I have just been reading some of the emails about the population control
issue and am not surprised to find that it is divisive. I believe the best
way to destroy an organization is from the inside, and I think diverting
our energies from working to protect habitat and the environment by trying
to make human population control our primary issue could be harmful, not
just for the environment, which would have lost it's most effective
advocate, but also to the Club itself.

As I remember the choices presented in the general voting, there was no way
to express the opinion that population control was not an appropriate focus
for this organization. The yes and no votes all had to do with how the club
was to go about it.

Presenting choices that prevent people from expressing an opinion about the
core premise is a trick employed by therapists and is unworthy of an
ethical organization.

The feminist rhetoric that seems to be driving a good bit of this has
always seemed anti-Catholic to me, and possibly anti-Christian. As a
Catholic Christian, I am beginning to look toward the time when I will need
to decide if I have a moral obligation to separate myself from the Club. I
firmly believe in it's original work, but this, with it's promise of the
implementation of American-style family planning complete with abortion and
infanticide, is something I can never, ever support.

Population control smells like paternalism to me. Is this even an
appropriate way to implement a feminist agenda? And isn’t the feminist
agenda already well represented and effectively advocated by other
organizations?

Peggy Murdock

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send email to [log in to unmask]
Make the message text (not the subject): SIGNOFF IOWA-TOPICS