Encounters of the Baby Kind

So Grandma and I took my daughter on her first trip to the mall. Everyone duly proclaimed her cute or beautiful. I'm biased, she's the cutest baby in the world. We were in a national chain store of the "stink 'em-smell 'em-good 'em" kind as I pushed the stroller past these two teenaged girls; they looked to be about 15 or 16. They saw me and did the "Awww! How cute!" thing, and then one asked, "How old?"
"Almost 12 weeks," I replied in a proud-mommy fashion. Then instead of the typical responses of more aw-ing or comments on how little she is (she seems big to me, but she was quite small when she was born), I received a funny look from the two girls--something akin to disgust. I stood there smiling bewilderedly, waiting, because I could sense there was something coming next. Then one commented about my size. Let me insert here that I didn't look very pregnant when I was pregnant, and when my little girl came out, there was no mistaking me to be pregnant any longer. If this is not your experience, I apologize--I had nothing to do with it. Anyway, the long and short of it is that the one girl was slightly miffed that after 11 weeks I looked like I do. She then proceeded to ask, "How'd you do it?" I said I didn't know. She then points to herself and says, "This is after 18 months." Uh, yeah, okay.
I felt rather awkward because I didn't even see that one coming. How could I have even guessed that the teenager shopping with her friend in the mall was a mother--of a toddler, no less? I casually ended the conversation and went to rejoin my mother-in-law.
I shouldn't be so naive. I grew up in a county which had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state, so it's not something new. I suppose what surprised me most was the blase manner in which the girl engaged the conversation. Like two moms in the park talking while the kids play on the swings.
Okay, here's where the moral of the story comes. The pithy, witty summary of the encounter. Mine forgot to show up for this blog post. I'm proud of the girl for having the baby. Good for her! I'm sad that she got pregnant when she was so young. I'm in my 30s and find it difficult to take care of a baby. I can't imagine doing it at half my age.
I guess I'll take the cheap way out for ending and quote Forrest Gump: "That's all I have to say about that."

Planned?

I have always been pro-life; over the years I have refined my position. When I was in junior high, I had a crush on a boy in my class. I knew he was adopted, but it never hit home to me until he casually mentioned that his mother could have aborted him instead of giving him up for adoption. That first solidified my pro-life position.

When I was younger I thought it was not great, but marginally acceptable to abort a baby if the life of the mother was at risk. Then I met some wonderful people who proved that one can work to save the life of both mother and child is the best option, and let God determine the outcome.

Recently I was mortified by my doctor. I took a pregnancy test. She came in, told me that the results were positive, then asked if this was planned. This question caught me off guard, as I wasn't sure what to say. It was not a matter of consciously trying, so I responded that it was not planned. Her next question was, "Do you want to continue?" Um, excuse me? Talk about being caught off- guard! I was hard-pressed to avoid saying, "Well DUH!" Later, I did make a comment about when the Lord choooses to send a gift, it's His timing. I don't remember exactly how I said it, but that was the main point.

I have mentioned this to other women who said they've had similar experiences, although mostly when they were older and considered an "at-risk pregnancy." Another person told me that OB-Gyns in Minnesota are required by law to inform the woman that she has two options--continue or not.

This got me to thinking: How many pregnancies are truly planned? There are those pre- and extra-marital relationships which result in "unwanted" pregnancies; however, there are those instances inside the proper boundaries of marriage where a pregnancy isn't "planned". It happens. The marriage rite addresses procreation of children. Even the child's verse says, "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage." Laura Ingalls Wilder mentions in The First Four Years that Rose was not planned, yet even she knew that it comes with the territory. Yet today's doctors are required to tell women that if a baby is not planned, not obsessively anticipated, it doesn't have to be part of love and marriage.

It flows from our post-modern thinking, I guess. Marriage is being redefined. Sex is separated from marriage. Babies don't have to be an outcome of sex if anyone doesn't want them to be. It makes me quote Lost and Found: You see the kids are wild, we just can't tame them, do we have a right to blame them?
We've done our job well. Remove everything from its intended purpose and what's the result? I think we're seeing the answer.

"I Protest!" He Said Revoltingly

Warning: the statements you are about to read may be considered radical by those who are radical.
We wonder what kind of environment we will leave our children. We will leave them the environment we create for them.
The lesson is simple biology. There is a male and a female, they mate and produce offspring. Humans must be the exception to the rule. There are still male and female humans; it’s just mating and producing offspring aren’t what they used to be. In times past, humans married to make it official: the expectation was that only after this step was procreation acceptable. Sure, there were aberrations from the start—Lamech and his two wives, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters, Judah and his daughter-in-law, and the list goes on.
Yet what of our children? Society has created new rules for marriage. Don’t bother: move in together, try it out for a time. If you have kids, so what? If you plan to make it legal, you can always change your mind. There will be no fault, no blame, just a judge who will help you split the assets equitably.
These new marriage rules even fudge when it comes to male and female. That’s just a trifle. If you want to go male/male, female/female that’s fine. If you want some combination—well, that might be taking it a bit too far. . .for now. . .we have to have morals, after all.
Then there’s the whole mating part. Why wait for marriage since it’s outmoded anyway? Embrace your sexuality. We’re all to sexy for our [insert noun here], so if you got it, flaunt it. Email it. Kiss your date goodnight somewhere other than the lips on the first date, even if you are only a pre-teen who still thinks you can be Miley or Selena in a year or two. Experiment. Please your partner or significant other as necessary. If it feels good, do it, is our mantra. Spouses are so passé.
Don’t forget about the offspring part. We no longer need offspring on “baby come when ready” terms. If the baby comes when the mother or father is not ready, kill it. If the baby cries too much after it comes, shake it to death or drown it (this, ironically is still illegal in most states). If the baby doesn’t come, manufacture it in a test tube, Petri dish, and surrogate womb. It still does take two to tango, so if half of the components are not available the natural way, beg or borrow the necessary components. No thought of the children who have to accept that they may never know their paternal inseminator, maternal donor, or even the reality of their conception. How does one think a child will react to this when he is older? Children have many familial issues growing up to begin with. How might this effect them?
It seems to me that global warming and cooling are not the only environmental issues we need to consider when pondering our children’s future. More importantly, we need to consider the familial environment we want for them. We can’t connect the dots whichever way we desire, for our sake and theirs.

Says Who?

It came up again today: there are those who assert that the liturgy is too hard, too complex, too stodgy, too whatever for children to learn. There are problems with this assessment. Children can learn the liturgy, and the neglect thereof is a slippery slope.
I have heard the stories—the Lutheran school children are having field day at a local park and want to end with chapel. The pastor says, “We didn’t bring our hymnals.” No problem, the children can do Matins a cappella, and they do it flawlessly there in the park. Beyond the stories, I have seen and heard elementary school children pray and sing Matins. I have seen and heard high school students pray and sing Evening Prayer. To the naysayers I say that it can be done.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to create a generation who do not know their past, nor are they building a connection to the historic church. For centuries the church has had liturgy. The Jews at the time of Jesus had a liturgy for Passover. The church at the time of Martin Luther had the propers and the ordinary of the mass in place. Why is this generation so bold as to think that the liturgy is now obsolete and we can invent something better, something more spiritual, something more entertaining than the liturgy? I guess this is no different than the baseball stadium which voted on a new song for the seventh inning stretch because “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” was passé and needed something better.
To neglect the teaching of the liturgy is to contribute to the “dumbing down” of America. We send our children the wrong message when we say that they are incapable of learning the liturgy. As we tell the children that they unable to learn it, they believe us. In years to come, they continue to believe they cannot learn it; therefore, they continue to make excuses for not learning it. It has begun to hit Lutheran colleges and seminaries where Lutheran pastors and teachers are formed; the students complain that chapel is dull because they are now expected to learn and do the liturgy, but it is too hard and too boring. They are merely repeating as adults what they were taught as children.
We also send our children the wrong message by implying there is no benefit in learning something so complex as the liturgy. Frankly, the liturgy is quite simple to learn; it merely takes practice. Could it be that the truth is that the adults have not the patience nor desire to take the time to practice and teach the liturgy? This attitude is reflected in the children who then make the connection that there is no benefit in learning what it is we do at church; therefore, it is of no benefit that we do church.
The liturgy is the framework of divine worship. To make it up as we go along is to move away from the understanding of what happens in the worship service. No longer is it what God does for us, it becomes what we do for God. To assert then that the learning or neglect of the liturgy is of no consequence is to move ourselves away from a Christ-centered focus to a self-centered focus. This is neither right nor safe.

Ecumenical Children

According to the news story, a local woman is considered the first female “Catholic” priestess to give birth. She gave birth to a boy on Wednesday. According to the story, she is part of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion (ECC), which is not recognized by the pope. I guess there is much Roman Catholic doctrine to which the ECC does not hold.
Incidentally, the priestess’ husband is a pastor at a United Church of Christ congregation, which makes their son truly ecumenical.

Hypothetical

It is common for doctors to notify pregnant women when it is determined that the enwombed one has Down Syndrome. The doctor then informs the woman that she can abort if she wishes. What if. . .
Fast forward to a time when the aborting of a Down Syndrome child becomes the norm. Every woman would be subjected to the testing and instructed to abort if the test comes back positive. Then what? What if then a test is developed which determines Autism. If the abortion of one is mandated or normed, then it would follow that positive results for Autism would lead to an abortion. What next? Then a test for IQ? Then a test for. . . What next--or should I say who next?
If we recommend killing enwombed babies because they have three copies of chromosome 21 instead of two, why not a one that has a defect in a gene (like Fragile X)? Why not anyone who has the potential to not reach an IQ higher than 90? Why 90? Maybe 100? Or 110? Or. . .
I think you see where I'm going with this. If it starts, where does it stop? How can we even dare to say that a child who will not be "normal" does not have the right to live? How can we even dare to define "normal"? We cannot dare either, for we know that if we define "normal" and assert that a child who does not fit that definition shall not be granted life; there will come a day when either we will have our life revoked for not being "normal", or we will ultimately exclude all children from being born.
We must speak up.