Reproductive injustice
From the Jesuit run University of Seattle.
The Institute of Public Service invites you to join a thoughtful conversation about how people of different faiths and backgrounds perceive reproductive justice. The discussion will take place from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday, May 21, in Bannan Auditorium (room 102).
Panelists:
Vincent Lachina- state chaplain, Planned Parenthood
Amy Johnson- professional life and parent coach, UCC
Yohanna Kinberg- rabbi, Temple B'nai Torah
Dan Dombrowski- professor of philosophy, College of Arts and Sciences
Jodi O'Brien- professor and chair of sociology, College of Arts and Sciences.
"...The decisions we make about our reproductive and sexual lives, but most especially, the decision to have a child, are among the most important decisions that we, as human beings, can make. Having a child is a precious responsibility that changes our lives forever. The privileged in this world, for the most part, have unfettered access to the reproductive health and education services to decide for themselves when and whether to bear or raise a child. The poor and disadvantaged do not. Thus, the struggle for reproductive justice is inextricably bound up with the effort to secure a more just society. Accordingly, those who would labor to achieve economic and social justice are called upon to join in the effort to achieve reproductive justice and, thereby, help realize the sacred vision of a truly just society for all."
- Clergymen for Reproductive Justice
It will not surprise you that the "thoughtful conversation" to be held on "reproductive justice" at a Catholic university is composed entirely of pro-abortion speakers.
Hat Tip Dawn Eden
Known as 
For some reason I don't remember hearing the term "reproductive justice" before. It strikes me as dangerously broader than "reproductive rights."
While the latter is usually code for "I want the ability to prevent someone who can claim dependency on me from existing," the former sounds like fodder for assertions like "I should be able to have the kind and number of kids I want; whom do I sue since I don't have the family I want?" and even "Other people should not want such a high number of kids, so give them to someone who can't have any."
Imagine the utter outrage if there were a panel on different interpretations of social justice.
"The decisions we make about our social and communal lives, but most especially, the decision to help the poor, are among the most important decisions that we, as human beings, can make. Helping the poor is a precious responsibility that changes our lives forever. The privileged in this world, for the most part, have unfettered access to the entertainment and distraction services to decide for themselves when and whether to help the poor. The poor and disadvantaged do not." (etc.)
When do men get access to "reproductive rights," never mind this newfangled thing represented by the catch phrase "reproductive justice"?
A good catchword can obsure analysis for fifty years.
--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
You're right, I'm not suprised.
Are you trying to tell me that unanimity of opinion is not necessary for dialogue and tolerance? My experiences at work say otherwise.
At the various places I have worked there have been numerous conversations about the sins of the Catholic Church, the virtues of Islam, the homophobic idiocy of opposing same-sex marriage, etc.
Given that I often don't often think quickly enough to participate in such enlightened and progressive dialogue, I do so only rarely.
A few days ago someone with very different views than mine asked me my opinion on embryonic stem-cell research. I tried my best to present a reasonable and charitable response. The discussion (supposedly both sides) was shut down as "inappropriate".
I find it interesting that when only one side receives representation, dialogue is ok - just like at the reproductive panel. When there are multiple views - dialogue ends.
I suppose that while we need to hear out the other side in order to learn the lesson of tolerance, those that disagree with us do not - after all we musnt offend.
I don't know what is more disturbing: The line up or the fact that Planned Parenthood has a state chaplin.
A priest forever in the order of Moloch perhaps?
"For some reason I don't remember hearing the term "reproductive justice" before."
Our president used this term on the campaign trail:
Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Planned Parenthood has a chaplain?????
Perhaps a clearer definition of the term is best expressed by a grass roots representative?
"Reproductive justice means allowing me to live and not aborting me" !
Let me amend the above comment.
Reproductive justice:
Letting me live long enough to reproduce.
PS: Stealing my stem cells doesn't count.