Tough Questions # 2

[ken_sylvania]

Question # 2 - Why would any Christian couple, who believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, pursue having children when there is any possibility that even one of them may end up with a debilitating, or even excruciatingly painful incurable disease? Is this not a selfish thing to do logically speaking?

[MaxPC]

Question # 2 - Why would any Christian couple, who believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, pursue having children when there is any possibility that even one of them may end up with a debilitating, or even excruciatingly painful incurable disease? Is this not a selfish thing to do logically speaking?

Why did God send His Only Son to earth only to die an horrific, torture-filled death? I think that we have to embrace trust in God and hope for future generations.

[ken_sylvania]

Question # 2 - Why would any Christian couple, who believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, pursue having children when there is any possibility that even one of them may end up with a debilitating, or even excruciatingly painful incurable disease? Is this not a selfish thing to do logically speaking?

Why did God send His Only Son to earth only to die an horrific, torture-filled death? I think that we have to embrace trust in God and hope for future generations.

Agreed.

[barnhart]

I can understand how a couple with genetic inheritance that yields a high rate of debilitating disease might choose not to have biological children.

[MaxPC]

I can understand how a couple with genetic inheritance that yields a high rate of debilitating disease might choose not to have biological children.

I can understand as well. There are methods for avoiding pregnancy that are readily available. Yet sometimes these couples become pregnant. Here are the questions that I see relative to that possibility:

-What of Down’s Syndrome? Congenital blindness or deafness? Other conditions that are adaptable?
-Where is the line drawn to avoid becoming eugenicists by proxy or fact?
-Who is trustworthy enough, Godly enough, to set the standards for that which is “debilitating” and to make the decision to kill a pre born human?

[steve-in-kville]

I can understand how a couple with genetic inheritance that yields a high rate of debilitating disease might choose not to have biological children.

I've known of situations where a couple chose to adopt instead of having their own due to stuff that ran in the family. The adoption thing didn't work out all that great for them, though.

[Coifi]

Question # 2 - Why would any Christian couple, who believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, pursue having children when there is any possibility that even one of them may end up with a debilitating, or even excruciatingly painful incurable disease? Is this not a selfish thing to do logically speaking?

My gut response is to say that that is because God commands us to be fruitful and multiply. The other gut response is that there is much, much beauty that can come from such relationships and that, often, they are given to us for our salvation. There is a member of my church who has an autistic son. I do not doubt that if his father takes care of him for the rest of his life, that that would be for his salvation as that level of care requires a LOT of ego death and sacrifice. I fail to see how that would be selfish.

My practical response is that it is morally dodgy. You have to first define the limit of possibility in which a couple may birth children who are disabled or are born with an incurable disease. Is a 1% probability enough? Is 5%? What about 15%? Once you start doing that, you are claiming that pain and suffering are unequivocally bad (I don't think that's right) and should be avoided if an action that has x% chance of bringing about pain or disability. If we can all agree that voluntary suffering (martyrdom) is good, why should involuntary suffering be considered evil? Either way, they are still for our repentance.

That is all to say that a child born with a disability or a disease is not evil. Nor is there any human entity that is morally culpable for causing a disability or disease. Any child born is unequivocally good. I think it best to simply leave it at that.

[Josh]

Coifi,

What is the EO position on birth control?

Regarding Down’s syndrome, it depends strongly on how old a woman is when she has her first child and to a lesser degree the age she has more children. At age 18, it doesn’t happen. At age 20, it’s a risk of 0.1%. At age 40, it’s 2%. At age 45, it’s 4%. (The age of the father is irrelevant.)

If avoiding Down’s Syndrome is really such a priority, then the best step to take is to encourage early marriage and childbearing and discourage waiting until women are in their late 30s or 40s to have children.

[Sudsy]

Question # 2 - Why would any Christian couple, who believe that abortion and euthanasia are wrong, pursue having children when there is any possibility that even one of them may end up with a debilitating, or even excruciatingly painful incurable disease? Is this not a selfish thing to do logically speaking?

I believe there certainly are a range of possible sufferings a child can have whenever a Christian couple brings a child into the world, both physical and mental in this life and for the parents also but these possible happenings, imo, are not anywhere near the same as the consequence of eternal conscious torment in hell. I also believe that God gives grace and strength for children and parents who struggle in this life as they turn to Him to deal with whatever circumstances we are born and live in.