The Point

Beliefnet has an interview with Tim Kring, creator of NBC's Heroes -- which, for my money, is still the most intriguing show on television right now. The commentary doesn't add a lot to the intrigue, but it does suggest that the story's ongoing tension between humanistic progress and divine calling may extend beyond the script. It's as though Kring himself is asking the same questions as his heroes: "Are we given abilities for a purpose, or is it merely an evolutionary luck of the draw?"

Is the message here that we all have to be our own heroes?

The ordinariness of the characters’ lives is what I think people are relating to. There is a transparency between the viewer and the show in terms of the types of characters that you’re watching. You feel like that could be me, or that’s like somebody I went to high school with. You feel that this could happen to you, and maybe this is happening to you.

Of course these characters are experiencing this in some form of supernatural ability. But I think it does tap into that sort of wish fulfillment that your life can turn on a dime, or that you’re meant for something special. I think most people feel that their lives are meant for more than what they’re living at this time.

But, of course, powerful skills alone do not a hero make. In an article for BreakPoint Online, Alex Wainer offers the example of one of the show's characters -- the appropriately named Hiro -- as one who recognizes that he has been given a chance to serve his fellow man and perhaps save the world.

What is this?

Chuck Colson gives a sobering account in today's BreakPoint commentary of what our fellow Christians are facing in Burma:

Recently, reports have surfaced that, in one Chin Christian area, “300 [Buddhist] monks” were sent “to forcibly convert the populace.” In another area, another monk, working on behalf of the regime, burned down a Christian church.

This is all part of a pattern of persecution, which includes “ethnic cleansing” of Christian minority groups, the destruction of villages, forced conversions, and even rape and murder. It’s part of the regime’s attempt “to create a uniform society in which the race and language is Burmese and the only accepted religion is Buddhism.”

Christians in the West cannot sit idly by and let the Burmese junta get away with this. We must act and defend our brethren.

Click here to find out how you can help to do just that.

What is this?

In Jesus' summary of the Law, he tells us we are to love the Lord God with all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind (Luke 10:27; Mark 12:23). What does it mean to love God with all our mind? At the very least it must mean a rigorous mental pursuit of God through the Scriptures. This is a fundamental part of developing a biblical worldview. William Wilberforce took to task the Christians of his day for not pursuing God with a strenuous exertion of the mind. Perhaps, we too, could use his words as an encouragement to press on to know God more (Hosea 6:3).

How criminal, then, must this voluntary ignorance of Christianity and the Word of God appear in the sight of God. When God of His goodness has granted us such abundant means of instruction, how great must be the guilt, and how awful must be the punishment, of voluntary ignorance!

And why are we to expect knowledge without inquiry and success without endeavor? Bountiful as is the hand of Providence, it does not bestow its gifts to seduce us into laziness. It bestows gifts to arouse us to exertion. No one expects to attain to the heights of learning, or arts, or power, or wealth, or military glory without vigourous resolution, strenuous diligence, and steady perseverance.

Yet we expect to be Christians without labor, study, or inquiry! This is the more preposterous because Christianity, a revelation from God and not an invention of man, shows us new relations with their correspondent duties. It contains also doctrines, motives, and precepts peculiar to itself. We cannot reasonably expect to become proficient accidentally, as one might learn insensibly the maxims of worldly policy or a scheme of mere morals.

What could you do differently today to love God with all your mind?

To read more of Wilberforce's own ideas, check out his classic work, Real Christianity.

What is this?

It never fails that God would make Himself known in the most unusual places. This is nothing new. But it is unusual that you'd find an article on the topic. I came across this article on redemption in prison today.

The issue of faith-based rehabilitation programs has been the topic of much debate over the past months. As many know, the InnerChange Freedom Initiative is only 13 days away from its appeal hearing for the faith-based program it runs in Newton, Iowa, which was sued by the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. Their case will come before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, MO.

Faith-based groups seem to be getting a lot of flack, lately... but when you look deep down you see that what unites them all is the results they produce. This article had something to say about it too.

So where is the line that will allow faith-based groups to provide the goods and services they long to offer, while not outraging the public who cry "FOUL!" everytime a faith-based group offers a helping hand?

What is this?

Commenter Sarah Edwards writes, in response to my post about having been a “confused creationist”:

Gina, I'd be interested to hear more here of your experiences with this issue. What you talk about in the old blog entry you linked to sounded awfully familiar. Personally, I'm at the stage that when people ask about origins, I just say that however the world began, I'm pretty sure God had something to do with it. However, this completely sidesteps the whole issue of interpreting those verses in Genesis...

I remember that state of mind very well, Sarah. I grew up with the mindset (absorbed mostly from church and from Christian school) that Christianity and science could not ever possibly hope to come together on this issue; therefore, scientists must be either mistaken or fraudulent on issues such as carbon dating and so forth.

It was when I came to work for BreakPoint that I first encountered something called “Intelligent Design.”

What is this?

This past weekend I went to see the movie Blood Diamond. Honestly, I’m not sure whether or not to recommend the film to you. It was horribly violent, but the violence was of the kind that is regrettably true to life. As I watched the horror of evil men training up child soldiers to be killing machines, it vividly brought home to me the horrors that children, particularly in Uganda and other parts of Africa, are facing even as I write. It is the kind of evil that I want to shut out, but which I know I am called to be aware of so that I might do my part to fight against it.

I was reminded, however, that Hotel Rwanda handled an equally violent subject just as powerfully, but with much more finesse. The word “obscene” actually comes from Greek theater. There were certain things that were left ob scena, or literally off stage. If you take the famous Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex, for example, we only hear of Jocasta hanging herself, we don’t see it on stage. Similarly, in the film Hotel Rwanda, we see a van as it strains to move across a bumpy terrain shrouded in fog. Only after some moments do we realize (though we don’t actually see) the reason the van is moving so laboriously is that it is rolling over dead bodies. This scene made a vivid impact on me, without branding my brain with direct pictures of mangled bodies. Let's just say Blood Diamond was not as deft in its treatment of violence.

I did see in the film, however, a stunning (though unwitting) reflection of the Gospel story. When Solomon Vande is ripped from his son, Dia, there is nothing that will stand in the way of a father’s love. Solomon risks life and limb to track his son and rescue him from the Revolutionary United Front forces. These forces, and Solomon’s personal enemy, Captain Poison, have brainwashed Dia, who is now one of the many “baby killers,” or ruthless child soldiers. (Spoiler Warning.) After a near-death brush with the R.U.F. the night before, Solomon shrugs off caution and walks right into the heart of the enemy camp to find and rescue his child. Seeing Dia, he puts his hand on his shoulder and calls his name. Surprisingly though, Dia not only repels his father’s attempted rescue, he turns his dad over to his leaders. Later, when the bad guys lie dead and the prized pink diamond is finally back in Solomon’s hands, the camera turns to show us Dia, pointing a gun directly at his father, who has risked it all to rescue him.

What is this?

If you saw tonight's episode, I'd love to hear your answers to this question: After one of the most honest discussions on abortion that I've ever heard on TV -- in which both House and the rape victim he was treating agreed that it was murder, and she refused to be put off by his assertion that murder is sometimes okay -- why did she choose to abort in the end?

I've got a few vague ideas on the subject myself, but I'd like to hear yours first. And if you have any other thoughts on an incredibly thought-provoking episode -- such as House's militant Darwinian rationalism vs. the girl's insistence that something has to matter, or the rather withering look at psychiatry and how it can't solve everything -- I'd be interested in hearing those too.

(And if anyone happened to catch the girl's name, you might share that with me as well. After a full day of work and a night class, I wasn't exactly watching on all cylinders, if you know what I mean.)

What is this?

That's the description of the film version of Children of Men in the subheading of Mark Steyn's spot-on review. I only wish I'd thought of it first.

(Watch out for bad language -- which arguably helps support Steyn's point about just how inappropriate that language was in this particular film. Also watch out for evil screen-eating pop-up ad.)

What is this?

Earlier this week, famed race horse Barbaro was "put down," a rather nice euphemism, after a long and widely publicized battle to help him recover from a leg injury sustained nearly a year ago. The publicity was due partly to the fact that Barbaro captured hearts even before the debilitating injury. Many people who don't consider themselves racing fans were following his ascent to glory and watching the fateful race. Many cried when the injury occurred. After all, we all know what happens to injured race horses. They go to that great paddock in the sky, quickly and unceremoniously.

Still the question remains. Why were we so involved in the story of this one horse? Is it because, as the New York Times suggests, we've never met a mean horse? Maybe, as Meghan O'Rourke states in Slate, its because we're at war and we need something uncomplicated to focus on. Or perhaps, as a Washington Post sports columnist puts it, it's because Barbaro never lied to us. (Huh?)

Then again, maybe it's just refreshing to see people fighting for life--even the life of a horse--in a culture where even human life is too often viewed as disposable and irrelevant. Indeed, part of what was so shocking and heartening about Barbaro's story was the extraordinary (at least, by comparison) lengths to which his owners went to try to make him healthy and whole again. We saw an animal essentially sentenced to die when he stumbled at the Preakness, pardoned and lavished with grace over a period of months. Grace he wouldn't have gotten at other hands, grace we didn't expect to see him receive, grace which bound our hearts up in hope that he would beat the odds.

In the end, it became clear that his injury was simply too devastating and his owners decided it was more humane to "put him down." But not before getting us all to rally around life, even the life of a horse.

What is this?

Our Fearless Leader here at BreakPoint, Chuck Colson, will be speaking on "The Wilberforce Model in Politics" for Faith and Law later this week. The organization doesn't seem to have a website, at least not one I can find, but you can e-mail info@faithandlaw.org for more information.

What is this?

Scott Henson makes a unique comparison between Johnny Cash's prison tunes, such as "Folsom Prison Blues," and modern thug melodies, like "Cocaine Blues."

Johnny Cash never went to prison himself, but early in his career he realized that prison was a brilliant metaphor for a set of human experiences in a raw, extreme form that are universal, that all of us endure at one time or another. Commenters at YouTube compared Cash's near-glamorization of prisoners and their crimes to modern "thug life" attitudes routinely expressed by rappers. There are songs where that is justified -- for example, Cocaine Blues.

And yet, Henson points out, there is an obvious difference between Cash's lyrics and most modern rap -- sympathy for prisoners, remorse, and need for redemption.

What is this?

Turns out, it is possible for Christians to be portrayed in the media as thoughtful, faithful individuals. What a concept!

The New York Times ran a story on dancing at Christian colleges in this Sunday's magazine. Focused on one college's first-ever sanctioned dance, the article says that "by dressing up nicely, but not suggestively, and dancing exuberantly, but not too closely, these students and professors would say with their bodies not only that Christians may dance but also that they should." Scandalous stuff once upon a time, but not anymore.

Why this reversal of policy? For one thing, Christian colleges are trying to be more welcoming of minority and international students, for many of whom dance is a form of cultural expression and an accepted form of worship. For another, formal dances and swing are no longer considered evil. Like their long-accepted cousin, square dancing, these dances are now seen as quaint and harmless means of social interaction. And, in perhaps a bit of a stretch, dancing is seen as a way to bridge cultural divides and build relationships for witnessing...so now, you can take your missionary date to a missionary dance, I'm guessing.

This is a great article, not only for its realistic and very normal portrayal of Christians, but also for the unpacking of theology around the issue of dance, from David and Miriam to the Gnostics and Puritans. Kudos to the Times for such a thoughtful piece on faith.

What is this?

I'm reading from Real Christianity by William Wilberforce (original title was a mouthful: A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians, in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity). I can't encourage you enough to get this book and read it devotionally. This is just one of many gems to be found here. If this doesn't challenge you to lay everything again at the feet of your Lord, I'm not sure what will. He says:

I understand the essential and practical characteristic of true Christians to be this: Relying on promises to repentant sinners of the acceptance through the Redeemer, they have renounced and disowned all other masters and have devoted themselves sincerely and unreservedly to God. This is the very symbol that baptism daily represents to us. It is now their determined purpose to yield themselves completely to the reasonable service of their rightful Sovereign. "They are not their own" (1 Cor. 6:19).

For true Christians, bodily and mental faculties, their naturally acquired abilities, their substance, their authority, their time, and their influence are not instruments of their own gratification; these belong and are consecrated to the honor of God and are employed in His service. This the master principle to which every other must be subordinate. Whatever may be previously have been the ruling passion; whatever their leading pursuit was before; whether sensual; or intellectual; whether of science, of taste, of fancy, or feeling—it is now of minor importance in comparison. In point of fact the passion exists only at the pleasure of its true and legitimate Master, and its owner places it entirely under His direction and control.

This is the true prerogative of Christianity, "to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). They feel its power and are resolved "to live no longer to themselves, but to him that really died for them" (2 Cor. 5:15). They know indeed of their infirmities. They know that the way in which they have entered is narrow and difficult. But they know the encouraging assurance that "they who wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength" (Is. 40:31). And the great ruling principle of their future lives is to "do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). This is the seminal principle that contains within it the basic elements of all true virtue.

May the Holy Spirit convict us of the places in our lives where these words are not true and renew in us the abandon to take everything--our thoughts, our talents, our resources, our time, our affections, our hopes, our future--captive under Christ. Only then can we expect to truly live out a biblical worldview.

What is this?

Peter Singer weighs in on the disabled little girl whose parents have determined to keep her "little" for the rest of her life. Predictably, Singer has no qualms about such developmental tampering, as long as it aids the quality of life -- for somebody. Apart from his justification of this family's actions, however, he uses the opportunity to question the inherent worth of human life.

Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. We are always ready to find dignity in human beings, including those whose mental age will never exceed that of an infant, but we don’t attribute dignity to dogs or cats, though they clearly operate at a more advanced mental level than human infants. Just making that comparison provokes outrage in some quarters. But why should dignity always go together with species membership, no matter what the characteristics of the individual may be?

What matters in Ashley’s life is that she should not suffer, and that she should be able to enjoy whatever she is capable of enjoying. Beyond that, she is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her. Lofty talk about human dignity should not stand in the way of children like her getting the treatment that is best both for them and their families.

Those last sentences capture the point quite well: "She is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her." Whatever Singer might conclude about this particular, and bizarre, ethical discussion, his underlying presumption is that the life of a little girl holds no value apart from that given to her by family or society at large. Then again, if God is not the Author and Sustainer of all life, by what other standard can we judge?

What is this?

I think it may be time for a gentle reminder of a certain line in our comment policy:

Obscenities and spam -- including bashing, solicitations, repetitive comments, and comments that are irrelevant to the post under which they are written -- will not be published.

Some comments lately, although not quite at the level of outright bashing of bloggers or other commenters here, are coming dangerously close. We welcome all kinds of opinions at The Point, as long as they're stated in a civil and respectful manner without slurs at anyone's level of maturity or knowledge, or any other type of personal remark. Please bear this in mind, and thanks to the majority of you commenters who have managed to do this.

What is this?

A few days ago, I mentioned Willie O. Williams who was exonerated after serving 22 years in prison. If you're curious to know how he's been enjoying his newfound freedom, here's an update:

Williams said he has awakened in the middle of the night several times, wondering where he was. Missing out on two decades of progress, Williams said he has been careful not to touch anything he might not know how to use. He is fascinated by society's obsession with cell phones, and plans to get one.

He hasn't attempted to use a computer yet, but he said he is looking forward to getting online.

What is this?

. . . was not Ellen McCormack either. Thanks to Catherina for setting me straight on this one. Now I'm curious: Can anyone find someone even earlier than that? I may have to start offering prizes here . . . :-)

What is this?

. . . was NOT Hillary Clinton. Who knew? (H/T NRO)

What is this?

I have no desire to be too hard on young-Earth creationists. While I don't agree with them, I understand how one might arrive at that position. My point . . . and I do have one is that is their position cannot be called a "fringe" one.

WLH

What is this?

It's a minor point perhaps, but Roberto, don't be too hard on confused creationists. I've been there, and it's a difficult place to be. Let's face it, a lot of perfectly intelligent people who don't have scientific minds (like yours truly) and who've been the recipient of bad teaching from both evolutionists and creationists just don't know what to think, and falsely believe they have to make a choice between God and science.

Take it from one who's been on the receiving end of the eye rolls: A little patient guidance does a lot more good.

What is this?

Each year PFM honors a man or woman who models the life and legacy of William Wilberforce -- a person who applies biblical truth to right wrongs, overcome adversity, uphold human dignity and work towards redeeming, in some way, a piece of what has gone wrong with the world. It is fitting that on the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce's achievement in abolishing the slave trade in the British Empire, Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission, who has devoted his time and energy to fighing modern-day slavery and human oppression, is honored as this year's recipient. Click on today's BreakPoint commentary to read more about Gary, IJM, and what you can do to "loose the chains of injustice."

(Don't forget you can get a free e-mail subscription to the daily commentaries by clicking here.)

What is this?

In preparation for a visit by Catherine the Great to the Crimea, her minister Grigori Potemkin -- so the story goes -- erected a series of fake villages, often little more than facades, along the road she would travel. The goal was to impress Catherine with the value of her new possessions.

I thought about Grigori Alexsandrovich while I watched Friends of God: A Road Trip With Alexandra Pelosi last night on HBO. Actually, I thought about the criticisms of the film I had read.

Her critics didn't accuse Pelosi, the youngest daughter of the Speaker of the House, of animus towards her subject, American Evangelicals. They couldn't, especially after she told the New York Times that

I believe in the culture war . . . And you know what? If I have to take a side in the culture war I'll take their side [conservative Evangelicals]. Because if you give me the choice of Paris Hilton or Jesus, I'll take Jesus.

Instead, the criticism centered around Pelosi's choice of Evangelicals. As one critic, who called the film a "fascinating and entertaining piece," put it, "a lot of people [in the movie] are clearly the fringe people of the evangelical community."

Fringe, as in a "marginal or peripheral part"? That depends in your definition of "marginal" and "peripheral." I recognized every one of the folks in Pelosi's films and that recognition wasn't rooted in some distant or long-repressed memory. On the contrary, the aesthetics being labeled "fringe" will be familiar to anyone who has ever attended a Christian Booksellers Association (CBA) convention, browsed in a Christian bookstore, or gone through the mail here at BreakPoint.

As you may know, Ted Haggard, the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), plays Virgil to Pelosi's Dante in the film. As you may also know, at one point, Haggard tells Pelosi, "You know, all the surveys say that evangelicals have the best sex life of any other group." After Pelosi replies, "No way," Haggard asks some church members for confirmation which they, albeit sheepishly, provide.

While, in light of what subsequently happened, Haggard's prominence in the film is, well, unfortunate, it's not a cheap shot. Haggard volunteered this ultimately ironic tidbit and, besides, he's hardly the only Evangelical who has used this factoid as part of their case for Evangelical faith. Punto y aparte.

What is this?

It's nice to see an editorial like this in the New York Times. It's what Prison Fellowship has been saying for years: that mandatory sentencing has pushed the nation's prison system into a quagmire and we must be proactive to dig it out. The editorial explains:

After a tenfold increase in the nation’s prison population — and a corrections price tag that exceeds $60 billion a year — the states have often been forced to choose between building new prisons or new schools. Worse still, the country has created a growing felon caste, now more than 16 million strong, of felons and ex-felons, who are often driven back to prison by policies that make it impossible for them to find jobs, housing or education.

Congress could begin to address this problem by passing the Second Chance Act, which would offer support services for people who are leaving prison. But it would take more than one new law to undo 30 years of damage.

Here are a few more practical suggestions.

What is this?

If this doesn't shatter your heart, you don't have one (H/T Catherina):

Srey was rescued from the life of a sex slave by Somaly Mam, a former prostitute who runs shelters for the victims of Cambodia's sex trade. Somaly has rescued 53 children, so far. Many of them have profound psychological trauma. Some clearly are mentally ill. ...

"A lot of them, when they arrive, have psychological problems ... very big problems. ... And they never have love by the people, by their parents," Somaly said.

One girl at Somaly's shelter appears especially disturbed. She was rescued after being imprisoned for two years in a cage, where she was repeatedly raped.

She needs psychiatric care, but there is none available. Somaly says she does her best to give this girl love and support, but that it's not easy with so many other needy children around.

Somaly herself suffered terrible ordeals when she worked the streets, including seeing her best friend murdered. She is determined to build something positive out of so much despair.

A little Googling turned up evidence of the terrible price Somaly and her family have had to pay for helping these desperate girls. It also turned up the website for Somaly's organization, complete with instructions on how to donate to this vital work.

What is this?

I just saw a news article stating that some letters written by Anne Frank's father, Otto, have surfaced and will be released next month. Evidently, they show him seeking ways to escape to the US or Cuba. I'll look forward to learning more once the letters are published.

On a related topic, 41% of Britons believe that an event like the Holocaust could happen in Britain today due to the "depth of intolerance and prejudice." Jewish groups are warning that anti-Semitism is on the rise all over the world, including in the US. Do you think a Jewish Holocaust could happen here? Do you think Christians or Muslims could face a similar fate? Why or why not?

What is this?

1. Rehab covers a multitude of sins. I was bemused to see this morning that Grey's Anatomy actor Isaiah Washington had to go to rehab -- not for drinking or drugs, but for using a derogatory word for homosexuals (first during a fight on the set, then in discussing the fight at the Golden Globe Awards, for those who have lives above fluff pieces from Hollywood). Now, I can see checking into rehab if, as in Mel Gibson's case, your words reveal a serious drinking problem, but rehab simply and solely for naughty words? Not to be alarmist, but are we perhaps looking at the beginnings of a push for mandatory counseling for hate speech -- and if so, what happens when the definition of "hate speech" broadens, as it very likely will?

And another thought: Could it be that going to rehab -- especially because it looks good to the world and, again, has been made almost mandatory -- is starting to take the place of genuine remorse and repentance?

(Incidentally, for those of you who read Diane's report on the new Dakota Fanning film, scroll down a little on the page I just linked to for more on that.)

2. Archie lives? I was intrigued last night during Friday Night Lights by a disagreement between the town football coach and his wife when she wanted to go to work for a local politician who happened to be a lesbian. Although the husband registered mild discomfort, the wife went ahead and signed up anyway because she liked the woman's education plan. But it's the first part of that sentence that really surprised me. Coach Taylor has thus far been portrayed as a decent, likeable man and has become a great favorite with the show's audience. In this media climate (see item #1), I'm stunned to think that such a character would be allowed to dissent from the Hollywood party line on this issue. Is he being forced into one what might call the Archie Bunker role, or is he actually going to show that civil people can disagree about homosexuality? It should be fascinating to see where the show goes with this -- particularly as faith often plays at least some sort of a role in the storylines -- and what audience and critical reaction will be (so far, better than I expected).

Fascinating, that is, for those of us with no lives. :-)

What is this?

8. Invest in the life of an ex-offender re-entering society. Use the funds to begin a mentoring program through your church or small-group. Or become involved in a local aftercare program, such as this one, for pre-release inmates. The money will be spent helping ex-offenders get back on their feet and will provide them with a loving mentor to walk with them along the way who will provide biblical counsel.

9. Donate the funds to charitable organizations, such as this one, which seek to provide assistance to widows and their families. There are many other organizations out there which seek to meet the needs of believing and non-believing women alike.

What is this?

"Nothing enters the mind without having an effect for good or evil. There are many things we need not see or know, and are better off not seeing or knowing." -- Dallas Willard

Each reader obviously must decide how best to apply this. For me, one application relates to what TV shows and movies I choose to watch. For instance, I can't imagine the "value" of seeing the new Dakota Fanning film which contains child rape scenes. I agree with Paul Petersen (former child star on The Donna Reed Show) that NOTHING justifies putting this child actor in such a situation. What were her parents thinking? (Other than how much $$$$ they'll make by exploiting their daughter!)

What is this?

Use the $100 to buy baby clothes, disposable diapers, and a car seat, then donate them to your local Choose Life organization, which offers such items to women who choose to keep their babies rather than have abortions. It's one thing to talk about being pro-life, another to provide the practical assistance that many women and babies need.

What is this?

Today's BreakPoint commentary, about the 43-year-old college professor who had two surprise pregnancies--numbers 5 and 6--evoked two memories from 20 years ago. First, I'm reminded of how strongly I felt my privacy was violated when I sat in my obstetricians's office for the first time, married and newly pregnant, while a nurse asked one unnecessary question after another--such as "Was this pregnancy planned?" Well, what business was that of anyone but my husband and me? It became clear that many of these questions were being asked, not because they had anything to do with my care, but because someone--the government, reseachers, whoever--liked to keep track of these things. I resented having my marital privacy pried into (and my time wasted--these questions were asked more than once by various other people involved in my care).

Second, the commentary reminded me of a newspaper column written more than 20 years by an Idaho columnist whose name I no longer remember. She was pro-abortion and, I believe, making some comment on Roe v. Wade, and of how pro-life counselors urge young, unmarried women to consider adoption. She herself was an adoptive mother, and her question was: Why is it considered socially unacceptable, even shocking, for married couples to offer babies for adoption? After all, she noted, married couples (like unmarried teens) are sometimes too poor to add another baby to their families, and there are plenty of couples who would love to adopt these infants. Like her.

I'm sure (and hoping) bloggers will weigh in on the theological implications of doing this (J&K--looking forward to hearing your thoughts!). The Idaho columnist's point was that since married couples offering their babies for adoption is not socially acceptable, some couples--already feeling overwhelmed by four or five kids--quietly abort rather than shock the neighbors with their "heartless" decision to give away their baby. As an adoptive mom, she thought that was a pity.

What is this?