Friday, March 13, 2009
Things I wonder about...
I wonder if she would have received the same displays of respect and admiration if she revealed that she was a "keeper-of-the-home?" Recently I saw a friend (also a "home-keeper") list her job description as "CEO of Household Operations and Student Development." How cool is that!
------------
Also, when we announced to friends that we were expecting our 5th child, some of them carelessly said something like, "Don't you know how this whole thing works?"
Listen. I'm 40 years old. I've been procreating, off-and-on, for the last 13 years. What do you take me for? Just because we don't subscribe to the "Boy for me and a girl for you and praise-the-Lord, we're finally through" line of thinking, does that imply that we're not capable of making thoughtful decisions about the size of our family?
Anyway, just thought I'd rant for a while. Thanks for reading. :-)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Our visit with family in the Arizona desert
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Chloë wants to fly....?
Daddy says, "You mean, like in a hang-glider?"
Chloë replies, "No, like a bird! Just spread my arms or wings and FLY!"
Well, I think THIS is what she had in mind. Looks like FUN!! WOW!!!
Sophia on the Trampoline
(Background song is "Rainy Weather Friend" by David Mead)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thursday, September 04, 2008
"Mothers Health?"
I think that the sub-issue of abortion-in-case-of-mother’s-health, while specifically valid, is generally less-than-consequential. At worst, the caveat of keeping abortion legal for “mother’s health” is a smoke screen and a slippery slope toward catastrophe for any society.
First of all, who defines “health?” Emotional? Spiritual? Physical? Social? I guarantee that while the primary answer may begin as “clearly physical,” those who want to keep their “options open” and their responsibilities limited will continually re-define the “mother’s health” until it means something more akin to “mother’s well-being” or “mother’s choice.” This “pragmatic redefinition” is an undeniable precedent among those who devalue human life, as is the custom of those who subscribe to the ideology that humanity has evolved by chance, not by divine design in maturity, completion and excellence.
Second, I would bet all I have on the assertion that the ratio of “mother’s health” abortions to “don’t want a baby” abortions is inconceivably low. The number of what I’ll refer to as “opt-out” abortions has reached (and continues to surpass) staggering proportions in
Finally, make no mistake that, as I asserted in a conversation you and I had several years ago, humankind has a “lover of the soul” (our Savior) and an “enemy of the soul” (satan, “the accuser”/ “destroyer”). I believe that the enemy laughs at and scorns us before God, for the fact that this unprecedented infanticide continues unabated. As a human who survived gestation because my mother chose to keep me (though I was pre-Roe-v.Wade), I am grateful not to have been a victim of her “choice.” As a believer in the power of the redeeming blood of the Son of God, I know that abortion is not the unforgivable sin; God can and does renew the purity and conscience of those who humbly approach the throne of grace. Every life is valuable to God, and by all scriptural accounts, he tends incline His heart especially to the helpless, the poor, the destitute, the accused… yes, even the voice-less and “non-viable.”
The issue of the legalization of abortion not relegated to the “health of the mother,” but to the health of everyone. It shouldn’t be an available option for an independent, sentient being to extinguish the existence of an absolutely dependent, voice-less other.
Humbly and respectfully submitted,
--Ric


