After Matthew was diagnosed, my husband and I did decide not to have another child (i.e. not to try and conceive another child) because we knew we would have to, by necessity, devote a great deal of attention to Matthew and we didn't think it would be fair to bring another child into that situation. I was 35 when I had Matthew, and I got pregnant after some brief infertility treatment (I took a round of Clomid).

However, if I had gotten pregnant again, we would have welcomed that child into our family and done the best we could.

No man is an island, Jason.

And no one's primary purpose is to develop the virtue of others. Each person's primary purpose is to worship God and enjoy Him forever.

Lee, thanks for the kudos, but they really go to the developers of the "Perspectives in the World Christian Movement" class:

http://www.perspectives.org/site/pp.aspx?c=eqLLI0OFKrF&b=2806295

Todd and I are taking it at our church. It's both blowing and expanding my mind. God is Awesome!!!

Not that what you say isn't correct, Ellen. Just that this is another aspect.

How might the family, the community, the people group be inproved, etc, Ellen? Well it doesn't sound like it would feel all that good, the thought that one's primary mission in life might be to increase everyone else's virtue by making them take care of oneself.

Bravo, Ellen, bravo; I should have said something like "not merely, reductively in groups". And relationships can of course include more than two persons. God is both the ultimate lumper and the ultimate splitter, able to deal with us collectively and singly, with no loss of focus. Me, I get my head inside some code and I can completely ignore the call that dinner is ready. (An awesome cook, too; like I said, I should really be missing multiple ribs to justify receiving a helpmeet as incredible as she is.) The abilities of God, who can differentiate and integrate simultaneously in His head, are too wonderful for me.

And I can only marvel at the sense of loss He must so often feel. And, the joy too.

"God is pro-life, and therefore opposes the kind of blame-shifting Gina pointed out originally, precisely because (as you pointed out) God thinks of us not in groups but as individuals."

I agree with you, Lee, that God does value us individually, but He also sees us in groups and values the diversity of differing cultures. Through Abraham, God promised to "bless all the peoples." (Gen. 12:1-3) Jesus says to go to "all the peoples and make disciples." (Matt 28:19) A "people group" at it's most basic is a large, extended family.

The understanding that each person is equal before God, gave rise to the understanding of personal accountability before the Almighty, then to democracy and on to political and religious freedom. But too much of a focus on individuality has become today's extreme Western Individualism. Such individualism has led many to think that individual understanding or preference supersedes all other considerations. Hence, "I don't think I'm capable of caring for an extra-needs child along with the children I've already got" becomes, for many, a reasonable basis for terminating a pregnancy. However, what about the consideration of what that growing child will contribute to the family? How might the family and the community - the people group - be improved by welcoming and nurturing each individual into the group?

So while God does value each of us individually, he also values each of us as a member within our families, our communities, and our people group. Through one family, Abraham's, God chose to bless all the families to all the ends of the earth. And at the end of history there will be "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne" worshiping the Lamb who was slain. (Rev. 7:9-10) Since there is an emphasis in the Bible on God's blessing being through and to people *groups*, we should pay attention and follow suit.

.
Lee, I agree with you, completely.

Lee, "Ruthlessly" means literally "without mercy". It can also imply "severity" and so is an ambiguous word as there are times when severity is the proper course. Remorselessly means literally "Without sense of guilt or remorse". However it is often used in the place of "ruthless" and is therefore easily confused.

Churchill was "ruthless"(extremely severe) on many occasions. Stalin was "Remorseless"(had no "remorse" at least as far as we can tell).

Gina, I've conveyed your gracious invitation.

Kevin, thank you tremendously for your prayer and your expression of faith.

Jason, you're right - my iron needs sharpening from your iron. I'm very grateful for your kind opposition.

Rolley, you're so amazingly gentle. A lot of people, including me (if I were to have been less emotional and more objective), would have replied with "Don't confuse a sociology question ("guys like us, incredible nurse-wives like them") with a theology question." But instead, you agree with me and then gently remind me that a God able to track every hair on every head (Matthew 10:30, Luke 12:7) and opens and will close the entire cosmos (Hebrews 1:10-12, among others) is perfectly capable of dealing with all the relationships among all 7 billion humans on Earth by treating each relationship individually. We seek patterns, try to formulate "rules" and "principles" (as Will Smith's character did in the movie "Hitch"), but He has no need - any more than the "laws" of physics applied when He decided to walk on water. So thank you, again and again, for leading me by the hand back to reality.

But I do believe, Rolley, that I'm thinking theologically when I say that God is pro-life, and therefore opposes the kind of blame-shifting Gina pointed out originally, precisely because (as you pointed out) God thinks of us not in groups but as individuals. So He doesn't see "a fetus with genetic defects" - He sees a unique person. He doesn't see siblings who would suffer like someone else suffered - He sees persons whose character is forged one life experience at a time. And He sees the future with perfect clarity, while we can only speculate based on probabilities and looking through time in only one direction. So Gina is absolutely right (as is almost always the case) that the article she quoted is proposing a horror. While I don't want to fall into the trap of Godwin's Law that states that all arguments on the Internet end with invoking the Nazis, it's difficult to see Gina's phrase "should be ruthlessly eliminated" and not think of the Final Solution. I confess I'm going to ponder the difference, if any, between "ruthlessly" and "remorselessly", but it's interesting (in a terrifying way) to wonder if such acts as described in the NYT article always and necessarily involve a shutting-off of one's emotions, to the point that those who promote the actions are not as fully human (or if you prefer, as fully "actualized", to use Mazlow's term) as those who oppose those actions and are willing to feel the pain of all involved in the situation.

Oops, my geek alarm just went off. Back to the megabytes. Thanks again to all.

.
You’re right: “no one else would do”.

But --hopefully not to put too fine a point on it-- God didn’t choose our specific helpmeets (your Vicki or my Eleanor) for us from a pool of candidates any more than He created Eve as an afterthought for lonely Adam.

He who calls every star – and I daresay every boson – by name, thereby distinguishing each from the other at a level of such fantastic detail as to defy comprehension, tailor-made our specific helpmeets perfect for us prior to their being found in “the ranks of those trained and highly-skilled in the caring arts”.

But it was subsequent, meticulous preparation and orchestration that put them in such ranks, in order that in *every* respect –i.e., even with respect to our fallenness, which was not part of the Creator’s original design-- our particular helpers might be entirely “meet” for us.

Recall that Adam was sinless when Eve was fashioned from his rib. But God knew, before the fall, that Adam would sin, for Christ was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (i.e., on account of foreseen sin; Rev 13:8). The point being, God knew the stars and the bosons and the Adams and the Lees and the Rolleys would careen hopelessly out of their orbits into chaos if He did not provide helps wholly meet for each situation.

Enter holy matrimony.

It is no coincidence that the Holy Spirit, who superimposes His very-present, perfect help on the original-but-now-sin-marred-template, is Himself called The Helper and by His work makes us the bride of Christ, the Second Adam.

But there is due process, and this is it: Vicki was conceived for you in the mind of God before you had a rib, which is to say before you were made; and then was fashioned from your rib after you were made, which is to say, in response to your desire for that perfect companion; and then was fashioned from the ignoble clay of her fallen mother, Eve, so that in the Potter’s hands she might, even from ignoble dust, be made a vessel of honor to bear, repeatedly, the balm of Gilead to your need, that you might become, by that Great Physician who uses earthly nurses, increasingly whole.

And likewise I, by my beloved Eleanor.

Lee, I have to be argumentative with you. It's for your own good.

I wasn't aware of that story. I did as requested and said a prayer that he'll find his way spiritually. Judging from that story, something tells me God has a use in mind for him yet.

For the sake of the English majors and other non-techie types in the audience, I do try to keep the geekiness to a minimum, but since you're kinda asking: versions of Android are named for foods that are sweet, and each new version begins with the next letter of the alphabet: Cupcake, Donut, Éclair, Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb, Ice Cream Sandwich (Kevin's detested "ICS"), and Jelly Bean. "Froyo" does indeed remind us of "Frodo", but is actually a contraction of "Frozen yogurt". And, dear Ellen, your new device probably came with a new one. We look forward to you being able to comment more easily and therefore perhaps more frequently, if you can.

So there ya go. I'm sending my inner geek back to his basement that has all the Star Wars and LOTR posters on the walls.

And I have really, really hesitated to include this, especially since I know Ellen is a mother, and Tina is too, plus several here are fathers, and this kind of thing can get stuck in a person's mind such that they wonder "Could that happen to me, too??!?" It can happen in spite of any common sense, statistical explanations, Scriptural assurances and well-meaning assurances. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, much less my nearest and dearest friends. But, I think it's time you knew a bit more about my qualifications for speaking on this topic with seeming authority. Please know that there is far more to the story than this. If you ponder it a bit, you can perhaps begin to see why I reach out this blog so often as a source of stress relief (and that most definitely includes you, Jason my dear brother-friend, even at your most argumentative). Please, precious sisters and brothers, do ***NOT*** worry that this might happen to you, as some of our local friends have done. And please notice how God never leaves, nor forsakes.

http://vickivents.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-happens-when-old-vortex-re-surfaces.html

One additional tidbit: an event like that generates bills around half a million dollars in the currency of a decade ago, immediately, not including the longer-term therapies to come, and the paperwork involved is (literally, ironically, and probably not coincidentally) six feet deep. I carry two laptops with me in my travels around the world; one for work, and another for closely tracking our finances that were so perturbed by this. (I have Wal-Mart holding a position for me as a greeter.) I'm scanning all the bills to PDF so we don't have file boxes of paper stacked in the house; organizing the PDFs is another task for lonely nights in my hotel rooms. But God is still good, always was, and always will be.

Rolley, a theological question for you, when you have a moment, and in view of the profession of your beloved Eleanor (who is an absolutely delightful individual with whom I wish I could spend more facetime): When God designs individuals to be delightfully and refreshingly unique (like you) or certifiably peculiar and thankfully rare (like me), does He then choose helpmeets for them from the ranks of those trained and highly skilled in the caring arts because no one else would do? I keep thinking Adam lost only one rib, but I should be missing three or four.

Naw, I'm not doomed. It just means that I've got you all in my pocket! I can even post comments from this thing! Woo hoo!

Aw, man... I just opened an Android player for my birthday today. Am I doomed, Lee? ;)

No, your "miscomment" didn't chase me away; I've been reading but just haven't commented!

I appreciate the discussion that's been going on here. I think we all realize there aren't any easy answers to the questions I raised.

And since I don't do Android, I'm probably better off not knowing the difference between Froyo and Gingerbread. That actually sounds like something that came out of the Lord of the Rings! :-)

Lee, or Habeeb or whatever your name really is, that line "People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes" rather reminds me of "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses." Except it is somewhat better managed then workhouses now although that could be because there is more money to throw around.

In any case the statement "there needs to be a state sponsored safety net" is different from "state sponsored safety nets are the ideal way to handle such things."
The fact is that non-state sources didn't do so well in staving off poverty before the welfare state. At least not directly. The best that can be said for this argument is that the commercial and technological revolution of the 1800's made sure that there would be plenty of money to play with one way or another and we are finally profiting from the fruits of our ancestors labor which in the early twentieth century went mostly toward, er, "reducing the surplus population". Be that as it may, at the time when most philanthropy was in private hands there was considerably more and more extreme poverty.

Kevin, two things about Android, and then I'll get back on track. First is that I have to carry two smartphones, one personal and the other for work, and one has Froyo while the other has Gingerbread. (For anyone else reading, if you don't know, be grateful.) And one has Swype, while the other does not. I hope my two different carriers will upgrade at least one device to ICS by the time you're running whatever follows Jelly Bean. And I'd be thrilled to have two keyboards where the keys for numbers and symbols were in the same location. So while I understand your frustration, I long to actually experience it someday.

Back to our original discussion - I'm not trying to pile on here, but I read this article this morning (and my last name isn't "Habeeb" - nor "Quod", for that matter), and it perfectly captured what I was trying so inelegantly to say:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329505/god-mammon-and-leviathan-lee-habeeb

In fact, there are profound implications in that article for ministries like PFM, which exist precisely because government-run institutions (prisons and jails) do such a poor job of actually caring for the people held in them. But I'll leave it to the far-more-qualified-than-I-am PFM employees themselves to expound upon that theme.

And the Dennis Prager speech that's found in a link near the end of the first page - it's priceless indeed.