[Chrysostom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/us/20doctor.html

An abortion doctor who served minority and immigrant women in his clinic in Philadelphia was charged with multiple counts of murder on Wednesday in the deaths of a woman and seven newborn babies.

The original article --

Gruesome details in report on Philadelphia abortion doctor | Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/19/2011

Some commentary (admittedly, as a rule I think of Slate commentary as completely ridiculous, but the mere fact that this guy is having these thoughts is interesting) --

Kermit Gosnell late-term abortion scandal: How late in pregnancy is too late to choose? - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

[thesteve]

My wife told me about this a couple days ago. Honestly, I'm still having trouble processing the story in my head. I just can't imagine having a moral code that would allow me (as a hypothetical doctor) to deliver a baby, say hello, then kill it.

Now, while I get the whole "autonomy" argument in terms of women's rights (or at least I think I do), I don't understand why, after a given point in the third trimester, women who want an abortion just can't have an early delivery. Many (all?) states have laws that allow unwanted babies to be abandoned at the hospital. Functionally is there a difference between abortion a fetus at 30 weeks and having an induced delivery/C-section followed by an abandonment? I guess in the latter scenario you didn't get to make "the choice", but that's all I can come up with.

[Art]

I couldn't read the whole article. It triggered my gag reflex.

[slap_j]

How ought the church talk about sexual ethics, John?

[Ax]

Not even getting into the whole abortion argument... but there's something seriously wrong if the guy can make jokes about the baby after he just killed it. The guy just sounds evil to the core, and not for any personal gain, he just sounds like a moustache twirling villian who kills babies for the hell of it. Sick sick sick person.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by slap_j

How ought the church talk about sexual ethics, John?

That's a really great question, especially because there's been a marked trend in the 20th century for Christians to turn to laissez-faire sexual ethics just because the tradition had gotten stale and wasn't opening to anything fresh or powerful. I've got nothing solid, but here are a few thoughts:

- Openly and with celebration.

- I can't remember who it was (so the quote will be a paraphrase), but one important commentator on the early Christians said, Christians are a people who will open their homes to everyone and their beds to no one. Balthasar is right that love alone is credible. When you're condemning the world for being the world, for premarital sex or whatever, that's hogwash. We have to have a better positive ethic than the stories of self-exploration to out-narrate that. If we are a people of great hospitality then we won't need to be a sexually promiscuous people, and to dismiss us as prudish or intolerant would make that hospitality deeply anomalous.

- Now relate this to abortion. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but look at the statistics and you'll see that we have all the opportunity in the world to adopt children who would be aborted, but we don't. Why? That's our way forward. Don't end abortion by expecting the government to take care of it. End abortion by the church valuing birth and life so much that we want all those children. That's light shining out darkness -- life is so valuable to us that the legality of abortion becomes a non-issue because only a tiny percentage of abortions will continue if the women are this surrounded by people who love them and their babies, and they won't have to be uncertain about their future if their babies are adopted.

You might say, people will start taking advantage of this and have a bunch of pregnancies out of wedlock because they know there will be no consequence. Good! Because we celebrate human life which God creates, we welcome those babies with celebration! And, added benefit, what do you think will happen if half of the next generation would have been aborted but the church took them in? There's your Christian witness.

- Anti-homosexual politics is the inversion of this stance. Let's be serious here: any serious public opposition to gay marriage should have ended with our silence against no-fault divorce. I'd suggest that if they weren't defining themselves against "those intolerant Christians" then Richard Dawkins & co. would have a very different take on homosexuality. Specifically, they would tell us that gay people are genetic abnormalities, a threat to society, and will either be selected out by evolution or we should weed them out with eugenics. Then Christians would be able to make the move we should make and defend the marginalized. But because we just wanted comfortable lives ourselves -- viz., divorce -- we've now been forced into this ridiculous position of being cruel and self-serving.

Again, then, the question is whether we will take seriously Jesus' call to love others or if we will follow the modern narratives of the "freedom" of self-exploration. (I know I've written too much at this point, but this is where I think we have the serious alternative to the creation vs. evolution debate. The Christian doctrine of creation means that we are truly free because God created us freely out of love -- this is something with bite that can truly challenge a world where agape love has become unthinkable, not the Scientific Creationism or whatever that baloney is.)

- There's a reason for the classic pairing of "wine & women." Our talk about sex and alcohol should be parallel. Consider, for instance, that Christian abstention and prohibition of alcohol developed in a Christian culture that had also become completely freaked out to talk about sex, but behind closed doors was into some weird, kinky stuff. This is the outworking of the virtue of "respectability" imposed by the dualisms of modernity -- carnal/moral, private/public.

- Certain essays by philosopher Michel de Montaigne were kept by women of the 16th century French aristocracy in their lingerie closets because they were so compelling. It was on Ovid, as I recall, so it was academically serious but still so earthy and powerful that it was profoundly sexy. We need to keep at it until some theological essay acquires the same status.

Hmm, that's a lot. I'll just stop there.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

...- Now relate this to abortion. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but look at the statistics and you'll see that we have all the opportunity in the world to adopt children who would be aborted, but we don't. Why? That's our way forward. Don't end abortion by expecting the government to take care of it. End abortion by the church valuing birth and life so much that we want all those children. That's light shining out darkness -- life is so valuable to us that the legality of abortion becomes a non-issue because only a tiny percentage of abortions will continue if the women are this surrounded by people who love them and their babies, and they won't have to be uncertain about their future if their babies are adopted.

Not sure of your point on this one. Do we not have couples waiting to adopt, and traveling abroad, and paying high costs... or am I missing it? Are you saying we need to combine the willingness to adopt with more of the other blessings, fruits of the Spirit.... be more vocal about it... show more support... ?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Not sure of your point on this one. Do we not have couples waiting to adopt, and traveling abroad, and paying high costs... or am I missing it? Are you saying we need to combine the willingness to adopt with more of the other blessings, fruits of the Spirit.... be more vocal about it... show more support... ?

I think that's exactly his point. It's not enough to say, "don't abort your fetus because people want to adopt...SINNER", we need to actually get involved in the lives of people who are "at risk" (for lack of a better term) of getting an abortion and loving them, making sure they understand that they and the child they are carrying will be loved on and supported throughout the gestational period.

[jthomas1600]

This is a ministry in the town where I live. Pregnancy Help Center - Adoption, Abortion, Options, Lake Jackson, Tx, Crisis Pregnancy, Brazoria County, Texas If you want to make a difference you can probably find something similar near you.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Not sure of your point on this one. Do we not have couples waiting to adopt, and traveling abroad, and paying high costs... or am I missing it? Are you saying we need to combine the willingness to adopt with more of the other blessings, fruits of the Spirit.... be more vocal about it... show more support... ?

The abortion-adoption ratio is ~7:1, and only around 1/25 pregnancies to single women result in adoption. More than 100k children in foster care are ready to be adopted, and there are hundreds of thousands more in foster care. The vast majority of women who have abortions (>3/4) cite one of these reasons: not enough money, not ready for the responsibility, unmarried and unprepared for single parenthood, not ready for parenthood (generally), parenthood would obstruct future life plans.

Now, put all that together and it's obvious that the adoption lines are not as long as we might think. Yes, it's incredibly difficult to find a white child from a stable family. On the other hand, it's incredibly easy to find a child in foster care who needs to be adopted. And given the statistics, of the 800k+ abortions this year at least half a million involve women who are primarily afraid of the instability that parenthood will bring to their lives. So, given the greater leniency the government has extended to transracial adoption in recent years, if the lines for adoption are too long then we're just not looking hard enough. (To be fair, some of the bureaucracy make it difficult to adopt, which results in longer and more difficult adoption lines. Still, consider how long it would take from when you start trying to when your child is actually born, and a year doesn't sound like so long to adopt a child.)

Many women who have abortions are panicked and just want help. If they have to come up with the idea of putting up their children for adoption and execute that plan themselves, they are very likely to take the easier route of the abortion clinic. But what if an organization is right there that wants to connect them with a family that will take care of these women during their pregnancy and adopt their children afterwards? Suddenly it's not all on a person who is unexpectedly pregnant and probably scared out of her mind; suddenly somebody who's in a more stable place is offering help.

In that way, yes, this means more than just putting your name on an adoption list. It means being willing to help the mother and be part of her life. It means organizations take to the streets -- which many already do, as Joe pointed out. I have direct experience of women who find such crisis pregnancy centers and would be immediately relieved to find someone willing to adopt their children and help take care of them during the pregnancy. (After the pregnancy wouldn't hurt, either!) Here's a radical idea -- what would happen if the picket lines in front of abortion clinics were stacked with people begging to adopt those children instead of signs opposed to the clinics?

So yes, you're right, being more involved in these women's lives would be a huge thing. And being part of their lives means we develop a reputation throughout communities, which means it will be a lot easier to connect with women who are considering abortion because they will know of the reputation. What would happen if the first place every women faced with an unplanned pregnancy went was a church? What would happen to relationships between churches if we had to call each other when somebody on our doorstep couldn't be matched with a family from our congregation, but maybe a family from another church?

But even before that, hundreds of thousands of women each year say they are frightened of the instability that unplanned parenthood would introduce into their lives, which means that hundreds of thousands of women each year would be willing to offer their children up for adoption if somebody would just come ask and offer to take care of them. Lines aren't the problem, because the percentage of unplanned pregnancies resulting in adoption has steadily declined over the last few decades. The problem is that we're not there. Organizations like Joe is talking about are amazing. I encourage everyone to get involved, and see that there is lots of work to be done, both in terms of getting in touch with women in crisis pregnancy situations and being able to offer the alternative of adoption.

[+Donny]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

The abortion-adoption ratio is ~7:1, and only around 1/25 pregnancies to single women result in adoption. More than 100k children in foster care are ready to be adopted, and there are hundreds of thousands more in foster care. The vast majority of women who have abortions (>3/4) cite one of these reasons: not enough money, not ready for the responsibility, unmarried and unprepared for single parenthood, not ready for parenthood (generally), parenthood would obstruct future life plans.

Now, put all that together and it's obvious that the adoption lines are not as long as we might think. Yes, it's incredibly difficult to find a white child from a stable family. On the other hand, it's incredibly easy to find a child in foster care who needs to be adopted. And given the statistics, of the 800k+ abortions this year at least half a million involve women who are primarily afraid of the instability that parenthood will bring to their lives. So, given the greater leniency the government has extended to transracial adoption in recent years, if the lines for adoption are too long then we're just not looking hard enough. (To be fair, some of the bureaucracy make it difficult to adopt, which results in longer and more difficult adoption lines. Still, consider how long it would take from when you start trying to when your child is actually born, and a year doesn't sound like so long to adopt a child.)

Many women who have abortions are panicked and just want help. If they have to come up with the idea of putting up their children for adoption and execute that plan themselves, they are very likely to take the easier route of the abortion clinic. But what if an organization is right there that wants to connect them with a family that will take care of these women during their pregnancy and adopt their children afterwards? Suddenly it's not all on a person who is unexpectedly pregnant and probably scared out of her mind; suddenly somebody who's in a more stable place is offering help.

In that way, yes, this means more than just putting your name on an adoption list. It means being willing to help the mother and be part of her life. It means organizations take to the streets -- which many already do, as Joe pointed out. I have direct experience of women who find such crisis pregnancy centers and would be immediately relieved to find someone willing to adopt their children and help take care of them during the pregnancy. (After the pregnancy wouldn't hurt, either!) Here's a radical idea -- what would happen if the picket lines in front of abortion clinics were stacked with people begging to adopt those children instead of signs opposed to the clinics?

So yes, you're right, being more involved in these women's lives would be a huge thing. And being part of their lives means we develop a reputation throughout communities, which means it will be a lot easier to connect with women who are considering abortion because they will know of the reputation. What would happen if the first place every women faced with an unplanned pregnancy went was a church? What would happen to relationships between churches if we had to call each other when somebody on our doorstep couldn't be matched with a family from our congregation, but maybe a family from another church?

But even before that, hundreds of thousands of women each year say they are frightened of the instability that unplanned parenthood would introduce into their lives, which means that hundreds of thousands of women each year would be willing to offer their children up for adoption if somebody would just come ask and offer to take care of them. Lines aren't the problem, because the percentage of unplanned pregnancies resulting in adoption has steadily declined over the last few decades. The problem is that we're not there. Organizations like Joe is talking about are amazing. I encourage everyone to get involved, and see that there is lots of work to be done, both in terms of getting in touch with women in crisis pregnancy situations and being able to offer the alternative of adoption.

John,

All that stuff is great. Just wanted to add a quick word, though. We do know a couple that recently went through domestic adoption, and it is a pretty rough process due to all the red tape and varying state laws. It's definitely possible, and there are kids out there who need stable homes, but it's a long, expensive, tedious process that can be pretty frustrating at times. Good and worth it, but yeah, not easy.

[jthomas1600]

My brother adopted about a year ago. To tell you the truth, it was almost like he had to negotiate with the mother and "buy" the baby. He of course paid his lawyer/adoption specialist, he paid all the fees that go along with adoption, but he also paid all the mothers medical bills and financial support during the last part of the pregnancy and at the last minute she balked a little and he ended up paying her some transition money or something....kind of seemed like "I'll change my mind and keep the baby if you don't pony up another $5,000. I'm pretty sure that's not the way it's supposed to be.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by +Donny

John,

All that stuff is great. Just wanted to add a quick word, though. We do know a couple that recently went through domestic adoption, and it is a pretty rough process due to all the red tape and varying state laws. It's definitely possible, and there are kids out there who need stable homes, but it's a long, expensive, tedious process that can be pretty frustrating at times. Good and worth it, but yeah, not easy.

Yes, absolutely. A couple of my friends recently adopted, one had a horrendous go of things and the other was pretty fortunate. I suspect the tough sledding is much more common. Like you say, though -- it's worth it. (And, obviously, having a baby via pregnancy is no walk in the park!)

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I'd suggest that if they weren't defining themselves against "those intolerant Christians" then Richard Dawkins & co. would have a very different take on homosexuality. Specifically, they would tell us that gay people are genetic abnormalities, a threat to society, and will either be selected out by evolution or we should weed them out with eugenics. Then Christians would be able to make the move we should make and defend the marginalized. But because we just wanted comfortable lives ourselves -- viz., divorce -- we've now been forced into this ridiculous position of being cruel and self-serving.

John, what the heck. Once again, you pretend to have some cosmic insight on things that ends up giving you a chance to spew some absurdity.

Please, give me one shred of evidence that Dawkins would be pro-eugenics and anti-homosexual if mainline Christianity wasn't anti-homosexual?

Absurd, an egregious assertion.

Can't you accept people's views as they are, and not seek some underlying viewpoint inaccessible to all but you that ultimately validates The Way John R. Sees the World?

p.s. Our problems go a lot further back than the early 20th century Western Church's shift in views on divorce. I'll play Cosmic John and assert that John likes to have this fiction that up until the past 200 years, the post-Constantine church was very good at being a model of civility, tolerance, and love. If only we could go back to the good ol' days of the 1200's!

[pinkkatyperry7]

Thesteve: I can't process it through my mind either. wow. I don't like abortion. do u? it is ok if you do.