« The Sparrows - and Cats, Too | Main | The "Fairness" Doctrine »

June 26, 2007

Comments

Wow! The comments and description of the post-abortive woman's emotional and mental state are such an insightful and moving depiction of the deep psychological struggle that must be going on under an often angry and defensive surface. I'm usually far more focused (emotionally) on the innocent child's pain (and probably rightly so), which unfortunately results in a subconscious general anger toward the mothers who abort. I am grateful for this reminder of how desperately these women need to experience the grace and compassion of Christ through us, and for the insight that sometimes, the greater the anger and defensiveness on the outside — the greater the pain and struggle on the inside.

You guys talk about her struggle with what? Whether to murder her baby or not. I understand the fear, the disappointment, the anxiety but it still doesn't absolve her from her decision to kill her baby.

I agree she needs the grace of Christ more than anything and God can forgive her of her sins. Just like he has forgiven me. But do we tip toe around this situation? Do we tell her it's ok what she did? How do we approach her in love, grace and mercy? Not talk about the sin itself?

The lady in the interview doesn't want to be called a murderer but what is she? She doesn't want to feel the guilt at the end of the day so she blames Bush for passing the partial birth ban. I don't know, maybe I am way off here but to be honest her whole interview turned my stomach justifying the killing.


>>Do we tell her it's ok what she did? How do we approach her in love, grace and mercy? Not talk about the sin itself?

Wes, I absolutely agree with you that her article was focused on justifying her decision. As I said in the post, I think she feels a need to justify herself because deep down she doesn't feel okay about her decision.

My point is only that when we show a person they have a sin as terrible as this (and that's what we're doing whenever we make pro-life arguments--and we do need to give those arguments), we ought to also realize they're going to need to know about the forgiveness Christ offers or no one can face such a thing. (It's precisely because it's *not* okay what she did that she needs to hear about Christ's forgiveness.) And if they can't face it, they won't face it. And if they won't hear what we're saying, the arguments will be rendered completely ineffective.

Amy,

Thanks for the clarification and you are right on the money. I was trying to figure out exactly what you were saying and it is crystal clear for me now. Guess I am a little "slow" at times.

I wonder if she read about the history of the Canaanites and how they sacrificed their children to the god of molech if she would be outraged?

>>I was trying to figure out exactly what you were saying and it is crystal clear for me now. Guess I am a little "slow" at times.

No way. If it wasn't clear what I was saying, then it was my fault as the writer. I'm glad you asked the question so I would know to clarify.

"The only way I see to reach past this wall is in the title of the first article: grace."

You might also try not supporting deceptive legislation.

Just a question - would any of you want to be born with the afflictions that child would suffer for what was likely to be a short life? Of course she is conflicted, she wanted the child and no matter what she did she wasn't going to have it.

>>would any of you want to be born with the afflictions that child would suffer for what was likely to be a short life?

You should ask Hank Williams, John Mellencamp, and everyone else on this list here who was born with Spina bifida. They'd know the answer to that better than I would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

>>she wanted the child and no matter what she did she wasn't going to have it.

That's just not true. It probably would have been difficult, yes. The amount of difficulty can't really be predicted. But even when I read stories about parents who had children who died at a young age, I never hear them say the child (or even the parents) would have been better off if the child had not been born.

I have a question for you Alan. One of my son's had some speach problems and had to go to therapy for 2 years. Should I have killed him?

Let me know where you draw the line. I would be very interested.

And his dad has problems spelling. Duh speech.

HI Wes, I believe she stated that her case was as bad as it gets. Mine is as mild as it gets. Where to draw the line is best left to the parents and the doctors. Based on her description this wasn't even a close call and based on your description neither was yours assuming you wanted a child which it seems you did.

anonymous, some outcomes are predictable and this seems to be one of them.

>>Based on her description this wasn't even a close call

I wonder why the first doctor was so upset by her decision, then....

Hi Alan,

So the decision is based on whether I want it or not? That is the standard?

Hi Amy, perhaps she felt as you do. Based on the description in the story, I didn't and don't understand her reaction. There was this line earlier in the story: "She directed someone to make an appointment and give us directions. Then she abruptly left us to cry." The doctor is young and only handles healthy pregnancies. Perhaps she only wishes to deal with the bright side of life. If her doctor only handles healthy pregnancies then she was going to need a new doctor anyway as her pregnancy was certainly not healthy. In any case I got the feeling the doctor needed a better bedside manner.

Hi wes, legally yes in the early stages. That is what choice means and why the decision of the woman in the first story was OK too. As I have made clear, post viability abortions should only be allowed in the case of the woman's life or health or serious fetal defect.

The comments to this entry are closed.