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. ;-)
Yes, thanks for your comment, pastor. I definitely do not intend to suggest that everyone who wants children thinks of it in market terms. This is precisely why the pain of infertility is entirely other than the pain of not being able to afford one's dream car.
I'm also grateful that you highlight and emphasize that it's not shameful to offer hospitality to welcome an orphan into one's family.
What I want to highlight in the piece is that are societal *tendencies* that are best highlighted by particular case studies, such as surrogacy. There's a wealth of biblical narrative to do wonderful theological reflection on the meaning of infertility, and that's what I want the church to do.
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.
Thanks for this. 100% with you on the need for a politics of flourishing for women. To make the situation even more complex: I want to make the idea of “autonomy” (as in a woman’s autonomy over her own body) problematic. I don’t have autonomy over my own body in manifold ways. Not only did I promise my body to my wife in sickness and in health (which is legally binding), I also owe my body to my children—to provide for them, protect them, and to make medical decisions about their bodies that are for their good. As a man, my autonomy is uniquely compromised by the existence of a draft: the State claims it can coerce my body into service unto death should an international conflict demand it. In sum, I want to know what we mean by the word “autonomy” so we can have a common understanding of what precisely it is that we want women in general, and pregnant women in particular, to have.
I happily assent to your suggestion that bodily autonomy is not some straight forward "freedom" to do whatever one wishes. As humans we are a mixture of free and predetermined, and our promises, such as those to your wife and children, are binding if we are to remain responsible adults. But my interest here is with respect to the things that the state wants to control of women's reproductive care and how that affects them. Requiring of women that which no man is required to do, sets up an inequity that no amount of law keeping can resolve. Women have become second class citizens in states like Missouri where healthcare is meted out to fit the specific wants of legislators, not the needs of women. Healthcare decisions should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctors. But that is not the case today, but that's what I'm arguing for. As long as we live in a state where "we" are deciding what rights women should have, we are framing the debate in a patriarchal fashion.
That's rather like saying that the decision about how long my rich old uncle lives should be made between me and the pillow that I'm thinking about suffocating him with, and his other heirs.
It entirely begs the question of whether or not a life is being snuffed out. It is rather stretching the concept of 'autonomy' to insist that I can autonomously direct the life of another simply because we have biological connections. Would my autonomy extend to a conjoined twin?
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."
Great question, and I should have clarified. Some adoption agencies are not forthright with mothers in developing countries about the legal arrangements of giving up their children, and the manner of the exchange of money is unethical. The term is generally “black market adoption.” Some babies are adopted through suspicious financial means and are sometimes then abandoned when parents change their minds. It’s really sad.
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.
I find it incredibly ironic that you think the phrase “plain, old biological children” is offensive, but you don’t see how insensitive & offensive your post could be to people building families through IVF or adoption, which are already marginalized in a way conventionally conceived biological children & families are not. I can see we aren’t going to get that far continuing to discuss this, so this will be my last comment. As far as discussing pastoral theology, it doesn’t give anyone a license to speak flippantly about inherently painful circumstances—especially ones the pastor has never experienced personally. The onus is on pastoral or pro-life communicators—theologians or otherwise—to avoid insensitivity towards suffering people.
You say my piece is a “cold, academic moral musing,” “flippant,” and “insensitive.” But I’m still left wondering if your beef with me is merely the tone you perceive, or if you actually disagree with anything I’ve argued.
I am writing as a woman, a seminary student, a former pastor, & former director of a pregnancy resource center. I think you are speaking about some gut-wrenching issues in a pretty cavalier manner, a manner only possible for someone who has been personally insulated from all the sufferings you refer to. This post is disturbing & not edifying. It does nothing to further the pro-life cause. It does nothing to bring comfort to anyone facing any of the excruciating sufferings you mention—not the orphan children who need homes, not the adoptive parents turning their lives upside down to care for a broken baby, not the infertile couples wishing for children, and not the families (like mine) watching a loved one slowly deteriorate from the most cruel diseases. You are even casting shade on the absolute necessity of adoption in this broken world. Furthermore, my best friend & sister have conceived through IVF used ethically & it has been one of the greatest joys of all our lives to welcome their babies. I can’t say this strongly enough: you are treating this issue like some cold, academic moral musing—it is not that. It is even worse & comes across as extremely arrogant & condescending because you apparently have plain old biological children—good for you, but frankly have some more compassion for those who don’t have this possibility. Take your few valid points—such as treatment of surrogates or designer babies— & deal with them separately & much more carefully & considerately. The last thing on earth any Pro-lifer should do is to disparage adoption or make it seem less-than in any way. We don’t live in Heaven, we live in a fallen & broken world where kids live in homes strung with heroin needles. Overall, the demand for babies is NOT what drives the proliferation of orphaned kids. Fight drug abuse or poverty if you don’t want kids getting orphaned. Don’t say adoption is not good—what a horrible ivory-tower comment.
Hi Brielle, thank you for your comment. I’m thrilled to have partner in the pro life movement in you. But I don’t think you’ve read me charitably. There’s no disparaging of adoption, and there’s nothing condescending about my pastoral tears. It’s also unkind of you to deride my children as you have.
I certainly wasn’t deriding your children; I’m saying you are very fortunate to have apparently had children without medical interventions. Perhaps you did not intend it this way, but I think the bulk of your post was unkind. I expect that most people reading it who had their children through IVF or adoption would think you were deriding theirs, or at the very least marking their—probably excruciatingly painful—journey to parenthood as less noble & good than yours. You literally said adoption was not truly good, when actually it is one of the most incredible redemptive acts a person can do & frankly, it reflects the gospel even more than simply procreating. Does it involve an element of tragedy? Of course it does, but so did the cross. We still call it the good news. You could question the ethics of certain adoption scenarios without saying the entire process is not good. That is just a gross overstatement without the requisite dose of realism for this broken world.
"Plain old biological children" isn't a compliment, nor is it kind, even if you don't mean it as derision. I claim the intrinsic dignity of all children regardless of the means of their creation. Your words don't endorse that commitment.
Read my paragraph on adoption again. I don't say adoption is "not truly good." On the contrary, I say I "celebrate" adoption, but that it's important for us to acknowledge that "adoption is predicated on a prior evil." One of my dearest friends who has adopted three children has said how offended her children have been when well-meaning people tell them how "lucky" they are to have her and her husband as adoptive parents. It's offensive because it doesn't seem to acknowledge that the beauty of their circumstance is predicated on the prior evil of their biological mother unexpectedly dying.
Secondly, your original comment complained that this topic is off limits for academic-style analysis. Where do you propose might be a better venue for discussing the nuanced intricacies of the morality of procreation? I don't mistake pastoral theology for being pastoral. The two are related, but pastors must be able to simultaneously analyze moral questions, and at the same time show compassion, care, and patience with those who have violated the moral standards those questions produce. The people struggling with fertility you mention are people in the churches I've pastored in. They're my friends. And in some cases they've been my fellow ministers.
I'm happy to be held accountable for my words and the ideas my words relate. But, again, I think you're being ungenerous in reading me as you have. You've even misquoted me to myself.
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. ;-)
Yes, thanks for your comment, pastor. I definitely do not intend to suggest that everyone who wants children thinks of it in market terms. This is precisely why the pain of infertility is entirely other than the pain of not being able to afford one's dream car.
I'm also grateful that you highlight and emphasize that it's not shameful to offer hospitality to welcome an orphan into one's family.
What I want to highlight in the piece is that are societal *tendencies* that are best highlighted by particular case studies, such as surrogacy. There's a wealth of biblical narrative to do wonderful theological reflection on the meaning of infertility, and that's what I want the church to do.
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.
Thanks for this. 100% with you on the need for a politics of flourishing for women. To make the situation even more complex: I want to make the idea of “autonomy” (as in a woman’s autonomy over her own body) problematic. I don’t have autonomy over my own body in manifold ways. Not only did I promise my body to my wife in sickness and in health (which is legally binding), I also owe my body to my children—to provide for them, protect them, and to make medical decisions about their bodies that are for their good. As a man, my autonomy is uniquely compromised by the existence of a draft: the State claims it can coerce my body into service unto death should an international conflict demand it. In sum, I want to know what we mean by the word “autonomy” so we can have a common understanding of what precisely it is that we want women in general, and pregnant women in particular, to have.
I happily assent to your suggestion that bodily autonomy is not some straight forward "freedom" to do whatever one wishes. As humans we are a mixture of free and predetermined, and our promises, such as those to your wife and children, are binding if we are to remain responsible adults. But my interest here is with respect to the things that the state wants to control of women's reproductive care and how that affects them. Requiring of women that which no man is required to do, sets up an inequity that no amount of law keeping can resolve. Women have become second class citizens in states like Missouri where healthcare is meted out to fit the specific wants of legislators, not the needs of women. Healthcare decisions should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctors. But that is not the case today, but that's what I'm arguing for. As long as we live in a state where "we" are deciding what rights women should have, we are framing the debate in a patriarchal fashion.
That's rather like saying that the decision about how long my rich old uncle lives should be made between me and the pillow that I'm thinking about suffocating him with, and his other heirs.
It entirely begs the question of whether or not a life is being snuffed out. It is rather stretching the concept of 'autonomy' to insist that I can autonomously direct the life of another simply because we have biological connections. Would my autonomy extend to a conjoined twin?
What healthcare do you think is being taken away? Could you be specific about how these policies are harming women?
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."
Great question, and I should have clarified. Some adoption agencies are not forthright with mothers in developing countries about the legal arrangements of giving up their children, and the manner of the exchange of money is unethical. The term is generally “black market adoption.” Some babies are adopted through suspicious financial means and are sometimes then abandoned when parents change their minds. It’s really sad.
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 .
Thanks for the kind words. And thanks for the work you do caring for all those kiddos.
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.
I find it incredibly ironic that you think the phrase “plain, old biological children” is offensive, but you don’t see how insensitive & offensive your post could be to people building families through IVF or adoption, which are already marginalized in a way conventionally conceived biological children & families are not. I can see we aren’t going to get that far continuing to discuss this, so this will be my last comment. As far as discussing pastoral theology, it doesn’t give anyone a license to speak flippantly about inherently painful circumstances—especially ones the pastor has never experienced personally. The onus is on pastoral or pro-life communicators—theologians or otherwise—to avoid insensitivity towards suffering people.
You say my piece is a “cold, academic moral musing,” “flippant,” and “insensitive.” But I’m still left wondering if your beef with me is merely the tone you perceive, or if you actually disagree with anything I’ve argued.
I am writing as a woman, a seminary student, a former pastor, & former director of a pregnancy resource center. I think you are speaking about some gut-wrenching issues in a pretty cavalier manner, a manner only possible for someone who has been personally insulated from all the sufferings you refer to. This post is disturbing & not edifying. It does nothing to further the pro-life cause. It does nothing to bring comfort to anyone facing any of the excruciating sufferings you mention—not the orphan children who need homes, not the adoptive parents turning their lives upside down to care for a broken baby, not the infertile couples wishing for children, and not the families (like mine) watching a loved one slowly deteriorate from the most cruel diseases. You are even casting shade on the absolute necessity of adoption in this broken world. Furthermore, my best friend & sister have conceived through IVF used ethically & it has been one of the greatest joys of all our lives to welcome their babies. I can’t say this strongly enough: you are treating this issue like some cold, academic moral musing—it is not that. It is even worse & comes across as extremely arrogant & condescending because you apparently have plain old biological children—good for you, but frankly have some more compassion for those who don’t have this possibility. Take your few valid points—such as treatment of surrogates or designer babies— & deal with them separately & much more carefully & considerately. The last thing on earth any Pro-lifer should do is to disparage adoption or make it seem less-than in any way. We don’t live in Heaven, we live in a fallen & broken world where kids live in homes strung with heroin needles. Overall, the demand for babies is NOT what drives the proliferation of orphaned kids. Fight drug abuse or poverty if you don’t want kids getting orphaned. Don’t say adoption is not good—what a horrible ivory-tower comment.
Hi Brielle, thank you for your comment. I’m thrilled to have partner in the pro life movement in you. But I don’t think you’ve read me charitably. There’s no disparaging of adoption, and there’s nothing condescending about my pastoral tears. It’s also unkind of you to deride my children as you have.
I certainly wasn’t deriding your children; I’m saying you are very fortunate to have apparently had children without medical interventions. Perhaps you did not intend it this way, but I think the bulk of your post was unkind. I expect that most people reading it who had their children through IVF or adoption would think you were deriding theirs, or at the very least marking their—probably excruciatingly painful—journey to parenthood as less noble & good than yours. You literally said adoption was not truly good, when actually it is one of the most incredible redemptive acts a person can do & frankly, it reflects the gospel even more than simply procreating. Does it involve an element of tragedy? Of course it does, but so did the cross. We still call it the good news. You could question the ethics of certain adoption scenarios without saying the entire process is not good. That is just a gross overstatement without the requisite dose of realism for this broken world.
"Plain old biological children" isn't a compliment, nor is it kind, even if you don't mean it as derision. I claim the intrinsic dignity of all children regardless of the means of their creation. Your words don't endorse that commitment.
Read my paragraph on adoption again. I don't say adoption is "not truly good." On the contrary, I say I "celebrate" adoption, but that it's important for us to acknowledge that "adoption is predicated on a prior evil." One of my dearest friends who has adopted three children has said how offended her children have been when well-meaning people tell them how "lucky" they are to have her and her husband as adoptive parents. It's offensive because it doesn't seem to acknowledge that the beauty of their circumstance is predicated on the prior evil of their biological mother unexpectedly dying.
Secondly, your original comment complained that this topic is off limits for academic-style analysis. Where do you propose might be a better venue for discussing the nuanced intricacies of the morality of procreation? I don't mistake pastoral theology for being pastoral. The two are related, but pastors must be able to simultaneously analyze moral questions, and at the same time show compassion, care, and patience with those who have violated the moral standards those questions produce. The people struggling with fertility you mention are people in the churches I've pastored in. They're my friends. And in some cases they've been my fellow ministers.
I'm happy to be held accountable for my words and the ideas my words relate. But, again, I think you're being ungenerous in reading me as you have. You've even misquoted me to myself.