Amanda and I love babies. Especially our own. So, we usually end up with a new one about every two years. This spacing is a little closer together than what, as far as I can tell, is culturally acceptable. So, we invariably get the "Was this, um, expected?" question each time we announce our big news. It comes in a few different flavors, but the underlying message is basically, "You couldn't possibly want this many kids, this close together, so something in the family planning department must have gone horribly awry. Right?"
Normally I just respond with a polite something or other about how we're richly blessed, but I think with the next go round1 I'll likely go on the offensive. "Oh, did you mean to have more than one TV?" I'll ask. "I mean, they're so expensive, and they can take up so much of your time. I guess I can see why you'd like to have one around, but why would you want to have another one?"
I mean, seriously. Anyone in their right mind would gladly take a house full of children over a house full of TVs, right?
Barack Obama, speaking about sex education:
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information.
- Ben Smith, emphasis mine
In the same speech, Obama said that women must have the right to an abortion. From the same article:
"This is an example where good people can disagree," the Illinois senator said. "The question then is, are there areas that we can agree to that everybody can get behind? We can all agree that we want to reduce teen pregnancies. We can all agree that we want to make sure that adoption is a viable option."
Yep. We can all agree that reducing teen pregnancies is good. We can all agree that adoption should be a viable option. We can all agree that women should be able to kill babies "if they make a mistake." Wait. Maybe not that last one.
Which "values and morals" BHO is teaching his daughters? Apparently in his "belief system" it is OK to kill a child because its conception was a "mistake." Better to kill a child than for its mother to be "punished" by its existence.
Can someone please explain to me how a Christian could vote for this guy? I'm by no means a McCain supporter, but it blows me away that someone who loves God and studies his Word (Ps 127:3, for example) could vote for this guy with a clean conscience. If you are one such Christian, I really would like to hear your thoughts on this one. I just don't get it.
This article should scare you. It scares me.
What would you do if three armed Sheriff's deputies showed up at your door, demanding that you surrender your six week old child because of a court order that opposes your sincerely held religious beliefs? What if they held him in their custody for six days, and your only recourse was to compromise on your beliefs? What if some enraged judge ruled that he was to be placed in foster care, not because he was in immediate danger (as the law requires), but because she disagreed with your religious beliefs and thought that *she* knew what was best for your own child?
This nightmare scenario played out this week in Omaha for Josue and Maray Anaya and their six week old son, Joel. Their offense, which apparently warranted having their child forcefully taken from their custody by agents of the state, was to refuse to submit their newborn son to the state's mandatory Newborn Screening program. The screening program detects a variety of genetic disorders and requires blood to be drawn from the baby. The Anayas' religious beliefs include a literal interpretation of certain Old Testament passages that state that the "life" of a person is in their blood. Acting according to their beliefs, the Anayas refused to submit their son to the state mandated testing.
This was, at least according to one judge, enough of an "offense" to have their baby taken from them. Furthermore, thanks to grandstanding and agenda-driven actions by Douglas County Juvenile Court Judge Elizabeth Crnkovich, it was enough to keep him away from his family for nearly a week. Continue reading this post »
Come on. Is it really that much worse than our current system?
Consider yourself warned…
I just started reading A Full Quiver, by Rick and Jan Hess. The subtitle is "Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ," and the focus, as I understand it so far, is on thinking about children the way God thinks about them, rather than how the World thinks about them. As I progress through the book, you can expect some of my thoughts and observations to make their way into blog format.
As you anxiously await further musings on this topic, consider the following questions from the book:
Would you rather win one million dollars in the lottery or have another child?
–or–
Would you rather win ten thousand dollars in the lottery or have another child?
–or–
How much would God have to pay you to convince you to have another child?!?
For me, these questions were helpful in "diagnosing" my perspective on children. Though it wasn't in the book, one more question dawned on me that really cleared things up:
If you already have children (or a child), which of them would you be willing to sell back to God for one million dollars?
If that question is preposterous and offensive, then why are we OK with the idea of forfeiting "not-yet-conceived children," or even going to extreme measures in order to eliminate the possibility of having more kids? If we have a "Children are a blessing, but…" mindset, where can we logically draw a line between enough and too many? If God calls children a blessing, and it is God's business to decide how and when to give this blessing, it seems biblically inconsistent that we would take the reins on this issue and decide to limit the number of blessings we are willing to receive.
If we can't trust God to manage the number of children he decides to bless us with, what can we trust him to be in control of?
More on this later…
Amanda and I remind each other all the time that our goal in raising Pete is, by God's grace, to take this cute, little, snuggly boy and turn him into a man who can protect, provide for, and lead a family someday. The clock continues to tick, and we keep looking for ways to be intentional in cultivating the virtues we hope he will someday possess when he has grown into a man.
One of the primary values we are teaching him is that men should protect and defend what is beautiful, especially women, even at great cost to themselves. We are always on the look-out for opportunities where we can teach Pete this concept experientially. A few months back, Pete's friend Courtney had a tough time at Children's Church with some of the rougher kids in the room. Her mom, Ann, told Pete's mom, and Pete's mom told Pete what had happened, and asked Pete to keep an eye on Courtney. Pete went in and found a couple of empty seats, and then he turned to Courtney and said, "You can sit by me, Courtney. I'll protect you." And he did.
Today, Amanda and the kids spent a morning at the zoo with the Mom-to-mom troupe. One of the exhibits there includes a small fire station, with a small fire truck that kids can climb around on. When the group got there a bunch of *big kids* (i.e. 5 and 6 year old boys) were climbing-and-jumping-and-yelling, in and around the truck. When they finally left, Courtney turned to her mom and said, "I'm glad there aren't any more boys on the fire truck." Ann corrected her, noting that Pete was still playing on the truck. "Oh, Pete doesn't count. He protects me."
Guess who's picking up popsicles on his way home from work tonight…
We have our ultrasound tomorrow afternoon, at which time we will *hopefully* find out if we're having a boy or a girl. Of course, Pete told us more than a month ago that "it's a girl, and don't argue with me about that." He has since changed his mind, and he gets offended if you refer to the baby just as "the baby." If you commit this grave error, Pete will sternly reprimand you and ask that you refer to the baby as "Baby Henry."
Yesterday, Amanda got her weekly update from babycenter.com showing the development of the child. She left her computer to go check on one of the millions of things moms check on during the day, and Pete was happy to take her place in front of the screen.
Upon seeing this picture, Pete called Amanda back into the room. "Look," he said, "Baby Henry's doing a sleeper hold with his legs! Isn't that cute?" He went on to tell her that she doesn't know about sleeper holds, but that he does because daddy showed him what a sleeper hold was a couple of days ago.
What? Like I could send him off to his first summer of VBS without first teaching him how to administer a sleeper hold. What kind of father do you think I am?
Second thoughts...
...Pete also informed Amanda that Baby Henry was naked, and that she should give him some jammies because it looks like he's sleeping. I don't think Pete quite gets it that the picture on the screen isn't *really* a picture of *our* baby. Still, that's pretty cute.
RSS 2.0
