Sunday, December 24, 2006

Christmas is about Reproductive Rights

Many people around the world are celebrating Christmas today. Of course, December 25th has nothing to do with the [supposed] birth of the son of God, but the early Church needed to find a way to snooker more people into joining their cult/new religion. Don’t believe me? According to All About Jesus Christ:*
It wasn't until A.D. 440 that the church officially proclaimed December 25 as the birth of Christ. This was not based on any religious evidence but on a pagan feast. Saturnalia was a tradition inherited by the Roman pagans from an earlier Babylonian priesthood. December 25 was used as a celebration of the birthday of the sun god. It was observed near the winter solstice.
I don’t think that a site “All About Jesus Christ” would make that shit up. Perhaps interpret it differently, but that’s another story.

Speaking of interpreting Bible stories, I thought today would be a good day to talk about the forced childbirth movement. People who participate in forced childbirth activities don’t like to talk about it that way, preferring innocent terms like “pro-life,” but they care about as much about people’s lives as they do about social justice.** Proponents of forced childbirth insist that women are baby-making machines, that sex is only for making babies, and nothing can interfere with this. Birth control of no kind is permissible because sex is not to be done for purposes of pleasure or mere intimacy. If you play with fire, bitch, you better be prepared to take the punishment.

Members of the forced childbirth movement like to idolize Mary, the New Testament mother of Jesus. However, I think that Mary is actually the perfect symbol for reproductive freedom. Basically, you can look at her story in two ways, and either way, there is some level of choice involved.

Interpretation 1: God thinks about who should bear His progeny. He could have chosen any number of quality, virtuous virgins, but He deliberately selects Mary, in part because he knew that she would agree to the plan. There was no coercion involved here. God didn’t want to knock up someone who would not be cool with dealing with an unexpected child.

Interpretation 2: God chooses Mary and sends the angel Gabriel to tell her. Mary asked how this would happen, and Gabriel told her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee." Mary then said: "Let it be done according to Thy will." I’m directly quoting the Anglican Parish of Camp Hill with Norman Park, part of the Diocese of Brisbane, Australia on this next part: “This one simple action of saying "Yes" to God changed everything. Mary became the mother of the Lord.” Mary made a choice. In her case, she said she’d be willing to have a child that she didn’t plan, but it was still a choice.

So this Christmas, I am making the (potentially blasphemous) argument that if Mary was allowed to make a choice as to whether she’d be willing to carry God’s baby to term, all women are allowed to determine what is best for themselves. No one has the right to force any woman to bear a child. Even God abided by that principle, and if it is good enough for God, it should be good enough for his people. Merry Christmas!

*Seriously, did you ever think a link like that would be used at CUSS? Me neither. It makes me laugh a lot to think about it.
**Meaning: some of the members of this movement really do try and make the world a better place, like the anti-choice liberation theologists, but most just like punishing women for daring to have sex and then reminding the resulting kids what worthless trash they are since they came out of sin by denying them health care, quality education, decent places to live, and adequate food.

10 comments:

  1. Happy Hanukkah.
    My limited understanding of the Bible is that the choice of free will for men and women occurred in Genesis..

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice work as always. Well written. Please get this published. Planned Parenthood pamplet anyone? Just kidding. But, in all seriousness, I think you raise a very valid point. Don't let any naysayers tell you that you do not have the right to interpret meaning. Every version of the Word(King James, Ryrie...) every language is just that, an interpetation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Merry Christmas, you muckraker, you!

    I love your interpretation, and hope that someday it will be considered acceptable for a Planned Parenthood pamphlet. What "Good" is religious belief if it doesn't actually help folks, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bravo! Thanks for standing up for choice and standing opposed to hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. God gave Mary a choice before conception. Not after. Once God was incarnated, he was the Lord (as per Luke 1), both God and Man, not God-and-blob-of-tissue.

    Your interpretation doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Suzanne,

    My interpretation makes as much sense as yours does.

    Best,
    Suzanne

    ReplyDelete
  7. You could compare this to the Greek legends where Zues was always out impregnating people by tricking them... you know, sexy rain, a bull, that kind of thing. God didn't trick Mary at least.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've always found it ironic that "pro-lifers" care more about the innocent life of the unborn child (who really doesn't even know that it has a life to begin with or what a life is), more than the potentially crappy, possibly abusive life of the born, unwanted child-not to mention the life of the vessel, oops, I mean, woman who conceives the child, because who really gives a fuck about her anyway?

    Sing it sister.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I've always found it ironic that "pro-lifers" care more about the innocent life of the unborn child (who really doesn't even know that it has a life to begin with or what a life is), more than the potentially crappy, possibly abusive life of the born, unwanted child-not to mention the life of the vessel, oops, I mean, woman who conceives the child, because who really gives a fuck about her anyway?"

    "most just like punishing women for daring to have sex and then reminding the resulting kids what worthless trash they are since they came out of sin by denying them health care, quality education, decent places to live, and adequate food."

    I don't know who you're both talking about when it comes to these claims, but it seems like (giving you the benefit of the doubt that there are actually people out there who believe and act this way) you're attacking the extremes in an extreme way. It seems like if you were more concerned about achieving social justice, you would get to the heart of the issue in a critical and sincere manner, rather than spouting incomprehensible criticism aimed at who knows whom. If you really care about these things, and are not just trying to cause conflict and make yourself a hero, then come up with reasonable solutions to the problems you see in society.

    ReplyDelete