Mmmm, friend. I have some thoughts to share here. Unrelated to abortion and pro-life debate, though, and more along the lines of desire for baby/family. I am with you on critiquing the "market" for babies where it does injustice to any human being or creates ethical quandaries. Also, I know enough about systems in other countries where babies are stolen and put up for adoption for a monetary benefit. I also understand the injustice of being so poor (in America or elsewhere) that one doesn't feel they have the option to raise their own child.
But, I do want to say that as a woman who experienced infertility for a long time and went through many losses, and on behalf of the women I know who experience similar things (I dare speak for them), wanting a baby was never on the level of wanting a cute accessory or a lavender latte. Wanting a baby was not a consumer desire driven by market values. It was a desire, I would argue, that is deeply human, perhaps as human as any desire can be, and in line with God's commission of humanity to be fruitful and multiply. To have those profound desires frustrated or confounded by loss is to be reminded, again, that we live in a broken world where even the things for which we believe we are made by design may never happen. As human beings we are created to love and to be in loving community, and creating family (adoptive or biological) is one way we go about it.
It *is* shameful for children to be put up for adoption due to poverty and/or deceit. Shame on the world's systems and the evils that make this the case! It *is* tragic that any child must be separated from their biological parents. These circumstances are a reminder, again, that we live in a broken world where biological family, the thing for which we are literally made, cannot be realized.
But I don't believe it can be shameful for a human being to offer a hospitality to a stranger, nor shameful to empty oneself of nearly all resources (not just monetary) for the sake of welcoming a stranger into a family. It may not be the first good for that child, but I'd say it's a redemptive good in a broken world. And it might be one of the most Christlike things any one of us could ever do.
I think some of what I wrote here was implied in your piece, but I wanted to say it louder because I think these nuances merit more volume. ;-)
One of the refugee women our family is involved with was sent home with a drug that would force her body to expel her dead fetus, and instead of doing a D&C as was normal procedure, she was found on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood, requiring emergency procedures. It was a doctor who determined the baby was dead, but she was left on her own to manage the consequences.
Thanks for asking, and if you are not aware, stories like this are all over the news. Doctors in states like Missouri are afraid to do any operation on a woman that could be construed by lawmakers as an abortion, even when every evidence shows that the baby is either dead or will not survive birth because of defects.
I'm in total agreement with you about conception to grave right to life. I am not happy with the political take on right to life, that is, a state decides to withdraw healthcare for women because it "might" lead to or be interpreted as abortion. We see this in many states of the US after the Supreme Court sent the responsibility back to the states, overturning Roe, etc. If the state would take responsibility for its right to life position in your terms, women would have healthcare, and support of our tax dollars, but as it stands defacto, patriarchy reasserts itself in the name of God, and withdraws ordinary healthcare from women.
The reason pro-choice people force the issue about a right to abortion, is only because practically the religious and secular right are forcing the loss of autonomy for women in general. The debate obviously has gotten out of hand, but that is because people are willing to lie about their intentions and the facts, politicians and church people alike. Politicians have found it easy to take women's healthcare away in the name of protecting babies.
Ohio and Kansas are only the first states to deny their politicians the right to choose for them, they will not be the last. And if we haven't forgotten, this is not a Christian Nation, and it wasn't designed to be. Most of the people in the United States have only a passing acquaintance with Christianity, including church members, and the Constitution prevents the government from dictating which religion is correct.
It is an interesting piece Joseph. I've been thinking a lot about the pastoral questions of how to advise young believers on interacting with members of the opposite sex. The church has two positions which only fit together very poorly, the Enthusiasm for Virginity and the concept of children as a blessing and the wife as the fruitful vine at the center of the home. I would love to have your, and your readers, thoughts on an ongoing discussion between these two positions found here:
Thanks for another good post Joseph, Could you comment more on, "There are people who are buying children from vulnerable populations in impoverished countries and calling it “adoption,” and that’s shameful." Our church is heavily involved in both domestic and international adoption and was wondering if there was more behind this comment. There are 3 families that have adopted asian children that are within 5 years of my age and are close friends. Just curious as to what you actually would mean by "shameful."
Wow. So well said. As a man tasked with gaurdianship of a growing number of children...more than 85 now and growing ......in a part of the world with very complex issues and evils.....this post struck a cord. I enjoyed the read. I appreciate your position and share it pretty much 100%, and I applaud the bravery it took to post it .
You and your pillow are not medical professionals with 6-8 years of training. The sort of throwaway comment you made is just more evidence of how freely people will twist reason out of any recognizable shape to secure their uninformed opinions.
I am not insisting that autonomy be stretched to mean anything someone wants to do with their body. Are you going to curse God's creation for not birthing every fertilized ovum? Estimates suggest that approximately 10-15% of clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, and about 1% end in stillbirth.
In addition you have insisted that the extreme cases like conjoined twins should be the basis on which you will argue. I don't think legislators have a single thing to say about these circumstances that I would take as a legitimate medical opinion.
Mmmm, friend. I have some thoughts to share here. Unrelated to abortion and pro-life debate, though, and more along the lines of desire for baby/family. I am with you on critiquing the "market" for babies where it does injustice to any human being or creates ethical quandaries. Also, I know enough about systems in other countries where babies are stolen and put up for adoption for a monetary benefit. I also understand the injustice of being so poor (in America or elsewhere) that one doesn't feel they have the option to raise their own child.
But, I do want to say that as a woman who experienced infertility for a long time and went through many losses, and on behalf of the women I know who experience similar things (I dare speak for them), wanting a baby was never on the level of wanting a cute accessory or a lavender latte. Wanting a baby was not a consumer desire driven by market values. It was a desire, I would argue, that is deeply human, perhaps as human as any desire can be, and in line with God's commission of humanity to be fruitful and multiply. To have those profound desires frustrated or confounded by loss is to be reminded, again, that we live in a broken world where even the things for which we believe we are made by design may never happen. As human beings we are created to love and to be in loving community, and creating family (adoptive or biological) is one way we go about it.
It *is* shameful for children to be put up for adoption due to poverty and/or deceit. Shame on the world's systems and the evils that make this the case! It *is* tragic that any child must be separated from their biological parents. These circumstances are a reminder, again, that we live in a broken world where biological family, the thing for which we are literally made, cannot be realized.
But I don't believe it can be shameful for a human being to offer a hospitality to a stranger, nor shameful to empty oneself of nearly all resources (not just monetary) for the sake of welcoming a stranger into a family. It may not be the first good for that child, but I'd say it's a redemptive good in a broken world. And it might be one of the most Christlike things any one of us could ever do.
I think some of what I wrote here was implied in your piece, but I wanted to say it louder because I think these nuances merit more volume. ;-)
One of the refugee women our family is involved with was sent home with a drug that would force her body to expel her dead fetus, and instead of doing a D&C as was normal procedure, she was found on the kitchen floor in a pool of blood, requiring emergency procedures. It was a doctor who determined the baby was dead, but she was left on her own to manage the consequences.
Thanks for asking, and if you are not aware, stories like this are all over the news. Doctors in states like Missouri are afraid to do any operation on a woman that could be construed by lawmakers as an abortion, even when every evidence shows that the baby is either dead or will not survive birth because of defects.
I'm in total agreement with you about conception to grave right to life. I am not happy with the political take on right to life, that is, a state decides to withdraw healthcare for women because it "might" lead to or be interpreted as abortion. We see this in many states of the US after the Supreme Court sent the responsibility back to the states, overturning Roe, etc. If the state would take responsibility for its right to life position in your terms, women would have healthcare, and support of our tax dollars, but as it stands defacto, patriarchy reasserts itself in the name of God, and withdraws ordinary healthcare from women.
The reason pro-choice people force the issue about a right to abortion, is only because practically the religious and secular right are forcing the loss of autonomy for women in general. The debate obviously has gotten out of hand, but that is because people are willing to lie about their intentions and the facts, politicians and church people alike. Politicians have found it easy to take women's healthcare away in the name of protecting babies.
Ohio and Kansas are only the first states to deny their politicians the right to choose for them, they will not be the last. And if we haven't forgotten, this is not a Christian Nation, and it wasn't designed to be. Most of the people in the United States have only a passing acquaintance with Christianity, including church members, and the Constitution prevents the government from dictating which religion is correct.
It is an interesting piece Joseph. I've been thinking a lot about the pastoral questions of how to advise young believers on interacting with members of the opposite sex. The church has two positions which only fit together very poorly, the Enthusiasm for Virginity and the concept of children as a blessing and the wife as the fruitful vine at the center of the home. I would love to have your, and your readers, thoughts on an ongoing discussion between these two positions found here:
https://comfortwithtruth.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-young-marriage
To tell a man who is starving to increase his faith until hunger does not bother him is not the act of a brother.
Thanks for another good post Joseph, Could you comment more on, "There are people who are buying children from vulnerable populations in impoverished countries and calling it “adoption,” and that’s shameful." Our church is heavily involved in both domestic and international adoption and was wondering if there was more behind this comment. There are 3 families that have adopted asian children that are within 5 years of my age and are close friends. Just curious as to what you actually would mean by "shameful."
Wow. So well said. As a man tasked with gaurdianship of a growing number of children...more than 85 now and growing ......in a part of the world with very complex issues and evils.....this post struck a cord. I enjoyed the read. I appreciate your position and share it pretty much 100%, and I applaud the bravery it took to post it .
You and your pillow are not medical professionals with 6-8 years of training. The sort of throwaway comment you made is just more evidence of how freely people will twist reason out of any recognizable shape to secure their uninformed opinions.
I am not insisting that autonomy be stretched to mean anything someone wants to do with their body. Are you going to curse God's creation for not birthing every fertilized ovum? Estimates suggest that approximately 10-15% of clinically recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage, and about 1% end in stillbirth.
In addition you have insisted that the extreme cases like conjoined twins should be the basis on which you will argue. I don't think legislators have a single thing to say about these circumstances that I would take as a legitimate medical opinion.