If anyone has any further information on this, I’d be much obliged. The Salvation Army has put out a statement that condones abortion if the baby has an abnormality that means he/she might not live very long, and also in cases of rape and incest.
I am particularly concerned about this business of termination in cases of disability. This is a double whammy since I heard on the news today that Salvation Army workers in Ottawa will consider going on strike as early as tomorrow. I naively believed people working at the Salvation Army did so from a sense of calling to help those in need, but apparently not.
by 
I regularly see the good the Salvation Army does, and when I was young they helped my family out as well. So it’s incredibly depressing to see these changes in the organization take place, as it’s a group I hold near and dear to me.
I believe they are seen as a benchmark for other charitable Christian organizations. What they do is important and sets the stage, I’m hoping they’ll change their tune.
However, their ethics statement on abortion from 2009 was vague enough to allow a similar interpretation, “The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Such decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, with appropriate involvement of the woman’s family and pastoral, medical and other counsel.” But it now seems to have clearly defined when it is and is not permissible to abort a baby in the Salvation Army’s eyes.
And it’s in so defining that I am concerned. I certainly think it stands contrary to any life principle at all to decide when a baby is still in utero that since it won’t live very long, it shouldn’t live at all.
While one might argue this doesn’t mean anything for service on the ground, I take this as a sign of poor leadership. So it will take an effect on the SA services over the long term.
I agree that this is bad news about the Sally Anne, but on a positive note, I just want you to know that there is still a multitude of workers who do it purely from the heart and for the good of others. My sister Emily and her husband are Salvationists and we barely see them in November and December because they spend most of their time, not sleeping or working, volunteering to get toys and help to needy families at Christmas.
Thank you, Christy. Yes, it remains true that the Salvation Army has a multitude of good people working there, from the heart and for the good of others. I still have my concerns about their leadership though… and what kind of thought process could have possibly gone into that statement on abortion. It runs entirely contrary to everything they stand for…
I take issue with your argument that the potential for strike means the workers aren’t there because they care. People can care, and still expect to be treated fairly. If the workers are really making $2 – 4 less per hour than the comparable workers at other shelters, why shouldn’t they strike? Why should it be implied that they are only good workers if they are willing to work for less than their colleagues?
If people argue that “the money could be better put towards other things…” well why should it be the workers burden to give up that money? Why not say, the government should be doing more to help the homeless? Why not say, we should tax corporations more? Or any number of possibilities rather than say that the employees don’t care if they aren’t willing to go with lower wages than their colleagues.
But ya, the abortion statement makes little sense. I’ve never understood exceptions for rape or incest. It makes it sound like the motivation for being against abortion is just to punish people (with pregnancy and childraising) for choosing to have sex, if a person says, okay, abortion is alright as long as you didn’t choose the sex.
Hi Christy K:
Thanks for your comment! Here’s my reply. The issue is somewhat touchy so I hope the words I choose are adequate. Here goes:
Point one: Yes, you are right. I think the workers could certainly still be there because they are following their call and they care and demand higher wages at the same time. I think this is more true when an individual asks, and less true when asked by the collective.
Point two: If the union strikes, they are essentially saying that none of these workers have any choice. They do. We all have more choices than we think we do. If the working conditions are much better at the Shepherds of Good Hope, for example, then the workers should go and work there. I reject the idea that we can have equality of wages between differently run, distinct agencies.
Point three, related to point two: These are different agencies. Therefore there can be no wage parity, neither should there be. I don’t know the specifics, but if the working conditions are very poor, workers shouldn’t demand more money, they should leave.
Point four: Choosing to strike at Christmas is a Scrooge move. Obviously people strike when they think the impact will be highest, but let’s face it, January would do the trick there too… because that would likewise be a very hard time to be on the street. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs that this was their choice of timing. Hence my concern that they are in the business for the wrong reasons.
Just some thoughts. I’ve likely offended you more in attempting to clarify, but I nonetheless wanted to try. 🙂 I’ve always said that pro-lifers come in all different shapes and sizes and political views so thanks for your comment!