Sunday, November 12, 2006
So, last class we discussed Campbell's article. There is a section in this article that I must comment on: "Children: Choice or gift?" ... in one particular passage, the author notes that:
"Children are never completely products of deliberate and designed autonomous decisions. The child may instead be a surprise, whose conception, gestational development, and birth evoke in parents basic sentiments of awe and wonder".
This is an overly idealistic way of perceiving the gift of life. Of course, this described situation can apply to many families, but what of women who are raped? High school girls whose partners' condoms broke? Women who live in such abysmal conditions and must have unprotected sex with their "lover" to keep having a roof over their heads? Rapists during war who rape women to infiltrate the "racial purity" of a nation? Children who are put up for adoption? ... No, children are not always "autonomous" decisions, but they also do not always evoke "awe and wonder" in the parents due to the differing conditions that children are conceived in.
We also discussed McKenny's article -- indeed, "when the statement turns to plants, the nature of moral concern shifts in a way that makes it clear that moral standing is ascribed not to nature as a whole but only to part of it". Sure, religion tends to oppose cloning humans and animals, but it's fine to "play God" with plants? I guess we can look to Gregor Mendel as an example of this exception. He was the monk who crossbred peas to investigate inheritance traits, and from this experiment, was interested in discovering more about DNA & the Double Helix. No wait... DNA/Double Helix is Watson and Crick. Anyway, Mendel is an example that science and religion can cross boundaries because of life experience (he "worked as a gardener in his childhood"). Sometimes you can't avoid it. Heck, my friend's parents are devout Catholics who work at an immunology & vaccination research company.
I recall we also had a discussion about taking religion out of the politican spectrum. Perhaps this is a bit more plausible in the Canadian government, but looking at American politics, this idea is almost laughable. Has anyone ever heard of the TV show "30 Days"? I didn't mention this in class... from the creator of "Supersize Me", it's a show where people live 30 days in a lifestyle that is completely different from their own, to gain insight, perspective, or simply just learn from it.
I recently saw an episode about an atheist living with a Christian family. They talked about American money in one part of the episode, and the Christian's remarks really remind me of what we talked about regarding (some) Christians and their "don't like it, get out" comments. I have the episode on my computer so here is the entire conversation. Typing this out will be fun:
Atheist: How about the fact that Brenda and the rest of us spend money that has God stamped on it? Does the government have a legitimate right to make a theological statement for everybody?
Christian: Well we don't really care -
Atheist: What if it said on your dollar bills and your coins, "There is no God"?
Christian: Ours says "In God We Trust" and we actually like that.
Atheist: What would you say if it said "There is no God"?
Christian: *shakes head* It says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: What would you say if it said "There is no God"?
Christian: It says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: I'm asking you, what if it said "There is no God"? I'm asking you a hypothetical, what do you think of that?
Christian: I live here, in the US, and it says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: For the record, I would oppose "There is no God" on our money, because I respect the right of Christians and other believers to have their beliefs, without having to carry around money that has something on it which is a slogan that they really deeply disgree with? I'm willing to let you guys have your religious liberty, but you're not willing to let me have mine.
Christian: I guess it doesn't bother me that it's on the money. If it bothers you, move. I mean...
Atheist: You see? This is a typical Christian -- this is a Christian country, if you don't like it then get out. That's terrible.
Christian: If it bothers you that much then I don't know what to tell you to do.
It's an interesting episode indeed.
"Children are never completely products of deliberate and designed autonomous decisions. The child may instead be a surprise, whose conception, gestational development, and birth evoke in parents basic sentiments of awe and wonder".
This is an overly idealistic way of perceiving the gift of life. Of course, this described situation can apply to many families, but what of women who are raped? High school girls whose partners' condoms broke? Women who live in such abysmal conditions and must have unprotected sex with their "lover" to keep having a roof over their heads? Rapists during war who rape women to infiltrate the "racial purity" of a nation? Children who are put up for adoption? ... No, children are not always "autonomous" decisions, but they also do not always evoke "awe and wonder" in the parents due to the differing conditions that children are conceived in.
We also discussed McKenny's article -- indeed, "when the statement turns to plants, the nature of moral concern shifts in a way that makes it clear that moral standing is ascribed not to nature as a whole but only to part of it". Sure, religion tends to oppose cloning humans and animals, but it's fine to "play God" with plants? I guess we can look to Gregor Mendel as an example of this exception. He was the monk who crossbred peas to investigate inheritance traits, and from this experiment, was interested in discovering more about DNA & the Double Helix. No wait... DNA/Double Helix is Watson and Crick. Anyway, Mendel is an example that science and religion can cross boundaries because of life experience (he "worked as a gardener in his childhood"). Sometimes you can't avoid it. Heck, my friend's parents are devout Catholics who work at an immunology & vaccination research company.
I recall we also had a discussion about taking religion out of the politican spectrum. Perhaps this is a bit more plausible in the Canadian government, but looking at American politics, this idea is almost laughable. Has anyone ever heard of the TV show "30 Days"? I didn't mention this in class... from the creator of "Supersize Me", it's a show where people live 30 days in a lifestyle that is completely different from their own, to gain insight, perspective, or simply just learn from it.
I recently saw an episode about an atheist living with a Christian family. They talked about American money in one part of the episode, and the Christian's remarks really remind me of what we talked about regarding (some) Christians and their "don't like it, get out" comments. I have the episode on my computer so here is the entire conversation. Typing this out will be fun:
Atheist: How about the fact that Brenda and the rest of us spend money that has God stamped on it? Does the government have a legitimate right to make a theological statement for everybody?
Christian: Well we don't really care -
Atheist: What if it said on your dollar bills and your coins, "There is no God"?
Christian: Ours says "In God We Trust" and we actually like that.
Atheist: What would you say if it said "There is no God"?
Christian: *shakes head* It says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: What would you say if it said "There is no God"?
Christian: It says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: I'm asking you, what if it said "There is no God"? I'm asking you a hypothetical, what do you think of that?
Christian: I live here, in the US, and it says "In God We Trust".
Atheist: For the record, I would oppose "There is no God" on our money, because I respect the right of Christians and other believers to have their beliefs, without having to carry around money that has something on it which is a slogan that they really deeply disgree with? I'm willing to let you guys have your religious liberty, but you're not willing to let me have mine.
Christian: I guess it doesn't bother me that it's on the money. If it bothers you, move. I mean...
Atheist: You see? This is a typical Christian -- this is a Christian country, if you don't like it then get out. That's terrible.
Christian: If it bothers you that much then I don't know what to tell you to do.
It's an interesting episode indeed.
Comments:
<< Home
Interesting post. You should really say more in class! The issue of children being "gifts" is particularly resonant for me, given that we are expecting the birth of our second child any day now. While the whole birth process is quite remarkable and mysterious, it is nevertheless one that in our day and age is highly regulated by procedures, tests and paperwork. Added to this is the huge "tot industry" which, one could argue, thrives on the pressure of parents to create for their children "perfect" environments for growth and development. From Kindermusic classes to Baby Einstein toys, and designer baby carriages, the over-riding concerns seems to be those mandaTed by control, instrumentatlity and predictability.
I have fallen into this vortex to some extent but do still try to resist the cultural pull to plan and organize every aspect of my son's life, who is only two. That said, he does have quite a collection of designer Swedish baby accessories, including a stroller that costS more than my first car and rivals the Volvo in terms of safety features...
I have fallen into this vortex to some extent but do still try to resist the cultural pull to plan and organize every aspect of my son's life, who is only two. That said, he does have quite a collection of designer Swedish baby accessories, including a stroller that costS more than my first car and rivals the Volvo in terms of safety features...
wow congratulations!
yes, there are a lot of formalities involved with having children. i guess it's especially true that during infancy, parents are willing to dish out the $ to ensure a thriving and stimulating life for their children.
children are definitely the core of a lot of things - another sector being celebrity gossip. what stories grab headlines the most? it's usually so and so's having a kid, so and so's adopting another baby from so and so country, so and so suffered a miscarriage, or so and so is fighting for full custody. it is in our face wherever we go.
bonnie
ps. re: speaking in class, i am working on it! the blog is really helpful though, i can organize my thoughts much better here.
Post a Comment
yes, there are a lot of formalities involved with having children. i guess it's especially true that during infancy, parents are willing to dish out the $ to ensure a thriving and stimulating life for their children.
children are definitely the core of a lot of things - another sector being celebrity gossip. what stories grab headlines the most? it's usually so and so's having a kid, so and so's adopting another baby from so and so country, so and so suffered a miscarriage, or so and so is fighting for full custody. it is in our face wherever we go.
bonnie
ps. re: speaking in class, i am working on it! the blog is really helpful though, i can organize my thoughts much better here.
<< Home