detest women’s rights, but they can openly disagree with all accuracy feminism.
Romans says it well. Given over to a reprobate mind in chapter 1.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their “women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: ”
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Vannah, I believe that some of the very first feminists were pro-life. I have heard this many times before. Had you heard about that?
Vannah, nothing good has ever come of feminism, much as I agree with the early feminists’ opinions on birth control.
So, it turns out that the religious community is not united against abortion. You can be non-religious and pro-life, and you can be religious and pro-choice. Makes things more complicated, but also more honest.
“I think the “work” she is referring to is convincing everyone on earth that abortion is a “blessing…”
========================
..just to add, I don’t think it’s just “convincing” everyone that’s the work…
I believe it’s dragging everyone’s soul that agrees with her off to the main highway to hell…THAT’s the real work!
Remember who’s REALLY behind this “masterpiece”…the father of lies.
So, it turns out that the religious community is not united against abortion.
posted by hal.
No kidding. Where have you been hiding hal, since before a issue hits the courts, it’s been studied by those who study God? She is the logical outcome of thinking like you, Hal. I suggest you join her church and have a orgy of “abortion blessings”.
You 14 11 3 7 14 12 14 15 7 14 1 4
Hal, someone can call themselves a Christian and support abortion, but that doesn’t mean they are actually a Christian.
THIS IS JUST CRAZY. Who is this women or should I say BEAST!!! Would she kill her own elderly parents if they kept her from her educational goals? Would she kill her own 2 year old child if she now realized that her life’s work called her to be single and do missionary work out of the country? What a crack pot.
Honestly, lovethemboth, I woudln’t be suprised if she did advocate killing the elderly. I’m sure she would say it was “compassionate” and a “blessing” to allow someone to die.
This woman clearly does not recognize God’s authority.
She may be enticed by forgiveness and eternal life.
But, humility, sacrifice and obedience, don’t seem to be much her bag.
The basis of Judaism is obedience to the Law and God.
The basis of Christianity is sacrifice in this life in the service of others for the promise of eternity.
She doesn’t want to follow God, she wants God to serve her.
Without a doubt, the feminists were pro-life. What I mean is that, by two different ideas sharing the same name, there is a difference between what Susan B. Anthony stood for and what Gloria Steinem stands for. See the difference? Techinically, Steinem and Company are “faux feminists” who believe in personal gain more than human dignity. They just happen to have the same name as someone like Susan B. Anthony. But one cannot believe in equality without expanding equality to all people, the preborn included. I like gender equality, and I like equality between us and the preborn, who are our fellow human beings.
I mean, yes, the feminists such as Smeal or Valenti- they have harsh words. I doubt that they concern themselves much for others. But I have such hopes that that can change. Until they fight on behalf of humanity and instead of against it, they make it look as though Anthony herself gave them a stamp of approval.
Hal, someone can call themselves a Christian and support abortion, but that doesn’t mean they are actually a Christian.
Posted by: Lauren at April 7, 2009 10:24 AM
But, MSR(Episcopalians,Presbyterians,etc) actually do think they are Christians.
There is no such thing as a religion called
“Christianity”_there never has been such a religion
There are varying heresies.
How come Episcopal pedophiles can’t get the same coverage as Catholics?
Hmm…
5/14/2008
A convicted and defrocked pedophile Episcopal priest is being allowed to conduct spiritual retreats – two of them in an Episcopal facility with the blessing of Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori, TEC’s Presiding Bishop.
In an exchange of correspondence with David Clohessy, National Director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Mrs. Jefferts Schori, through her Pastoral Development Officer Bishop F. Clayton Matthews, said that Mr. Lynn C. Baumann could function as a spiritual retreat master on the understanding that “Mr. Baumann’s contact (is) to adults only”.
Baumann is scheduled to lead spiritual retreats at The House of Prayer in the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota, later this month.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8238
“How come Episcopal pedophiles can’t get the same coverage as Catholics? ”
——————
Because Catholic teachings do not change with the times and with the Liberal/MSM agenda…it’s much, much better to cover Catholic priests who “fall” just to prove “them” right…and they always attack the Pope since they cannot get him to agree with them.
Other so-called Christian churches and their leaders bend and sway with the times…hence the non-coverage by the Liberal/MSM when they do “fall”.
Vannah and Others,
I actually wrote my history Master’s Essay on the subject of the “early feminists”, as they have been called here, specifically following the biography of Carrie Chapman Catt, the leader of the National American Woman’s Suffrage Association. The term “feminist” was not invented until the early 20th century, and even then its use is not well defined. The Susan B. Anthony and her ilk were known as leaders of the Woman Movement. They advocated universal suffrage in the US and abroad, ability to testify in court, equal protection in the case of divorce (men used to always get custody and property), ability to own property…that kind of thing. They also had interests in Food and Drug reform, the Peace Movement, and the Temperance Movement. They did not approve of abortion, birth control, or their contemporary–the now-famous Margaret Sanger.
I thought this would be a good place to post the Episcopal Church’s official statement on abortion.
Episcopal Church, 1988
We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community…. In those cases where an abortion is being considered, members of this Church are urged to seek the dictates of their consciences in prayer, to seek the advice and counsel of members of the Christian community and where appropriate the sacramental life of this Church….
We believe that legislation concerning abortions will not address the root of the problem. We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that individual conscience is respected and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored….
Hi, EH!
Do you mind if I see your essay or sources? This is the last piece of the puzzle that I’m missing for an essay of mine. It sounds like a very surprising discovery, actually, because I’m so used to reading that the women’s rights activists were only opposed to abortion because there was no proper medicine to treat complications at the time (I’m sure that that affected their reasoning, but they actually opposed it because it was murder, I’m sure). It sounds neat. :).
Actaully Chris, it was Adam who sinned. His sin was listening to his wife and not God.
Posted by: HisMan at April 6, 2009 10:57 PM
Yes, HisMan. My understanding is that even if Eve ate the fruit but Adam did not we would still be in Paradise today. I cannot remember where I read this but I did!
Lauren, thank you for posting that. Makes a lot of sense.
Vannah:
My Masters Essay was written six years ago, so I hope that I have found the applicable parts for you, though my research took place some time ago. I don’t know specifics on abortion, and I think that they would be very hard to find given the medical constraints of the time. In general, however, the reforms of the Women Movement honored Motherhood and honored the nuturing aspects of women’s character, so it can be inferred that abortion was contrary the core beliefs on which their reforms were based. Mainstream members of the Women Movement, like Carrie Chapman Catt (whose biography I follow in the Masters Essay), were a juxtaposition between conservative sexual views (criticized by today’s feminists), and progressive views which actually achieved universal suffrage. So, the modern feminist response is to either nullify or vilify Catt and her contribution in feminist histories like “The Oven Birds” by Gail Parker and Eleanor Flexner’s “A Century of Struggle,” because she was “conservative”. At the same time, her contemporaries identified as a progressive hero and a feminist.
Here is a relevant part of my introduction on the history of feminism:
“The history of the term “feminist” helps explain why Catt herself and those who analyze her within her own context felt free to use the word, while those who analyze her from a modern perspective are more reticent. Originally derived from the French word “feministe,” the term “feminist” was first used in the United States during the first decade of the twentieth century, a time when Catt was one of the foremost women leaders in the country. Although basically an undefined term during its early life, the implication was that a feminist sought to radically change the world by changing the role of women. The term differentiated the woman movement, which incorporated various moralistic platforms like temperance, prison reform, and protective legislation for children alongside goals like suffrage, from the movement for women’s political and social freedom as human beings.1 As the term evolved after suffrage was achieved, feminism came to mean the struggle not only to free women from the dominance of male society, but to free women from themselves, from socially constructed roles and ideals.” Main source for this paragraph was “The Grounding of Modern Feminism” by Nancy Cott.
Here is a relevant part of my conclusion:
“Even given her remarkable life and her commitment to full citizenship for women through the vote, the question of Catt’s place as a feminist remains. She did not promote and, it can be inferred from her writings, probably under no circumstances would have promoted the kind of public acclamation for sexual freedom, abortion, and homosexual unions demanded by those who today define the perception of the feminist leader. Instead, she saw the degradation of the women around her and tried to give them the means to raise themselves up within their society. She dedicated her life to giving women power—the power to participate in the government and laws which dictated their position within both the domestic and public spheres. Perhaps today’s feminists, who in every way try to make women’s differences from men a matter of woman’s choice, would do well to remember that those who through their efforts gave women the opportunity to speak and protest and hold office and vote did not see distinctions between men and women as a threat to their dignity and equality. Women deserved the vote, they deserved social equality, not because they were the different from men and not because they were the same as men. They deserved the vote as citizens of the United States and as human beings deserving of respect.”
I hope this helps give you some perspective on what I actually wrote and researched, which is relevant, but a little bit tangential, to your research. If more information or my full bibliograpahy would assist you, please contact me through my website.
Good Luck with your research!
Thanks, EH. It is very helpful. :).
It strikes me that the issue of abortion isn’t about religion or morality. It’s about human rights.
Like Martin Luther King’s struggle for equality, the Reverend Ragsdale is a leader in the fight to recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. Back in the 60’s, it became obvious that freedom and equality were eventually going to triumph. And the same inevitability surrounds the right to make choices about your own life.
The debate rages on, but for all Americans, unfettered access to abortion will be our reality.
I don’t think so, Ethel. I think that human rights matter, and I think that, even against harrowing odds, we can find the strength to banish the beast that denies children of their rights, and I think that, with good’s tendency to triumph even after losing battles, abortion shall be made illegal. And then we have come one step closer to equality, freedom, and, above all things, love for one another.
Vannah,
Although I agree that it’s important that we love each other(as Christ taught), I can’t help believing that it’s at least as important that we respect each other(which Christ also taught).
Your attempt to remove my right to do what I choose with my own body, shows a blind rejection of both love and respect.
Ehtel: “Your attempt to remove my right to do what I choose with my own body, shows a blind rejection of both love and respect.”
Do you not get tired of regurgitating the same platitudes? You make the argument something that it is not. I have no desire to control what you do to your own body when it is your own body. Abortion is not about “your” body anymore than abusing drugs during a pregnancy is about “your” body.
The bottom line is that pregnancy neglects the basic right to sustinance that is owed to every indigent, in this case the preborn child. When can a parent starve a child elsewhere?
Why are we so comfortable infringing on bodily autonomy when it comes to the protection of other Americans for the purposes of cavity searches, but we are not okay doing it to protect the right of a preborn child?
Caregivers are required to relinquish a portion of their rights or else face legal ramifications. A mother is also required to reliquish a portion of her rights for her child, the preborn inside her womb.
“Demonic activity is spreading” – introduction to ‘An Evening With An Exorcist’ promotion.
Pro-life Catholic priest, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer director of Human Life International, will explain why demonic activity is spreading.
http://www.EveningWithAnExorcist.com – Click “what to expect” to listen to promo.
The event is in New Jersey. Look for a DVD to become available at http://www.hli.org .
Hi, Ethel!
I simply must disagree with you, which is not a happy circumstance, by saying that abortion is not a right. But life and the opportunity at a future with dignity and hope is a right. I am glad that you love Jesus’s teachings. No individual may do as he or she pleases with his or her body to the point of supplanting the rights of another, in this case, the preborn. Just as men cannot do with their bodies as they please to the point of raping a woman, women cannot abort a child. Though, yes, there is a profound difference between the motives behind rape and the motives behind abortion, indeed.
I do respect you, and I do respect others. I have the deepest respect for any human intent on spreading love and hope, but that respect must carry on to all humans- and that does not exclude the preborn amongst us.
Vannah,
That was very nicely put. :)
I’ve never heard even the most staunch pro-choice person call abortion a “blessing”. Wow.
Oh, thank you, Janet. I’m happy and most especially honored to be in the company of people who feel the same way (and definitely get more involved than I do, I must confess, albeit unwillingly). :)
Vannah,
I suppose this whole issue for you comes down to semantics. You call a fetus “preborn”( a word that is not part of the English language), and try to use that word to hide the truth. Life starts at birth. Simple. Uncomplicated.
But as I pointed out earlier, this fight is pretty much over, except for the singing. As a progressive, industrialized nation, we will have safe, accessible health care. I know Jesus is proud of that. And he loves you, even if you disagree with him.
Ethel, when Jesus comes back, not all who say to him “Lord, Lord” will be taken to the kingdom of heaven. He will ask what we did for the least of these. Did we give them food, clothing, and shelter? Or did we say that they weren’t real people, shred them to bits, and shove scissors into the back of their skulls?
Although sometimes I do wonder about how we decide who are the least of these in a kingdom where the last shall be first and the first shall be last. Perhaps unborn children will be among the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and the least will be those who ignored parts of the Bible and got in only as one escaping through flames.
I am very glad that we have health care, but I don’t think killing children and destroying one’s own fertility is health care. Health care is taking parts of our body that don’t work properly and getting them to work better.
Ethel, I do know that Jesus loves you. If you love Him, seek His will and read His word on this issue. You are wrong, but you can repent of advocating evil, and He will forgive.
Hi, Ethel.
I might start by stating that I do know that preborn in not a documented English word (well, if it is, I have never seen it listed), but I use it because it meets no law currently used in English, just as those individuals who are as yet unborn do not fit into the law but are still human beings.
My goal in stating this last statement is not to change your mind, score a point, or radically alter your life. My goal is not to make anyone like anyone else who might be different from them…yet. Now, the goal is not to keep everyone within everyone else’s good graces, but to force the law to acknowledge that, whether you like the preborn or not, you can’t hurt them. All people have rights; the law must progress, because, yes, to acknowledge all rights would be a progressive nation, to meet this fact. The law must progress to accept all human beings as equals. And I believe that Jesus knew this quite well. In fact, he knew it better than all of us.