(Prolifer)ations 8-3-09

by Kelli

Spotlighting important information gleaned from other pro-life blogs...

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpg

  • ProWomanProLife finds research that flies in the face of "modern, enlightened wisdom." A UK Daily Mail article states:

    More than a third of working mothers want to quit their jobs to look after their children, research suggests....

    A further 6 in 10 would like to reduce their hours to spend more time with their young ones, the Government-backed study found. Less than a 5th said they would choose to increase their hours if there was good affordable childcare available.

    The findings fly in the face of Government claims that women would want to go back to work if they could find decent childcare.

    Brigitte from PWPL responds, "Tsk, tsk, tsk. Mothers disagree with politicians and child-care activists. How annoying for the child-care activists...."

  • Albert Mohler comments on a Christianity Today article regarding early marriage and abstinence:

    [Author] Mark Regnerus... points to a concern peculiar to American evangelicalism. "The ratio of devoutly Christian young women to men is far from even. Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men. This is the elephant in the corner of almost every congregation - a shortage of young Christian men."...


    As Regnerus also notes, men often delay marriage believing that they can always marry when ever they are "ready." Meanwhile, their evangelical sisters are often very ready for marriage, even as they watch their prospects for both marriage and fertility falling.

    All of this points to the fact that the delay of marriage has far more to do with the patterns of life adopted by many, if not most, evangelical young men, rather than those chosen by young women. Yet, at the same time, the parents of both young men and young women can, by either intention or default, make it difficult for their children to marry....

    ... As men and women, we are made for marriage. As Christians, those not called to celibacy are called to demonstrate our discipleship through honoring the Creator's intention by directing sexual desire and reproductive capacity into a commitment to marriage...

    Regnerus certainly drives the point home when he argues that "when people wait until their mid-to-late 20s to marry, it is unreasonable to expect them to refrain from sex." Nevertheless, Christians are called to a moral standard that, by any secular standard, it is profoundly unreasonable. I would prefer to argue that the delay of marriage is unwise, not only because of the demonstrated risk of sexual immorality, but because of the loss of so much God gives to us in marriage.

  • MIntheGap blogs about the ever-changing terms used to dehumanize the unborn child:
    [T]he name "Fertilized Egg" has been used to describe a baby, in an attempt to imply that the baby is not human. It would be no more correct to call the baby a "Modified Sperm" - because it's a new, unique individual.

    In Physician magazine, Dr. Eugene Diamond explains the reason for this terminology twisting:

    Prior to 1976, a "contraceptive" was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of a sperm and ovum. In 1976 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, realizing that this definition didn't help its political agenda, arbitrarily changed the definition.

    A contraceptive now meant anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs 6 or 7 days after fertilization. Conception, as defined by Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary [27th edition], became "the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst."

    The hidden agenda in the ACOG's redefinition of "contraceptive" was to blur the distinction between agent preventing fertilization and those preventing implantation of the week-old embryo. Specifically, abortifacients such as IUDs, combination pills, minipills, progestin-only pills, injectables such as Provera and , more recently, implantables such as Norplant, all are contraceptives by this definition.

    The idea is this: if we can change the terminology, then we can use it to convince people to do what they usually wouldn't.

  • [Photo attribution: albertmohler.com]


    "The ratio of devoutly Christian young women to men is far from even. Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men."


    And all the single young devoutly Christen men said, "Wooo! Wooo! Thank you Jesus!

    Now if these single Christian guys were really devout, they would demonstrate it by making the selfless effort to go out and win some more single men into the kingdom of God and thereby resolve the imbalance.

    Another possible solution might a reconsideration of polygamy. The 'book' does not prohibit the practice in either the old or new testament.

    The only indirect reference is in the qualifications for elders, deacons etc. "A husband of one wife [at a time]."

    From the male point of the view the inherrent flaw in polygamy is the problem of more than one mother in law, unless you are married to sisters, but that scenario would also present it's own unique difficulties.

    On second thought, forget the polygamy idea.

    Or they could sponsor some single devout Christian Chinese and Korean men to immigrate to the United States or some of the single devout Christian ladies could volunteer to serve in international missions in those demographically imbalanced countries and leet nature take it's course.

    By the way I am sure all the single devout men and women are not all 'young'.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at August 3, 2009 6:44 PM

    I hated leaving my baby with my mother-in-law when my maternity leave was up but my husband was convinced we couldn't afford for me not to work. I was miserably unhappy...longing for my child.

    I got laid off a few months ago and not only are we okay financially but I am FINALLY RAISING MY SON instead of feeling like I was just some surrogate. I have always said the feminists got it wrong...women long for their children. Its what God intended! You can't deny the bond before birth and you can't deny it after birth! I love being a stay at home mom!!!!

    Posted by: Sydney M at August 3, 2009 8:33 PM

    Sydney, if you're thinking of the second-wave feminists (like, from the '70s, the stereotype most common in these parts), that might be a fair assessment.

    All the current feminists I know (ages late 20s to mid-40s, probably) advocate doing what YOU really want to do. That includes my PhD friend who left academia and started a home business (which includes an extremely feminist blog) because she wanted to spend time with her child.

    But it also includes someone I worked with who was so bored on her mat leave that she voluntarily came back to work after 4 months. She had a live-in family member who was a great nanny, so for her the decision was a lot easier.

    Just please don't say that all women "long for their children." Some women don't, and sometimes everyone's better off if their contact is limited anyway.

    That said, I'm genuinely glad that circumstances allowed you to do what you really wanted. It's great to hear stories of people finding the niche in life they feel they were made for.

    I'm at a weird crossroads, in terms of my future direction in life in a few ways, and I wish I had the confidence about something the way you obviously do about your choice.

    Posted by: Terezia at August 3, 2009 10:58 PM

    Amen, Sidney! Me, too! :)

    Posted by: Pamela at August 3, 2009 11:06 PM

    Did you say you think Sebellius is good looking??
    Blaaahck*** I can't wrap my mind around anything lovely in a woman who promotes the killing of babies in the womb.

    Posted by: truthseeker at August 3, 2009 11:29 PM

    I am a SAHM and totally agree with what you said! My first son was put in daycare while I taught Middle School. It tore my heart out. When I was pregnant again I just couldn't leave another babe. :)

    God has wired women to nurture and long to be with and raise their children. Do women actually admit they don't??

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 4, 2009 6:56 AM

    I personally believe that a child is better off with a parent (or at least, a close family member such as a grandparent who LIVES WITH THEM permanently) taking care of them during the day. I do understand that some families *can't* get by without Mom's income (the ones that are single-mother homes, or simply the ones that are in very bad shape financially) but the majority of married women who want to stay home with their children really can. It might involve sacrificing some of the pet luxuries enjoyed by dual-income families (and some discipline about debt), but it's worth it.

    I'm a stay-at-home mom even on a military budget. I've thought about going back to work so we could get some of the "nicer" things, but aside from the fact that we'd end up paying most of my salary for childcare anyway, I know in my heart I could never leave my children to go to work. It would tear me up.

    That's my personal take on the matter. I know that some don't feel that way, and that's up to them.

    Posted by: army_wife at August 4, 2009 9:35 AM

    "And all the single young devoutly Christen men said, "Wooo! Wooo! Thank you Jesus!"


    Posted by: RSD at August 4, 2009 11:51 AM

    God has wired women to nurture and long to be with and raise their children. Do women actually admit they don't??

    Sure they do. I think women who feel that way are in the minority, but they certainly exist, and I can only assume God created them that way.

    I've always been lacking in maternal instinct, even as a child, when I detested playing with baby dolls and only did it because my friends wanted to. I'm pretty nurturing toward small, furry creatures, though, and love spending time with my nephew and friends' kids, as long as they're older than toddlers.

    I've never known anyone who would claim to not love her kids, but there are plenty of women who would rather not be there with them all day. Some women blossom and thrive doing that, but not all women do. And trust me, when the woman is unhappy about the situation, the kids know.

    Posted by: Terezia at August 4, 2009 1:21 PM

    Sydney, you go girl!! :)

    Terezia I think you are probably correct that there is a certain percentage of women who are not very "maternal" towards their children. I personally know of one such woman with three children.

    But I also believe these children recognize that their mother is not happy being a mom and that likely isn't a very nice feeling to have. I think they'd like to have a mother who was more able to meet their needs when they are children. (and needs unmet in childhood have a strange way of continuing on into adulthood)

    Running off to work IMO, isn't necessarily a solution to this situation. Maybe these mothers have to work a little more at being good mothers - it doesn't come as naturally to them. (For example, I recently read that tall women are not as maternal as their shorter counterparts due to a lesser amount of specific hormones)
    So are the children unhappy because they know mom would like to work or are they unhappy because mom isn't a great mother? ;)

    Posted by: angel at August 5, 2009 7:29 AM

    Angel, I think you're spot-on with that whole comment, and the best solution would be for the not-so-happy mothers to work harder at it. I would, if I were in that situation.

    It would also be good if those with low parental instinct really considered honestly if they're up for the task of being a good parent before the issue actually comes up. I may not be drawn to young children myself, but it does break my heart when I see parents who just don't make time for their kids. Thankfully, I haven't come across that very often.

    Posted by: Terezia at August 5, 2009 8:41 AM

    I am just wondering if there is research that show a connection with post-abortive women having more problems bonding and wanting to have as much continuous contact with their children. I am NOT slamming these women but wonder if there has been an increase since legalized abortion, since we have so many more post-abortive women if the percentage of women has increased over the years or is it is related to the push to get women out of the home into the business world to be "liberated". I found going back to work full-time after my first was born to be so tramatic that my husband told me it was not worth it, I came home and eventually went back part-time. Family members that were single parents and had to go back to work all told me that they wanted to be home with their children and were very happy for me.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at August 5, 2009 9:11 AM

    Absolutely post abortive moms can have difficulty bonding with subsequent children. It is one of the many risks of abortion.

    I found this

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 5, 2009 12:17 PM

    Thanks so much Carla this article is very interesting and makes so much sense. I know the cases are not common thank God, but I wonder if the women who have in recent years killed pregnant women to take their unborn babies are post-abortive with infertility issues from their abortions. I know the Dead Babies R Us crowd would never want research about this to see daylight because they keep insisting abortion does not affect women unless they already have mental illness problems. (I am pretty sure I read this explaination on the PP teenwire.com website). Just like they keep insisting there is no breast cancer-abortion connection.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at August 5, 2009 6:44 PM

    Here is another commentary on the abortion/bonding problem with subsequent children.
    Go to:

    Posted by: Janet at August 5, 2009 8:05 PM

    I have heard just about everything here to defend the indefensible. There is no refuting women's stories of abortion regret.
    There are lies, deception and greed to cover up the truth of what an abortion is really like.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at August 6, 2009 3:21 PM