The feminist movement of today thrives on the weaknesses of passive women, the ones who let themselves become victims . (I am not talking about violent or forced rape. Women will understand the difference between that and the metoo type accusations.) These 'victims' get recognition, headlines, and sympathy from their friends and teachers, their 15 minutes of fame.
The early days of the women's liberation movement were about empowering women to be strong, now feminism is just a voting block.
Tom Hanrahan
Trueman ends with "But can these things be separated from the process of IVF? That is a hard question to ask, but it is vitally important."
Every good idea and intention can be distorted to produce bad outcomes, like the story here. That does not mean we demean the idea or intention. I suppose I can understand asking the question, but it seems like a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also reminds me of the rules in many churches and Christian families of two generations ago, which saw the dangers involved in some things and so put them on the "no no" list; no movies, no playing cards,, no playing out side on Sunday, no women wearing pants, not a drop of wine, etc., as all of them *could* lead to bad consequences. To the question "can these things be separated from the process of IVF?", I answer YES. God has richly given us all things to enjoy, even if some are exploited for evil.
RONALD L
This intelligent and thought-provoking commentary on an important "life issue" is much appreciated. The erosion of sacred values pertaining to life from conception to birth has been especially troubling to those of us whose values are grounded in God's inerrant Word.
Although occupying a considerably lower rung on the ladder of life's priorities, it is also troubling to see the continued erosion of adherence to proper word usage and grammar in verbal expression in today's public square (predominantly on the internet, it seems). One of the most hideous manifestations is the blurring or mixing of singular and plural usage, which has been going on more "quietly" for decades but has more recently been "outed" and widely embraced. Anyone who cares about perpetuating the English language in its best persona should make themselves well familiar with its long-established rules of grammar and syntax, and commit to safeguarding the language by upholding its established structures. (Advocating against linguistic devolution for the sake of any kind of politics would be advisable, as well.)
So, in learned writing such as the above commentary, it is somewhat distressing to read the following sentence (third paragraph): "It was not like rape at all, and the claim of even a remote analogy trivializes the experience of those who have suffered a real sexual violation of their body." My initial sense was that this was a simple oversight of missing the need to finish a dependent clause in the plural (as it began) rather than singular (ditch the "a" before "real" and replace "body" with "bodies"). But on second thought, was it "missed" or just "let go" because the grammatical blur doesn't matter anymore? I would hope that precision writing matters more at World News Group than it does to many participants in today's public square. If not, it is likely to make a world of difference in the wrong way in the long run with regard to quality and clarity of expression for this beloved resource.
PS: For those who might have found one content element toward the beginning of the commentary a bit unclear, here is the first sentence of the "New York Post" article that is referenced: " Heather Wilhelm-Routenberg said she would only have kids with her wife Robin (Robbie) Routenberg-Wilhelm if they could have girls — because Heather was still traumatized from being sexually assaulted on two different occasions after college. "
Precision writing does matter at WORLD, but we do sometimes make mistakes, and for that, we apologize. We have corrected the sentence. Thank you for pointing out the error.
The feminist movement of today thrives on the weaknesses of passive women, the ones who let themselves become victims . (I am not talking about violent or forced rape. Women will understand the difference between that and the metoo type accusations.) These 'victims' get recognition, headlines, and sympathy from their friends and teachers, their 15 minutes of fame.
The early days of the women's liberation movement were about empowering women to be strong, now feminism is just a voting block.
Trueman ends with "But can these things be separated from the process of IVF? That is a hard question to ask, but it is vitally important."
Every good idea and intention can be distorted to produce bad outcomes, like the story here. That does not mean we demean the idea or intention. I suppose I can understand asking the question, but it seems like a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. It also reminds me of the rules in many churches and Christian families of two generations ago, which saw the dangers involved in some things and so put them on the "no no" list; no movies, no playing cards,, no playing out side on Sunday, no women wearing pants, not a drop of wine, etc., as all of them *could* lead to bad consequences. To the question "can these things be separated from the process of IVF?", I answer YES. God has richly given us all things to enjoy, even if some are exploited for evil.
This intelligent and thought-provoking commentary on an important "life issue" is much appreciated. The erosion of sacred values pertaining to life from conception to birth has been especially troubling to those of us whose values are grounded in God's inerrant Word.
Although occupying a considerably lower rung on the ladder of life's priorities, it is also troubling to see the continued erosion of adherence to proper word usage and grammar in verbal expression in today's public square (predominantly on the internet, it seems). One of the most hideous manifestations is the blurring or mixing of singular and plural usage, which has been going on more "quietly" for decades but has more recently been "outed" and widely embraced. Anyone who cares about perpetuating the English language in its best persona should make themselves well familiar with its long-established rules of grammar and syntax, and commit to safeguarding the language by upholding its established structures. (Advocating against linguistic devolution for the sake of any kind of politics would be advisable, as well.)
So, in learned writing such as the above commentary, it is somewhat distressing to read the following sentence (third paragraph): "It was not like rape at all, and the claim of even a remote analogy trivializes the experience of those who have suffered a real sexual violation of their body." My initial sense was that this was a simple oversight of missing the need to finish a dependent clause in the plural (as it began) rather than singular (ditch the "a" before "real" and replace "body" with "bodies"). But on second thought, was it "missed" or just "let go" because the grammatical blur doesn't matter anymore? I would hope that precision writing matters more at World News Group than it does to many participants in today's public square. If not, it is likely to make a world of difference in the wrong way in the long run with regard to quality and clarity of expression for this beloved resource.
PS: For those who might have found one content element toward the beginning of the commentary a bit unclear, here is the first sentence of the "New York Post" article that is referenced: " Heather Wilhelm-Routenberg said she would only have kids with her wife Robin (Robbie) Routenberg-Wilhelm if they could have girls — because Heather was still traumatized from being sexually assaulted on two different occasions after college. "
Precision writing does matter at WORLD, but we do sometimes make mistakes, and for that, we apologize. We have corrected the sentence. Thank you for pointing out the error.
👍