Mary Had a Choice. Why Don't I?

Thanks for clarifying the differences in doctrine. I had a sense that this post was running along Catholic doctrine since those are the only sources on The Annunciation that I came across. I figure that I would enter the discussion from a religious perspective since the policies are being made on religious basis not scientific ones, so it's my little attempt to fight fire with fire. I noticed that any scientific argument that is put out there is met with a religious one when the policies are made based on religion, so it is practically useless to use logic that has no basis in religious text. Still, I agree with you that it is a dangerous path, but I also think that a good portion of the people using religious text to advocate for things are hypocritical, so why not try and point that out? You've given me much more ammunition with your explanation!

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

The law you describe was in place BEFORE this regulatory change. This regulatory change says that places like Planned Parenthood now must hire people who cannot meet the basic requirements of a job as a family planner among other new "protections" that don't protect any of my rights to full informed medical information or a referral to someone who is willing to talk to me. To withhold such information is a violation of my right to make decisions based on my values and beliefs and de facto forces me to practice the religion of someone else.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Nettalyce

Without getting into a theological debate I have a basic question.  Doesn't everyone have the right to follow their own religious convictions?  If a healthcare provider sincerely believes that a particular form of birth control amounts to abortion and if this same practitioner feels that abortion is wrong,  doesn't he/she have the right to not provide this type of care.  If a woman desires to utilize  this same form of birth control,  can't she access a different healthcare provider who does not have a similar objection?   So I honestly don't see how forcing healthcare providers to operate against their convictions or having their ability to practice their profession negatively impacted by the expression of their convictions  jeopardizes a women's right to choose.  I honestly don't want to simplify this issue but what about the choice of female practioners who prior to Bush's policy felt forced to provide care that violated their religious faith?

Nettalyce blogs here on blogher.com and at nettalyce.blogspot.com

wow!  Too much here to respond to it all.  But one minor point which always bugs me: the "life begins at conception" thing.  I contend that this too is just another religious or spiritual belief.  

Both egg and sperm have to be alive for conception to happen.   So what's the "life" that would begin at conception?  The only thing I can figure out is that people think that the soul enters the picture at that point--which is definitely a religious belief.

However--so far I have yet to convince anyone of the cogency of this argument.  Just wanted to get it off my chest. 

Hi Suzanne, good post. I surely never thought of it along those lines. I grew up catholic till i MADE MY CHOICE, that i just thought it a good read. And left it at that.

I guess bringing this into the terms you've written, is all well and good, and interesting to read. Might even put it into a better perspective for others. As well as Nordettes post. But bottom line, why do we feel the need to have to justify a womens rights, by pulling religious ideals as a "good argument" for ? or against? Dammit it's my body and its my right to do with it what I WANT.  Everything else is just plain ole meddling into anothers business. I'll mind mine, you mind yours...what is so hard about that. confounds me to no end.

jojo

www.goodnessgraciousacres.com ( http://www.goodnessgraciousacres.com )

twitter: goodnesgracious

Thank the consent seeking God that we are almost done with these assholes.

Suzanne, I applaud you for stepping in to debate a matter of faith that you admit is not your own.  Many people are afraid to read religious doctrine outside of their own belief systems.

Not to confuse you more, but the doctrine you're covering here is not Evangelical Protestant Christian doctrine or even non-Evangelical Protestant Christian doctrine.  You're reviewing Catholic Church teaching used to support the veneration of Mary.

Perhaps there are Protestant churches that embrace this teaching of The Annunciation, but I'm not aware of them.  However, I think that there are some Protestant denominations that differ from Catholicism only on minor points. 

While the Catholic Church is powerful in this nation and around the world, up until the election of John F. Kennedy, leaders in this country so strongly identified with being Protestant that people were afraid that electing a Catholic president would give the Pope power over America.

Protestant Christians are called protestant because they protest some of the major teachings of the Catholic Church.  In a way, American Pilgrims ( http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html ) were sort of doubly Protestant, protesting both the Catholic Church and any government that wanted to force citizens worship only one way even one "protestant" way. 

So, while your post is a great conversation to debate how some Catholics may arrive at the belief life begins at conception, you may have to write something entirely different to engage Protestant Christians who believe life begins at conception but do not venerate Mary or accept Catholic doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary herself or Mary's essential consent for the redemption of humankind. 

I was careful to say "venerate" because I don't want to debate any reader on whether Catholic believers are simply honoring Mary or worshipping Mary, returning to the Goddess, resurrecting Diana, upholding the fastest route to more rights for women in the Church, standing on Church history vs. scripture, or opening the floor on female submission doctrine, etc.  What a can of religious worms!  And believe me, it's a discussion that quickly devolves into people typing in all caps.

About George.  Bush has never claimed to be Catholic, so it's doubtful his anti-choice stance has anything to do with Catholic teaching (Catholic political pressure perhaps, but not Catholic teaching).  The Bush family identifies itself as Protestant.  I think Laura Bush is United Methodist, affiliated with the denomination in which I grew up,.   George is at best, advantageously religious ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A246... ), making a point to mention the name of Jesus and he claims to read his Bible. He was raised Episcopalian, went Presbyterian, sort of, for a while, moved over to Methodism with his attachment to Laura, and declared to be "born again" after a talk with Billy Graham, a powerful Southern Baptist.  All Protestant affiliations, and Southern Baptist are staunchly pro-life/anti-choice.  However, there is nothing that indicates Bush became a Southern Baptist.  He's still affiliated with the UMC, and the UMC doesn't spend much time on Mary.

Furthermore, while UMC roots are pretty fiery, the church tends to be a mainstream liberal Protestant denomination, especially when compared to Evangelical Christian groups. Here's the UMC's stand on contraception and choice ( http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1732 ).

Should we ask the next question?  Is Bush really part of the religious right or did he just use them effectively and is practicing quid pro quo on this legislation? 

Here is the Annunciation from the Bible without extra Catholic notes and teaching, opinions or commentary from priests.

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her
old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Perhaps Catholic scholars conclude that Mary "consented" b/c she called herself the handmaid or the servant of the Lord.  In other words, "Right O! Happy to bear your son, God."

But if Mary were a woman unlikely to want to serve God, would an all-knowing diety have chosen her for the task of bearing the child in the first place.  Deck's stacked against her saying "no" here. 

It was more an implied consent.  Or it's possible Mary prayed and asked to be the one to bear the Messiah and The Annunciation is an announcement that she's been chosen, but to say anything like that would be speculation because nothing in the Canon says explicitly that anything like that happened any more than it says explicitly that God asked Mary's permission first.

Believe me, I could make your head swim with pastors and priests who would argue that Mary's attitude toward God in that verse is the same attitude "devout" women should have toward the men in their lives. Mary was devout and obedient.

To enter a discussion of the right of women to choose using any type of religious argument is dangerous, anyway.  Some of the population doesn't believe Mary was a real person and if she were, then they don't believe in a virgin birth.  After a while we'll be in a corner debating how many angels can stand on a pin's head like we can make government policy from that.

But, if you want to address only Catholics as one part of the Christian community that believes life begins at conception, perhaps the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary's consent is a good place to start, if you can avoid the Mary as example of how women should be obedient teaching, that is.

The big difference between what happened with Mary and what goes on with us lowly folk is that men who impregnate women aren't all-knowing and the woman doesn't get an announcement letting her know that on Saturday night she will become pregnant, so there's no way to stop the pregnancy until after the deed's done unless, of course, we always use birth control. I think some Catholics and some Protestants also are against contraception. They believe no sex outside of marriage and whether in or out, no birth control.  "If you aren't prepared for God's will with your body, don't have sex," they say.

However, we are, after all, only human. Perhaps we should get a get out of pregnancy free card for not having prescience or planning well. 

I prefer to simplify.

As a pro-choice Protestant, I think the bottom line is that the concept of God in Christianity is that God is a being who gave us free-will.  Eve with the apple, Adam with the apple. Believe in Jesus as Lord or don't.  It's up to us.

We may do what we think is right or not do it, but be ready for whatever consequences come our way, and for certain matters, the government should allow us to exercise our own free will in good conscience, not be our conscience for us.

So, God, who gave us free will, is pro-choice when it comes to matters of faith. Arguments about whether life begins at conception or two weeks or two months are issues of conscience and faith.  The government cannot make those decisions for any individual and until science proves life begins at conception, any legislation penalizing women for birth control or abortion based on the idea that life begins at conception is religious or faith-based in nature, a violation of the Separation of Church and State.

Suzanne, you're as brave as Maria ( http://www.blogher.com/rick-warren-and-inauguratio... )!  I wrote a long comment, but I'd never take this on as a post. Wouldn't want the headache.

CNN ran an objective documentary  "After Jesus: The First Christians ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0812/24/cp.... )" last night. If readers can find a copy, it may help some people understand how Christian scripture and teaching developed.  Also, reading up on the Christian Reformation ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/495422/R... ) and Christian church history may help anyone interested in  the Christian church split into Catholics and Protestants. Christianity has three branches, btw, Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox.  The Eastern Orthodox branch celebrates Christmas in January ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christiani... ) under the Gregorian calendar. 

I think whether you're a religious believer or not, being religion literate is wise, especially when you live in a country where religious beliefs frequently shape government policy and your country is threatened by nations that base policy on religion.  Even when religion seems not in the picture, most people make their decisions on some type of subconscious belief, maybe that they are themselves God. In fact, I think on the Science Channel last night saw a show about saving the planet, and I heard a conservationist say development has only two drivers, consumerism and religion.  

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is WSATA ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ), and she's finally taken the dive into Twitter. ( http://twitter.com/nordette_verite )

Being Jewish, I can't really add to this at all - I hope some people who follow Christianity can though.  Thanks for a really interesting post, Suzanne - I never thought of any of this.

Jill Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )