New Post
Search
HelpI Spiritually Adopted!
My church is doing a program where we "spiritually adopt" an unborn baby, give him/her a name, and pray for him/her until the baby's due date (that we can pick, given that it will be in May of 2016).
I decided to take part; I gave my spiritual baby the name of Agnes Ruth. Agnes just popped into my head during the mass, and then I added on Ruth when the people in charge of the program informed me that I would have to give a middle name as well. Agnes happens to be the name of an Irish cousin on my mother's side.
Here is a website regarding spiritual adoption, in case anyone was puzzled by this: http://www.spiritualadoption.org/
Anyway, what do you think of Agnes Ruth?
I decided to take part; I gave my spiritual baby the name of Agnes Ruth. Agnes just popped into my head during the mass, and then I added on Ruth when the people in charge of the program informed me that I would have to give a middle name as well. Agnes happens to be the name of an Irish cousin on my mother's side.
Here is a website regarding spiritual adoption, in case anyone was puzzled by this: http://www.spiritualadoption.org/
Anyway, what do you think of Agnes Ruth?
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I like the combo as a whole.
It's not my personal style, but it flows well and has a pleasing cadence and sound. Agnes is retro chic right now and, though I would prefer to see Agatha get the popularity push, it works.
Ruth is a staple. Simple, chic, strong. Yeah, a bit dated, but the significance (especially in Christian and Jewish culture) makes it a good choice.
It's not my personal style, but it flows well and has a pleasing cadence and sound. Agnes is retro chic right now and, though I would prefer to see Agatha get the popularity push, it works.
Ruth is a staple. Simple, chic, strong. Yeah, a bit dated, but the significance (especially in Christian and Jewish culture) makes it a good choice.
1
I wish I liked Agnes more than I do because I like St. Agnes and I like the similarity to the Latin word agnus. Unfortunately, I just don't like the sound of it. I love Agatha though. I don't like Ruth either. Too hard and brusque (if a name can be brusque) IMO.
While I don't like either names, it seems to work for a "spiritually adopted" soul.
For those who scoff at spiritual adoption of a fetus, you shouldn't be surprised. Catholics pray for souls, alive and dead, known and anonymous. It fits into that mold: praying for a soul we feel needs prayers. Thus, a spiritual adoption program doesn't strike me as odd at all.
While I don't like either names, it seems to work for a "spiritually adopted" soul.
For those who scoff at spiritual adoption of a fetus, you shouldn't be surprised. Catholics pray for souls, alive and dead, known and anonymous. It fits into that mold: praying for a soul we feel needs prayers. Thus, a spiritual adoption program doesn't strike me as odd at all.
1
To weigh in on the program... I get the idea, especially from a Catholic standpoint.
It does skeev me out that they name the babies though. I mean, I would feel pretty violated if someone else named my unborn or born child. I get the "abortion" risk and all, but still. That makes it seem like appropriation of someone else's personal life.
Anyway... yeah. I replied to your comment, because I immediately saw the reasoning behind the program. I am undecided whether I agree, because I do pray for the yet-to-come, even lives. But, not really in this way.
It does skeev me out that they name the babies though. I mean, I would feel pretty violated if someone else named my unborn or born child. I get the "abortion" risk and all, but still. That makes it seem like appropriation of someone else's personal life.
Anyway... yeah. I replied to your comment, because I immediately saw the reasoning behind the program. I am undecided whether I agree, because I do pray for the yet-to-come, even lives. But, not really in this way.
1
It's insulting to women who have had abortions, plain and simple. But they have the right to be insulting if they choose.
1
Yeah, I can see that naming the baby could be a bit odd, but my impression is that a participant is not assigned an actual, specific mother/baby pair, more a "virtual baby." Say I start praying for a mother who conceives today and pray for her and her baby for the next 9 months. I'm not handed a card that says "Pray for Joiya, an actual, specific woman, and her baby." It would be strange for sure if you were asked to pray for a specific woman and child and you presumed to give the child a name of your choosing.
It's funny, because I instinctively did something very similar to this when I was a small child (maybe 7 or 8). I imagined a girl, whom I named "Jean," who lived in India and I prayed for her. There was no actual, specific Jean, but I imagined that God could make it stand for a real girl who lived in poverty in India (as "Jean" did). This spiritual adoption program sounds like that very thing. The baby whom Kinola named Agnes stands for a real fetus out there. At least that's my understanding.
It's funny, because I instinctively did something very similar to this when I was a small child (maybe 7 or 8). I imagined a girl, whom I named "Jean," who lived in India and I prayed for her. There was no actual, specific Jean, but I imagined that God could make it stand for a real girl who lived in poverty in India (as "Jean" did). This spiritual adoption program sounds like that very thing. The baby whom Kinola named Agnes stands for a real fetus out there. At least that's my understanding.
This message was edited 8/16/2015, 5:09 PM
1
It was Despicable Me.
1
Sorry, I have a strong aversion to both names.
1
That's all right. People tend to like and dislike.
1
Why do you consider praying about future generations and the unborn propaganda? This program isn't something I would participate in myself, for one thing I am not Catholic, but it is weird how much hatred that this board is aiming at someone for caring about the unborn even if the program is a bit unorthodox.
If a person does believe that people have souls, it makes sense that they would believe that people have souls before birth. After all there are lots of preemie babies born, and their parents are not going to accept that their child doesn't have a soul until after nine months of gestation. At what time does a person receive a soul? It would be beyond strange to think that exiting the birth canal mystically imparts a soul. I know a few people that went through miscarriages, and for them, the thought that their child would be in heaven gave them a lot of comfort during the grieving process. Some parents spend a lot time planning, daydreaming, and looking forward to their babies birth. They track the stages of development, etc and then suffer terrible heartbreak when their child is stillborn. This program could be for them as well as the unwanted unborn.
If a person does believe that people have souls, it makes sense that they would believe that people have souls before birth. After all there are lots of preemie babies born, and their parents are not going to accept that their child doesn't have a soul until after nine months of gestation. At what time does a person receive a soul? It would be beyond strange to think that exiting the birth canal mystically imparts a soul. I know a few people that went through miscarriages, and for them, the thought that their child would be in heaven gave them a lot of comfort during the grieving process. Some parents spend a lot time planning, daydreaming, and looking forward to their babies birth. They track the stages of development, etc and then suffer terrible heartbreak when their child is stillborn. This program could be for them as well as the unwanted unborn.
This message was edited 8/16/2015, 6:49 PM
1
The program explicitly is about unborn fetuses "in danger of abortion." It's not about pregnancies that will fulfill someone's desire for parenthood.
The political problem is the implied disregard for fellow citizens who are pregnant women who might choose legal abortion. Some people believe that the reproductive function is private business primarily because it is morally private. Where there are souls are not, is politically moot.
So from that point of view, it is politically aggressive ("propaganda" in the sense of pushing a political agenda) to publicly pray for, or persuade people to pray for, the reproductive success of some other woman, upon which success the spiritual adopter's commitment is fulfilled and all moral responsibility returns to its true location.
Private prayer for living beings is fine in any case whatsoever, and the urge to it is very understandable. But public prayer is a political action, not a spiritual one, actually aimed at affecting other people - pregnant women, not fetuses.
The political problem is the implied disregard for fellow citizens who are pregnant women who might choose legal abortion. Some people believe that the reproductive function is private business primarily because it is morally private. Where there are souls are not, is politically moot.
So from that point of view, it is politically aggressive ("propaganda" in the sense of pushing a political agenda) to publicly pray for, or persuade people to pray for, the reproductive success of some other woman, upon which success the spiritual adopter's commitment is fulfilled and all moral responsibility returns to its true location.
Private prayer for living beings is fine in any case whatsoever, and the urge to it is very understandable. But public prayer is a political action, not a spiritual one, actually aimed at affecting other people - pregnant women, not fetuses.
This message was edited 8/17/2015, 10:29 AM
1
It's propaganda because specifically why they are "spiritually adopting" and praying for the "unborn souls" is to "protect" them from induced abortion. There's only one other thing you can possibly pray to protect an embryo or fetus from and that's spontaneous abortion, more commonly called a miscarriage. But the website doesn't mention spontaneous abortion, only induced abortion.
The only reason that one would do this spiritual adoption is if one believes that an embryo or fetus is a human life and that induced abortion is equivalent to murder. Not everyone believes this, and in fact the current law of the USA does not support this idea. Of course one has the right to hold to this belief, but publicizing it in face of the fact that not everyone does and that government does not support the belief is propaganda.
The only reason that one would do this spiritual adoption is if one believes that an embryo or fetus is a human life and that induced abortion is equivalent to murder. Not everyone believes this, and in fact the current law of the USA does not support this idea. Of course one has the right to hold to this belief, but publicizing it in face of the fact that not everyone does and that government does not support the belief is propaganda.
1
I did not say that everyone believed that unborn children have souls. Not everyone believes that people have souls period. Considering the unborn human beings does not make a person bad or the idea irrelevant simply because it is confrontational. You post plenty of confrontational things yourself, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes the things that garner different reactions are what need to be discussed most. Publicizing something that not everyone agrees with or believes is not necessarily propaganda, and just because something is legal does not mean that everyone does or should support something.
Off topic and not to equate everything, but here are a few general examples of how what is legal or illegal may not be right and how disagreeing isn't propaganda in and of itself. Interracial marriage was once illegal. Slavery was once legal, and ISIS has declared it legal again under Sharia law. Burning widows alive in their husbands funeral pyre, called sati, was legal in India until Queen Victoria banned it in 1861. The Ottoman Turks carried out the Armenian genocide and even today refuse to acknowledge the atrocities carried out. Some Japanese people refuse to acknowledge the rape of Nanking or the horror that "comfort women" endured. Never forget that everything Hitler did was legal. There are plenty more examples of why governments are not the ultimate judge of right and wrong or what is or is not propaganda. Again I am not saying that the article wasn't propaganda. It is just that, in general, holding conflicting viewpoints does not automatically make a position propaganda.
Off topic and not to equate everything, but here are a few general examples of how what is legal or illegal may not be right and how disagreeing isn't propaganda in and of itself. Interracial marriage was once illegal. Slavery was once legal, and ISIS has declared it legal again under Sharia law. Burning widows alive in their husbands funeral pyre, called sati, was legal in India until Queen Victoria banned it in 1861. The Ottoman Turks carried out the Armenian genocide and even today refuse to acknowledge the atrocities carried out. Some Japanese people refuse to acknowledge the rape of Nanking or the horror that "comfort women" endured. Never forget that everything Hitler did was legal. There are plenty more examples of why governments are not the ultimate judge of right and wrong or what is or is not propaganda. Again I am not saying that the article wasn't propaganda. It is just that, in general, holding conflicting viewpoints does not automatically make a position propaganda.
1
Whether or not you say you're trying to equate these things to abortion, using genocide and slavery in your argument, and therefore blatantly comparing both to individual choices made by individual women, is in extremely poor taste, more so than I feel I can express. You may think, as I read below in your responses to Queenv, that you have not stated your opinion, but in fact you have expressed it very clearly in this argument.
Aside from that, Queenv has responded very well, and I would like you to refer to what she has said for my own opinions on the matter.
Aside from that, Queenv has responded very well, and I would like you to refer to what she has said for my own opinions on the matter.
This message was edited 8/17/2015, 5:44 AM
1
Whenever material is produced or something is said with the purpose of influencing public opinion, whether from the left or the right, it's propaganda. You stated your view that this Spiritual Adoption is not propaganda:
Why do you consider praying about future generations and the unborn propaganda?
So I was pointing out that when it has the purpose that the linked website states that it does, it is propaganda. I had no other point to make.
Proponents of legal interracial marriage, opponents of slavery, opponents of sati, all used propaganda also.
Why do you consider praying about future generations and the unborn propaganda?
So I was pointing out that when it has the purpose that the linked website states that it does, it is propaganda. I had no other point to make.
Proponents of legal interracial marriage, opponents of slavery, opponents of sati, all used propaganda also.
1
The two of us must have different ideas of what constitutes propaganda. If you consider just holding a position or influencing people propaganda then just about everything is propaganda. Journalists have viewpoints even if they down own up to them. Merriam-Websters definition is less broad, "Propaganda: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc." I was objecting to the premise that holding a conflicting view from the government's official position automatically makes something false or a gross exaggeration.
1
In the end, it comes down to this, I suppose. I think that to consider an embryo or fetus a person is a false claim, which qualifies it as propaganda according to Merriam-Webster, and you don't.
1
Actually, I never voiced my opinion on whether or not unborn humans are people, and who or what gets to decide person-hood. I simply voiced an objection to your premise that people who hold a position contrary to your own are automatically propagandists. There needs to be more evidence to substantiate the claim that a position is true or false than just "well I don't agree with them, so they must be spouting propaganda."
1
And that comes down do it's all propaganda. Because it all is, but you objected to that. And I never said that calling something propaganda substantiates anything true or false. But this is getting way too OT for the Ops board, and it's starting to seem really stupid to me personally, so this is the last post I will make about it.
1
My church will soon try to promote actual adoption. This little program is just a stepping stone towards it. I had asked before I left.
1
I'm failing to see how this would assist that, but I'm glad to hear they're going to start promoting adoption.
1
I'm not particularly glad they are going to start promoting adoption. Just an opposing viewpoint.
1
I do think for a majority of women that are going to have an abortion, adoption is already an option, and there are waiting lists, is there not?
1
Waiting lists for potential parents, not those wishing to offer the child for adoption. Wasn't totally sure which you meant.
Adoption is technically an option for all (at least in the U.S.), with varying degrees of difficulty depending on what org you choose.
Adoption is technically an option for all (at least in the U.S.), with varying degrees of difficulty depending on what org you choose.
1
There are waiting lists for potential parents... well, this tends to be broken down along racial/ethnic lines, but that trend is changing.
1
I was glad to hear of it, too.
1
I don't care for the name Agnes, at least not as it's pronounced in English. I don't know about how it would sound when an Irish person says it, though. Ruth is nice, and it seems like a flowy combo.
Kinola, your message comes across as an advertisement for the program you linked us to. You didn't even ask what anyone thinks of the name you chose.
(For the information of others who read Kinola's message, the link she is pushing is, as you suspect, a religious pro-life campaign.)
Kinola, your message comes across as an advertisement for the program you linked us to. You didn't even ask what anyone thinks of the name you chose.
(For the information of others who read Kinola's message, the link she is pushing is, as you suspect, a religious pro-life campaign.)
1
This topic, mirfak, was not mean to be an advertisement. The link had been posted for anyone who saw and got confused by the concept of spiritual adoption.
And yes, I had asked what people thought of the name I decided on.
And yes, I had asked what people thought of the name I decided on.
1
Yes, you did ask. Sorry, I didn't read too carefully did I?
I know you didn't mean it to be an advertisement. But you could have explained the idea without linking people to the website. Links are effectively promotion - whether you intend it or not (people usually don't), that's still how it works. I would say so even if social activism against abortion (what that program is about) were not an emotionally charged controversial topic, or if it were a different kind of virtual adoption not involving such an issue. But especially because it is a form of activism, linking the website comes off like an extension of the activism itself. Or at least, like you're starting a conversation about that, at least as much as about the name.
I know you didn't mean it to be an advertisement. But you could have explained the idea without linking people to the website. Links are effectively promotion - whether you intend it or not (people usually don't), that's still how it works. I would say so even if social activism against abortion (what that program is about) were not an emotionally charged controversial topic, or if it were a different kind of virtual adoption not involving such an issue. But especially because it is a form of activism, linking the website comes off like an extension of the activism itself. Or at least, like you're starting a conversation about that, at least as much as about the name.
This message was edited 8/16/2015, 2:36 PM
1
It's praying for the souls that have yet to be born, so that they don't come to harm.
1
I kind of gathered as much ...
Though my first thought was that spiritual adoption was kind of like what Mormons do, baptizing by proxy and thus making non-Mormons (or their souls, as I seem to recall that they do this for dead people) into Mormons. I actually was going to point out the creepy aspect of the fetus-adoption in my reply, but thought better of it and just commented on the name, which didn't go over any better than my comment about the creepiness of fetus-adoption would have, it turns out.
Though my first thought was that spiritual adoption was kind of like what Mormons do, baptizing by proxy and thus making non-Mormons (or their souls, as I seem to recall that they do this for dead people) into Mormons. I actually was going to point out the creepy aspect of the fetus-adoption in my reply, but thought better of it and just commented on the name, which didn't go over any better than my comment about the creepiness of fetus-adoption would have, it turns out.
1
To me Kinola's program reminded me of informally appointing godparents prior to a childs birth. People who spend time praying for a child's future would probably be interested in them as they age and potentially act as a mentor. It doesn't seem like the Mormons at all.
1
While Catholics don't baptize by proxy as Mormons do, we do pray for the souls of the dead. And the living. It seems "spiritual adoption" is just praying for souls people feel need prayers (fetuses at risk of being aborted, I suppose). I guess the naming part is just a way to conceptualize that there are real, action souls to pray for. For people who truly believe a fetus is a human person, it helps them humanize the soul. That's how I see it and why I don't find it particularly creepy. Then again, I'm Catholic, so praying for dead or anonymous souls doesn't sound strange to me.
1
If they truly believe that a fetus is a human person, then why do they need help "humanizing the soul"?
1
I think "humanizing the soul" was a poor way for me to put it. Personalizing the soul, perhaps? Like, I can think of infants (talking post-natal infants here, for the sake of example) in general and know they are human beings (cute ones!). Or I can think of a specific infant, with a name, a face, etc., which is a more personal way of thinking about a human being. Having a name vs not having a name does not actually distinguish human vs non-human though, as my comment may have made it seem.
Take for example what I said above, that when I was about 7 or 8 I imagined a little girl name Jean who lived in India, and I used to prayer for her. There was no actual person named Jean (that I knew of) but I I imagined that God could make it stand for a real girl who lived in poverty in India. I could have just prayed for children who lived in poverty in India, but I suppose it felt like I was personally doing something for one particular girl in India by giving her a name. Perhaps it was more for myself, to feel like I was doing something for someone else. Perhaps I really was praying for a single, particular girl in India. Either way, children in India are human, but giving a name to one child personalized those children for me.
Not that I have ever actually participated in "spiritual adoption" or plan to. Just trying to help explain why the naming part of it may not be as creepy as Kinola made it come across.
Take for example what I said above, that when I was about 7 or 8 I imagined a little girl name Jean who lived in India, and I used to prayer for her. There was no actual person named Jean (that I knew of) but I I imagined that God could make it stand for a real girl who lived in poverty in India. I could have just prayed for children who lived in poverty in India, but I suppose it felt like I was personally doing something for one particular girl in India by giving her a name. Perhaps it was more for myself, to feel like I was doing something for someone else. Perhaps I really was praying for a single, particular girl in India. Either way, children in India are human, but giving a name to one child personalized those children for me.
Not that I have ever actually participated in "spiritual adoption" or plan to. Just trying to help explain why the naming part of it may not be as creepy as Kinola made it come across.
1
It seems pretty creepy to me to name an unknown (although hypothetical) woman's fetus without her knowledge or consent. But, whatever, I guess it's not hurting anybody.
1
See my post above (my response to Joey's reply to me). I think the named baby "Agnes" is represents a fetus who's out there gestating, not the fetus of an actual assigned, known woman. Agreed that it would be weird to presume to name someone's actual baby.
This message was edited 8/16/2015, 5:08 PM
1
To be honest, I'm glad it's not a real baby that's going to be saddled with the name Agnes Ruth.
1
You know what, RoxStar? If you don't got anything nice to say, don't reply at all. Ever.
1
No, very bad idea. I emphatically do not want to read an OPs board where everyone is nicey nice and sickly sweet, and avoid commenting at all on names they don't like in order to avoid hurt feelings. Because that would be boring as heck and it's not what this board is for. "Opinions" means all opinions, positive and negative. So get over it.
This message was edited 8/16/2015, 5:51 PM
1
It's a name opinions board and you asked for name opinions.
1
you know what, Kinola?
It works both ways. If you don't like my opinions, don't read my responses.
If you don't want actual opinions, just validation, then either don't post at all or say "Only positive opinions, please"; if you do the former your name combos will never be commented on negatively. If you do the second, it won't be just me that busts you over it.
It works both ways. If you don't like my opinions, don't read my responses.
If you don't want actual opinions, just validation, then either don't post at all or say "Only positive opinions, please"; if you do the former your name combos will never be commented on negatively. If you do the second, it won't be just me that busts you over it.
1
But actually, "Only positive opinions, please" would annoy the s--t out of me and I'd never ever obey it.
1
Yeah, seems to defeat the purpose of an opinions board. Why ask if you can't handle negative opinions? Just keep loving the name and go about your merry way.
1