Wow, talk about literally throwing the baby out with the bathwater! Amy Welborn must have one of the tinniest ears in the Western world!
The mother-to-be didn't put her moral sensibility into "religious speak" or the kind of right-and-wrong language that apparently will appease dogmatic Catholic demands. But the piece is literally pregnant with moral sensibility! What's more important, it was actually published in the NYT, where it has a very good chance of influencing a lot more liberal minds that have been brainwashed by the "pro-choice speak" of the writer's husband. It will save babies' lives!
The author of the piece clearly knows right from wrong on an unspoken but obvious level. And that perception will now reach many more like her, coming as it does from a "culturally acceptable" point of view. We will win this war one mind and one baby at a time, not by forming our usual "purist" circular firing squad.
I happen to be agnostic when it comes to divine influence. I'm not wishy-washy: I just don't have so much arrogance as to believe I can know the Great Mystery. Nor do I believe any other mere mortal can, not the Pope nor any other religious leader. What's much more important to me is living a moral and ethical life and espousing positive life-affirming values. That I try to do. If Amy Welborn doesn't like my position, or the author's, she can tend her own Holy water.
Plenty of ranting and raving in your reaction, but nothing about what Amy actually said—that the one and only ethical standard the writer upholds, and the only guide she followed in reaching her decision to give birth, is “what is right for us, right now, in our lives.” That’s why the NYTimes printed the piece; it would also have printed it if she had decided on partial-birth abortion, or infanticide for that matter, as long as it felt to her like the thing to do at the moment.
I enjoyed your comments (See mine at #51.)
It just so happens that the Old Testament reading at Mass today had this:
Deuteronomy 30:11-14
“For this commandment which I command you today
is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off.
It is not in heaven, that you should say,
‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us,
that we may hear it and do it?’
Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say,
‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us,
that we may hear it and do it?’
But the word is very near you,
in your mouth
and in your heart,
that you may do it.
The piece is published in the “Fashion and Style” section, under “modern love.” And for a while there, I didn’t think she actually had a “choice,” if her husband disagreed.
Here’s my blog: http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/07/fashion-style-modern-love-and-abortion.html
Ususally I can see where agnostics are coming from, but you've really lost me here.
First, Christians and members of many other religions believe that God has been in contact with us precisely because we need help getting it. Saying that Christianity (for example) is a bunch of people claiming to have figured it all out is like saying that everyone who uses Windows believes they figured out DOS on their own, or saying every airline passenger considers themselves to be an airline pilot.
Second, (using Christianity as an example again) believers don't think they've figured out "the Great Mystery." They believe they've heard and believed accurate information about a man who died on a cross for their sins and then was resurrected. Saying that is arrogant, or that a man leading such a group and overseeing their doctrine is arrogant, is like saying that if I love America I must think I'm George Washington, and that anyone who has served as President must believe he's just as good and important as the Founders and Framers.