Terrifying icecreams

I recently realised there's a connection between a few different things I struggle with - phonecalls and beggars/sellers/performers in the street. It's that I'm here - or there - in my own little introverted space and suddenly someone's before me, expecting a response (or when I'm the one making the phonecall, I imagine myself doing this to someone else). And they're a person and as such it's automatically intense and complicated, even when it's so seemingly simple (buy an icecream, dammit! walk over and give them a muesli bar! answer the phone!). They're a person and I wasn't ready for it and now there's no time to prepare... and I seriously freak out inside of me. It's not like I'm thinking anything particularly negative, it's more of an emotional thing. It did get a little easier with the elderly man who begged by my old train station because I knew he might be there and got to know him a little, and it's a little easier if the phone tells me it's someone I know. But basically it's a struggle and I have to make myself pick up the phone because I know it's really socially important, and now I'm living in the city and there are lots of beggars I haven't worked out what to do but I know I have to figure something out.

Which made me think - some of this stuff in life is just a battle, that's just what it is. Like a natural pessimist having to remember to be thankful. But you need to do the best you can with the hand you've been dealt, and sometimes it's important to fight. The other person may not know what it cost you to have the courage to call and invite them over, but the relationship is more important than your comfort zone and God knows. So I never want to give up the fight, though of course it's also not a fight I want to wage alone - when this stuff comes up I always want to thrown myself at God's feet, begging for help, before I take that first terrifying step.

All creatures look to you

Sorry for the rather prolonged hiatus. I might just be back on track now but I'm not quite ready to promise. I've been flat out sorting out my new flat (!) and getting unreasonably stressed and everything, which meant I had no energy to write, or think. But here's something that came to my attention a while back...

I'm not exactly sure why - maybe because of the Catholic focus on praying to Mary/God for physical blessings, or because in very recent history Chile was a poor country and much of it still is, or because the eclipsing glories of the Gospel aren't well taught - but for whatever reason, people are much more inclined here to give thanks and pray for safety, food, health, those sort of things. It's what most people seem to pray for, most of the time.

It makes me worried about what Christians will do when the hard times come, as Jesus promised they would. I worry that this focus on the here-and-now will make them forget that God is bringing about bigger plans, yet more beautiful things, and they will find themselves unable to trust him when their personal troubles crowd in. I think this is something that my church back home does a good job of preparing its people for. And yet it's not all bad here. Chileans tend to have a fervent belief in God's ability to control life's details and a lovely dependence on him, and that's not nothing, not nothing at all. 

Señores de sus tierras

I'm learning about the 'discovery' and conquest of the Americas in a class I'm taking at the Centro de Estudios Pastorales (the Anglican Bible college here). Came across this quote in some reading I had to do. Two hundred years before Australia was settled by white people and declared an 'empty land', a Dominican monk made public the truth that was apparently as obvious to folks like him back then as it is to us today. And yet history tells us that he was heard in neither America nor Australia.

 The point of departure . . . is whether the Indians were true masters of their possessions and institutions before the arrival of the Spanish. That is to say, if the Indians didn't have a legitimate right over their lands, the Spanish could take them without asking. To this Vitoria [Franciso de Vitoria, a Dominican monk] responds that the Indians certainly were legitimate masters. Neither mortal sin, nor idolatry, nor the supposed lack of mental capacity are sufficient to negate right of possession . . . . the right of discovery, is also illegitimate, such that if the Indians were true masters of their lands . . . those territories weren't there waiting to be discovered, as if we were talking about a deserted island.1

This second quote makes me think about what we might be overlooking today...

The great tragedy of the conquest wasn't that a crowd of heartless Spanairds spilled over the American continent, but that those who arrived in these lands were sincere Christians who in spite of this did not appear capable of seeing the relationship between their faith and that which was happening in their days. This is true, not only of Colombus and many descubridores, but also of the conquistadores like Cortés and Pizarro, who saw their business as a great service dedicated to the preaching of the gospel. And so the tragedy was that with all sincerity and in the name of Christ the most horrendous crimes were commited.1

1 J González, Historia del Cristianismo, Tomo II (Colombia: Unilit, 1994, translation mine)

The Holy Spirit

A friend (who are recently had his first experience of speaking-in-tongues) asked me the other day if I'd had experience of the Holy Spirit. He wasn't meaning something spectacular, just anything. Now I don't usually turn my mind to God the Spirit, and I think that's as it should be (see for example, John 14:26), but it was an easy question to say YES to. I love the Holy Spirit, and am very aware that it's only through his power that I can do anything good. Every time I pray, every time my actions and feelings are better than they normally would be, it's him. Praise be to God, Father, Son and Spirit!

Perdonado y amado

I worked out what was missing from all my other attempts to describe my ministry here - heart. And if this would be a problem in Australia, it's way more so in Chile where everyone's emotionally aware and any talk of feelings really resonates. So I stopped trying to capture everything precisely and got talking about my passions.

So here we have it - my 'Vision Statement':

As they read the Bible, I want women to get to know their God, and learn what it means to live as people who have been forgiven much and are much loved. 

And the Spanish version: Quiero que las mujeres conozcan a su Dios mientras estudien la Biblia, y aprendan lo que significa vivir como gente que ha sido perdonado y amado en gran manera por él.

How to talk with each other

This is just as good as dialogues get. There's deep, deep, wide-ranging thought and gracious, open, lucid discussion. I can't bear to pick one bit to quote because the standard of what is said is so unfailingly high. And, interestingly enough, another student from my poetry course suggested it to me - thanks!

Lines for an abortionist's office

                                                      **warning: long post ahead**

I'm in the middle of an online poetry course and we began this week considering Ruth Lechlitner's "Lines for an Abortionist's Office". In our online discussion forums, one of my fellow-students wrote:

This poem is so relevant for today, when "state"s are trying to pass "personhood" laws, granting a zygote the full protections of the law, while ignoring the woman who has just conceived. I know a woman who had a second trimester abortion, due to significant chromosomal abnormalities of her (wanted) baby. At the time (I've not verified this recently), there were no instances of these infants surviving the first year. Most died in utero, some were stillborn, but a few did survive the birth. When I talk of this case to anti-abortion advocates, I always ask them to give me a reason why the State has any compelling interest to force my friend to continue her pregnancy -- and to leave any mention of God out of the discussion, as Freedom of Religion is a cardinal concept in the USA. Never have I received an answer that doesn't fall back on "God's Will" or some variation thereof. Personally, I find it sad and ironic that an issue of the 30's still resonates today, some 80 years later. The arguments haven't changed -- only the degree of fetal viability at earlier and earlier gestational states. I would never insist that any woman have an abortion, no matter the circumstances. But neither would I stand in the way of any woman who has made such a difficult decision. 

And so our short exchange began. I've reproduced it here (in full and with my correspondent's permission) in the hope that it might be something of a helpful model for anyone who struggles with what to say about such delicate, heated topics.

Me: I'll have a go. I don't want to talk about your friend, so but I think it's helpful to think about such a terrible situation as this. So let's make up someone else who let's say didn't find out about their baby's significant chromosomal abnormalities. So they had the baby and now it's an infant of seven months. Let's say it's a boy and its name is Mike. I guess he has severe disabilities and may also be very sick and having to spend time in hospital. So my question is: in these circumstances, would it be okay for her to take him to a clinic to be killed?

For me, my answer to that question will always be the same as my answer to your question above ("I always ask them to give me a reason why the State has any compelling interest to force my friend to continue her pregnancy"). This is because I think that the fetus is just a very new baby - far less developed than a newborn baby of course, but then a newborn's far less developed than a five-year-old (etc etc). This all comes home to me when I see friends doing things like posting ultrasound photos of their fetuses on facebook, giving them names, and stopping drinking alcohol.

Of course, the situation imagined above isn't that of all women who have an abortion. As far as I'm aware, most women abort a fetus that is without disability, so my question becomes: would you take your healthy seven-month-old to a clinic to be killed?

My questions may seem unnecessary shocking, but my goal isn't to shock - rather, this is honestly how I see this issue and I don't think the discussion goes anywhere much without getting to the heart of it.

My correspondent: Thank you for your well thought out and cogent response, Fiona. I appreciate your point of view, but I think you underestimated the problems of THIS pregnancy. The child, had it survived birth, would never have left the hospital. It would have been on life support (respirator, tube feeding, dialysis, etc.) until death. And yes, it would have died. Would you go to extraordinary lengths to keep that little "Mike" alive? Or would you have allowed him to die? Bear in mind that respirators, dialysis, etc. can be very painful. Would it have been possible for you to choose to not intervene and let nature take its course?

My friend had limited financial resources, and no family nearby. She also had a small child at home. She and her husband worked long hours to provide for their little family. For that family, abortion was the option that made the most sense, even though it was a very difficult decision. Had their life circumstances been different, then their decision might have changed. Or not; who's to know? So if this situation happened to you or someone close to you (and I sincerely hope it never happens to another family, anywhere at any time), and you had the resources to cope with the stresses and chose to continue the pregnancy, I would fully support you. I would NEVER say you "should" have had an abortion. Abortion is an extremely personal decision.

When it comes to first-trimester abortions, it is often too soon to know whether a fetus is healthy. When it comes to second-trimester, though, I would strongly disagree with your assertion. When my friend had to travel a distance away to obtain a legal abortion, there were obviously other women having the same procedure. Why were they there? One had a heart condition that was worsening; her doctors thought she wouldn't survive. One was 13 years old and didn't know she was pregnant earlier. Of all the women there, not a single one was someone who waited, who couldn't make a decision earlier, or was callous enough to wait to feel a viable fetus before aborting. For each, it was a difficult decision.

I understand that abortion would not be an option for you, under any circumstances, and that's fine. I just don't feel that you, or anyone else, has the right to make that decision for me.

I thank you for your response and willingness to discuss this issue, in light of this poem.

Me: Thanks for your measured response - nice to be able to actually discuss such a heated topic. I'll make my reply and then bow out (well unless an extremely good reason comes up).

I was trying to create a made-up situation so as not to talk about your friends, but thank you for showing me how awful the reality was. I can't imagine what that would have been like for them. I have friends who had a fetus with similar problems. They chose to continue the pregnancy and the little girl (I can't remember her name) died a few days after she was born. I can't imagine how terrible that path would have been either.

However, even though we've clarified the situation, we are talking past each other!! So let's make Mike four days old now, with severe disabilities and very sick and in hospital :(. If he is going to die naturally :( then I see absolutely no reason for any sort of heavy-handed medical intervention - it would be better to allow him to die. But abortion is very different to this. So I return to my original question: In these circumstances, would it be okay for his Mum to take him to a clinic (or in this case, ask the doctors of the hospital) to have him killed?

And are there boundaries? What about a healthy four-day-old? (In Australia, around one in four pregnancies are terminated, so I'm assuming the majority of these fetuses would have been healthy.)

And if your answer to one or both questions is, no it wouldn't be okay, then my next question is: What's different about this same child when it was, I dunno, ten weeks old inside its mother's uterus? What is the difference that would make it okay to kill the child at ten weeks inside, but not at four days outside? Sure, it can't survive by itself, but neither can a newborn, or a two-year-old for that matter.

Okay that's me. I thank you again for your willingness to explore this issue. I really mean it! :)

My correspondent: Fiona -- who would have ever thought that a poetry course would be a medium for discussing abortion politics? Surely, not me. I think the basic difference in our perceptions is one of potential. I think you see (and I could be way off base, and shouldn't assume, but I'm doing so based upon what you wrote above) that every fertilized egg is a person, and we should all celebrate the potential that is inherent. Accurate? Whereas I see a collection of cells that does not yet qualify as completely human. If the pregnancy continues, then yes a human will result. But I have seen studies that show that Mother Nature is the biggest abortionist of all -- that up to 60% of fertilized ova never go on to a positive result -- that of a newborn baby.

Here in the US, there are those who feel that birth control that might prevent implantation is equal to abortion, even though medically, a pregnancy does not exist until implantation. They are thus, against hormonal contraceptives -- the most effective form of contraception. What it all seems to boil down to is that a fertilized egg is more important than the woman who carries it. This is a position I simply cannot accept. Before fetal viability, I believe that the mother is the ultimate decision maker about what happens to and in her body, and that no one (save maybe a fetus' father, depending upon the circumstances) has any right to tell her what she must do. No one else knows the circumstances; no one else knows her anguish. Faced with the choice of a potential human or a definitive human, I'll go with the definitive woman every time.

Does this mean there are some women who will abort for selfish reasons? Yes. Do I decry their choice? Yes. I will, however, defend their right to make that choice. To say that abortion should be illegal because of a percentage of selfish women is to deny a necessary medical procedure for others. I have known many women who have had abortions. Most experienced contraceptive failure. They thought long and hard about their decision. They weighed their options, looked at their life situations, and made a difficult choice. In my life, I have only known one woman who refused to use contraception, using abortion as her form of birth control. I consider her acts reprehensible, but feel this is the price we must pay, as a society, to ensure that millions of other women have choices.

And no, I didn't forget about 4 day old Mike above. While no one would take a 4 day old child to a clinic to be "killed," to think that doesn't actually happen is probably wishful thinking. I believe that physicians assist with patients' deaths all the time, but dare not admit it. Who is to say that the "overdose" of morphine in a terminally ill cancer patient was accidental, especially if death is imminent anyway? If I was suffering, nearing certain death, I believe that I'd rather die a few days earlier, more comfortably, with a modicum of dignity, than hang on for that extra week, in agony, putting my loved ones through a tremendous amount of suffering. In a way, both these circumstances (abortion and euthanasia) boil down to the autonomy of the individual. A woman bears the responsibility and choice in pregnancy. I think that the sick and suffering also have a choice.

Believe it or not, I've enjoyed these discussions. It's difficult to have much sharing of ideas with many on "the other side" (whichever side that may be). Such strong opinions and emotions tend to make one less civil and to me, THAT's the real downfall of society. So thank you very much, Fiona. Even with our differing opinions, I think we could be friends -- if we didn't live half a world apart. Take care.

Me: I did say I was only going to chime back in if an extremely good reason came up... well this will have to suffice! Just wanted to return thanks to you too for your graciousness (and for answering my questions) :). God bless, Fiona

My correspondent: Just a last thought, Fiona. I don't know if you're familiar with the works of Arlo Guthrie, songwriter/folksinger and son of Woody Guthrie. Arlo is famously liberal and proud of it. In a concert, he said that he'd made some "friends he didn't expect to make." That it was more important that someone cares, whether on "either side of any issue." Our discussion has brought that point home to me in a way I've never felt before. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree, and to do so respectfully is a sign of great caring and willingness to learn what the "other side" is all about. Thank you for that.