I cannot help but wonder, and I should be very interested to know:
Is this really a case of Thrivent being forced to choose "a neutral position" after being caught in the middle of a conflict between others and being put under pressure from "both sides"?

Has anybody other than Thrivent itself at any point insisted, or even requested, that if Thrivent would abstain from financing the slaughter of unborn children, then Thrivent should also abstain from supporting any and all organisations and entities that would actually help pregnant women in difficult situations, as well as their children, in a faith-affirming and life-affirming manner?

Or is it rather that Thrivent itself - when asked by Christians in its membership to abstain from financing the slaughter of unborn children - completely on its own came up with the conclusion that if the Christians had problems with what Thrivent was doing, well, then they should be punished by the denial of support to some of their charities?

Has any pressure been put on Thrivent from the pro-abortion side from outside of the Thrivent leadership? Or has this conflict been solely between Thrivent and Christian Thrivent members all along?

I am asking, not because I think I know, but because I should like to.

And apparently there are some here who know a lot more, and understand a lot better, than those of us who - apart from what Thrivent has chosen to tell us - only know what has been said and written in public ..,