Focus on the Family Community : Blog List - Young Married Life

When the Life of the Mother Is At Risk

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:55:29 GMT

Focus on the Family is strongly pro-life. In fact, one of our six guiding principles is:

We believe that human life is created by God in His image. It is of inestimable worth and significance in all its dimensions, including the preborn, the aged, the mentally disabled, those deemed unattractive, the physically challenged, and every other condition in which humanness is expressed from the single cell stage of development to natural death. Christians are therefore called to defend, protect, and value all human life.

Specifically, when it comes to life in the womb, we encourage women to carry their children to term, regardless of whether the pregnancy is deemed "inconvenient," or whether the child has been prenatally diagnosed with a birth defect or other such problem. A preborn child is a living human being made in the image of God, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding that child's conception or birth.

There are very rare instances, however, in which treatments necessary to preserve the life of the mother might result in the loss of the preborn child. In this type of situation, in which the life of the mother is at stake, some couples are faced with the heartbreaking decision to save the mother's life at the expense of the child's.

For the sake of precision, I'm simply going to copy-paste a response that Focus on the Family wrote, with guidance from our Physicians Resource Council, to one person who contacted us about these situations ...

What should a pregnant woman do if her physician tells her that carrying her baby to term will place her own life at risk?

From our perspective, this is one of those rare, agonizing situations in which there are no simple right-or-wrong answers. Our initial reaction would be to suggest that this mom seek a second opinion about her condition from a different doctor, preferably a doctor with strong pro-life convictions. If the diagnosis remains unchanged, then we would have to concede — though sadly and reluctantly — that this may be a case in which ending a pregnancy is a rightful consideration.

Why do we say this? Because we recognize that what this dilemma really entails is a conscious choice between two equally precious lives. If the baby lives, the mother dies, and vice versa. Is it right to sacrifice the woman — a woman who may be someone else's mother, wife, or daughter — in order to save the child? What kind of secondary factors and circumstances should guide us making this terrible choice? Obviously there is no easy solution. Either option carries painful and regrettable ramifications for everyone concerned.

Extreme medical emergencies may arise that threaten the life of both mother and child. In the case of tubal (or ectopic) pregnancies, the child has essentially no chance of survival, while the threat to the mother's life is very real, very high, and grows as the pregnancy progresses. In this case, a health care professional may provide treatment that results in the ending of the pregnancy in order to save the life of the mother — obviously with the patient's informed consent.

This is an agonizing situation, but it is nevertheless consistent with a pro-life ethic which seeks to preserve life. The action is taken to save one life where otherwise two lives will be lost. This is also completely different from elective abortion, which entails the purposeful killing of a preborn child for the sake of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

That said, several of the pro-life physicians we spoke with mentioned that it is imperative that ultrasound be used to verify that a twin embryo is not present in the uterus, as any drug administered to terminate the pregnancy would affect both the ectopic and the uterine pregnancy. In the case where a uterine pregnancy is also detected, surgical treatment is considered a better option for an ectopic pregnancy, in order to give the twin in the womb the best chance for survival.

Please don't misunderstand. We're aware that there are many people who feel strongly that terminating a pregnancy is wrong in every instance, regardless of the circumstances. What's more, we agree one hundred percent with those who contend that the humanness of the child is not dependent upon the health or welfare of the mother. That doesn't change the fact that, in a scenario like this, a decision of some kind has to be made. There's simply no way around it.

We should hasten to add that we pointedly disagree with those who expand the phrase "life of the mother" to read "health of the mother." Under this broader interpretation almost any temporary discomfort during pregnancy can be used to justify an abortion. In fact, Doe v. Bolton, the United States Supreme Court case that along with Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, allows abortion for virtually any or no reason at all under the guise of "health of the mother." From our perspective, this is altogether different from those few cases in which the continuation of pregnancy places a mother's life in grave danger.

There you go. Even as I read over and edit this blog, I find myself heartbroken. I know what it's like to lose a baby before she's had a chance to take her first breath. The loss of life, including preborn life, is truly heartbreaking.

Sometimes, though, we're faced with unfathomably difficult scenarios ... and we weep alongside those women who've had to make that difficult decision to end their pregnancies under these circumstances.

* * *

For more information, consider the following:

Focus on the Family also has counselors and care specialists who are available weekdays to talk with you, provide information and encouragement, suggest resources, give referrals and pray with you. If you are struggling, and would like to talk with one of them, you can find more information here.

For the sake of sensitivity toward those who are wrestling with this issue, we are not accepting comments. If you'd like to share your thoughts with us, you're free to e-mail them to editor@boundless.org

Nothing But Our Love

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:55:29 GMT

I've heard some newlyweds start a marriage with brand-new houses in the suburbs and new cars, taking vacations throughout their first years of marriage.

Not us.

We lived in a tiny 1970-something mobile home in a trailer park for the first 17 months and loved that place, despite the thin walls, cold winter floors and a washer that only worked intermittently (and no dryer). We had nothing but our love, yet it was everything we needed. In that time, we were able to pay off some school debt and miraculously buy a small home in an old neighborhood. It's nothing fancy, and there are no HOAs, but we really like where we live. Smaller homes mean the neighbors are outside more often, and we've gotten to know lots of them pretty well.

This kind of "formula" is what I've seen with many of my peers. They start marriage in a tiny apartment or a mobile home, and eventually they're able to buy a small house and maybe even a bigger house years later. But they've all started with the worn furniture and mismatched dishes, more love than crystal and china, and plenty of funny (and horrifying) stories about their "first place."

Though we don't have money for vacations or new furniture (gotta love used furniture stores — and craigslist), I don't envy those who do. We've struggled through hardships in our early years of marriage and have become closer because of them. In the first weeks after the birth of our child (and the ensuing colic that lasted for an agonizing 6 months), I wept to my parents: "This child is ruining our marriage! We're never going to be able to talk or even eat a meal together for who knows how long?!" My dad objected, pointing out that the hardship would draw us closer together, and that when we faced a new challenge, we'd be able to look back at the colic season and say, "We made it through that; we can make it through this."

Hardships are just that: hard. But they can be a breeding ground for greater intimacy, too. And as we grow in marriage and face other challenges, past hardships can give us hope that our marriage can be stronger on the other side. If we stay committed to marriage through rocky times and financial uncertainty, we can see these difficulties as an adventure to live together rather than a ploy to "ruin" our relationship.

What was your "first place" like? And what hardships have you faced in marriage that have brought you closer together in the end?

The Things Marriage Isn't

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:07:30 GMT

In "5 Things Marriage Isn't," Jason Boyett challenges some of the common expectations that can lead to disappointment in marriage.

We think we know what marriage is because we've seen it on TV. It's Monica and Chandler, all candles and sex and witty banter. It's the end-of-the-day slow dancing of Cliff and Claire Huxtable. It's the tuxedos and pigtailed flower girls and white chiffon spectacle of The Bachelorette on ABC. Then, when everything doesn't turn out exactly as we dreamed, we look for an out, blame it on irreconcilable differences, and scrap the covenant.

The differences aren't the problem, though; our irreconcilable expectations are. Let's look, then, at some of those predetermined ideas and dump marriage out of its box. Here's something you should know before you say “I Do”: not what marriage is, but five things it isn't.

Among the five things Boyett says marriage isn't: a cure for loneliness, an escape from boredom, an easy transition. Basically, he's saying that marriage might not fulfill your needs in the way that you think it will. After a somewhat depressing reality check, Boyett ends on a high note:

We've been discussing what marriage is not, but here's what marriage is: Marriage is wonderful. There is no better way to make it through life than with a partner who loves you despite your morning breath, despite your stinky Converse All-Stars, and despite your failure to clean coffee stains. Marriage is deeply satisfying, incredibly fulfilling, and loads of fun. It makes the harsh edges of life a little softer. It brings joy and hope and laughter. But it's not easy, and it's not something to rush into without thinking.

For me (and disclaimer: I'm only 10 months into marriage), Boyett's affirmation for marriage felt a bit like too little too late, but his call for realistic expectations is certainly valid. Do you think he got it right? What has been your experience with managing expectations in marriage?

Does Following God's Plan Lead to Terrifying, Ignorant Sex?

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:37:30 GMT

"The Year Without Sex." There's a title that'll stop you for a sec.

It's a recent interview of author Hephzibah Anderson in The Atlantic. Anderson is, according to the article,

... an attractive, successful British journalist in her early 30s who enjoys a life of jet-setting between London, New York, and Paris. And after ringing in her 30th birthday, she swore off sex for a year.

After swearing off sex for a year, Anderson wrote a book about her experience -- Chastened. In the interview, Anderson makes some interesting points. Among them -- how she realized that "sex was really clouding my judgment"; how she wanted to steer clear of religion and "reclaim chastity for a mainstream, secular, non-politically divisive audience" and how she determined that "we've lost any sense of healthy emotional entitlement. I think if you go to bed with somebody, it is a kind of bond; it's not nothing, however much we try to say it's nothing."

It was refreshing to see someone really question, as she calls it, the "kind of sex I was supposed to be cool with as a postfeminist, twenty-first century Western woman—a casual sort of intimacy without intimacy." But in the midst of her personal discovery that maybe the sex culture wasn't all it was sold to be, she also seemed to be reluctant to fully reject this postfeminist ideal.

I'm in no way advocating for the clock to be turned back ... I don't think we should go back to the point where sex is this terrifying thing and most people are so ignorant they're never going to be satisfied.

Terrified? Ignorant? Never satisfied? Seriously?

It's not the first time I've heard those insinuations. I can remember distinctly being assured by a high school friend, quite condescendingly, after returning from my honeymoon that I simply could not have enjoyed myself, having had no previous sexual experiences with my husband. I simply smiled, assured her we were coming along just swimmingly and that she had no cause to be concerned.

I'd love to sit down with Anderson and explain something similar. Living a "clock turned back" kind of life (by which, I assume she means a life that more closely matches the Bible's sexual guidelines) is neither terrifying, ignorant or unsatisfying. Yes, the Bible is clear about God's parameters for sex, but it is just as clear in encouraging unselfish, mutually satisfying sexual union within those parameters. As Tim Challies points out in his blog, "Puritans and Sex," the modern day perception that Puritans were (and, I would say, "Christians are ...") sex-phobic is just plain wrong: "The Puritans were hardly Puritanical when it came to their attitude toward sex." In fact, one Puritan writer Challies quotes, said that married couples should engage in sex “with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.”

It's true today too. As Christians, we can reflect God's glory in our marriages in many ways -- including fidelity to our spouses and also by enjoying each other "with good will and delight."

In Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, Ben Patterson writes:

The gigantic secret of the joy of sex is this: Sex is good because the God who created sex is good. And God is glorified greatly when we receive His gift with thanksgiving -- for the gift points back to the God who gave it -- and enjoy it the way he meant for it to be enjoyed.

He continues later:

I want to thank God for the gift of sex. But not sex in general; sex in particular.

In particular, Patterson writes, with his wife. Because it's not "sex" in the general sense that glorifies God, but that union between one husband and one wife. It's sex with my husband that God gave as a gift for my good and His glory. It's sex with your husband. It's sex with your wife. When we enjoy sex within God's plan, it's easy to see that Anderson's caricature of faithful, marital sex as terrifying, ignorant and unsatisying, is just that -- a caricature. Because faithful, marital sex is good. Because that's how God designed it.

Unexpected Differences

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:37:30 GMT

My husband and I went through extensive pre-marital counseling prior to and during our engagement.

We completed "the packet" of 300 questions ranging from "How much fresh air do you like when sleeping?" to "What five to ten foundational biblical truths do you think should be stressed in the raising of children?" We met with mentors and talked through the differences in women and men and ways to meet each others' needs. And let's not forget the 12 actual counseling sessions we attended to take personality tests, discuss our conflict resolution styles, and either confirm or disconfirm our overall compatibility.

(Just writing all of that was exhausting!)

We thought we had it covered. We both knew (or thought we knew!) the exact way our future spouse would handle every situation, and we were both on board, since we ended up married.

The week after we returned to Colorado from an amazing honeymoon week in Jamaica, we found ourselves in the middle of a snowstorm (literally). On our way to a friend's house, we ended up sliding on black ice, going off the road, and rolling three times down a drop- off. Once we got to the emergency room, and found out we only had a few bruises, our logical brains began to kick back in.

"At least you have full-coverage car insurance," I say over coffee the next morning.

"Why in the world would I have full-coverage insurance?" he responds. "I've never needed full-coverage, and it's never been a problem."

This was not in "the packet"! How do I respond now? I learned in pre-marital counseling that my response and reaction to a situation is important; I want to express my own feelings, but also seek to understand my husband's point of view and validate him as well, despite our differences in thinking. I also learned that our responses early in marriage begin patterns and habits that we draw from throughout our lifetime.

As I calculated my own response, I felt a huge pull between my sinful nature that wanted to respond by placing blame on my husband, and also remembering the grace that God freely gives us that I am to reflect to others as well. I also thought about my husbands intentions; he did not deliberately forgo full-coverage car insurance to put us in a financial bind, he had simply been so busy helping me with wedding planning that he never changed his policy. How could I blame him for that? Although I told him I felt stressed with the situation we were in, I made sure to tell him I was not upset with him, and that we would figure this out together.

What unexpected differences have you run into in your marriage? How did you respond? How can you respond in a way that will begin a healthy pattern of communication in your marriage?

I Love Summer Grilling!

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 19:37:30 GMT

I love summer grilling, and mainly because I'm not the one doing it. Many times this summer, I've come home from work to find my husband marinating chicken, slicing vegetables, and firing up the grill. And the greatest thing is that he loves doing it.

When we were registering for our wedding, my husband wanted to register for a new grill and some new grill tools. I had no problem registering for all the kitchen stuff I wanted, but I was hesitant to see the value in spending that much money on grilling items. We have been married for 4 months now, and while I love to cook, preparing meals every night has become a daunting task for me (even the easy 30 minute-meals); I work all day, then I usually have to drop by the grocery store on the way home to pick up the one ingredient I forgot at the store the night before, dirve home, and finally begin dinner preparations (hopefully) by 7. So, after this first month of summer when my husband began grilling several nights a week, I have completely changed by view on grills. The grill is his kitchen, and he is happy cooking in his comfort zone.

Don't get me wrong, my husband does cook in our kitchen, but it seems as though I still usually help -- finding certain utensils, getting the baking dish out, or locating the right spice. While I don't mind helping, and I actually really enjoy cooking, it doesn't really feel like a "night off" for me.

But, when he grills, I have nothing to do but sit outside and relax, enjoy my husband's company, take in the warm weather, and savor a great meal. The grill has become a blessing to our marriage; it has given me time to rest, allows me more focused time with my husband over dinner, and it is something enjoyable for him as well.

We're now looking for a new grill; for us, the investment is worth it.

Do you or your spouse grill? Have you found grilling gives you a break from cooking? Do you have any good grilling tips or recipes to share?

Becoming a Better Me

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:17:30 GMT

Let me get this out first: I'm not the best me I could be.

I'm sure that, on some level, this is true of everyone. But I feel it acutely.

I exaggerate horribly. ("I stood in line for 6 hours because there were 14,000 people in front of me!")
I jump to conclusions a mile a minute. (My husband: "So I was thinking ... [momentary pause, during which my mind races: Ack!! What were you thinking? That I should have made something different for dinner? That you hate the way I've arranged the furniture in the living room? That I'm not giving you enough space?] about trying to grow a tree from the seeds in my grapefruit." Me: "Oh. Really? OK." [inward sigh of relief that my conclusions weren't realistic])
I can't stick to a grocery list. (Me: "I'm just going to pick up some rosemary from the store. I'll be right back." Forty-five minutes later, I return with 12 bags of groceries.)

On the other hand, my husband is extremely truthful at all times, patiently waits to truly hear what someone has to say rather than assuming where the conversation is going, and can go to the supermarket with five items on a list and return home with nothing but those five items. Sometimes I feel as though his natural strengths put a flashing neon sign around my weaknesses, not because of any chastisement over my shortcomings but simply because the contrast is stark.

Really stark.

It would be easy for me to get irritated about his strengths and how much they reveal my weaknesses. Or to feel guilty about my shortcomings. Instead, I've been choosing to see it as an opportunity for growth. Since we've been married, I've learned to be more careful with my words so that people can always trust what I say, because this is a characteristic of Christ. And I've begun the process of smothering the habit of trying to finish others' sentences before they've finished speaking, so that I can truly hear them instead of become distracted by my mental noise. And I'm thankful that my husband has more character than me in these areas, as it gives me daily opportunity to grow in these areas. I love that the example my husband sets can inspire me to become more godly and become a better me.

In what ways does your spouse inspire you to be a better you?

(And, no, I haven't made any progress on the grocery list issue. One thing at a time, I suppose.)

What If I Am Happy?

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:37:30 GMT

I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about how the younger generation, mostly Millennials, strive for happiness in many areas of their life. They want to be happy in their jobs, their friendships, their families and yes, their marriages. Many see this desire for happiness as a self-absorbed, self-serving outlook, a view that focuses on oneself rather than others.

Authors such as Gary Thomas in his book Sacred Marriage challenge readers to understand that marriage is meant in large part to make us holy, rather than simply to make us happy. In his second chapter, Thomas writes about the value of reconciliation in marriage; when couples "stick it out" and stay together through the hard times, God uses their marriage as a kind of evangelism.

My husband and I have been married for a whole four months, and while we have run into challenges, I have not yet experienced the need to "stick it out" in my marriage. I've actually been very happy over these past few months. Which has me wondering: How can I become holy if I'm actually very happy?

I've found myself feeling guilty at times, almost in the sense that if I am happy -- and if I seek to be happy in my marriage -- that I am somehow being selfish. That in some way, if I'm happy, I lack "marriage testimonies" that are a witness to God's greatness. I wondered if God could use a young marriage to reflect Him, one with fewer challenges, in the same way He uses the marriages that have endured more hardship.

I recently picked up the book Happiness Is a Serious Problem by Dennis Prager, where he writes,

Happiness is not a selfish or frivolous concern; it is as deep and worthy a subject as good and evil. Human beings want to be happy, and they have a right to want to be. Far from being a selfish or ignoble goal, this is one of the distinguishing features of human beings.

This definitely caught my attention. Maybe God created us with the desire to be happy, I thought. So I bought the book. Prager continues to write that happiness is more than just a personal concern; it's actually a moral obligation:

We owe it to our husband or wife, our fellow workers, our children, our friends, indeed to everyone who comes into our lives, to be as happy as we can be. This does not mean acting unreal, and it certainly does not mean refraining from honest and intimate expressions of our feelings to those closest to us. But it does mean that we owe it to others to work on our happiness....

I once asked a deeply religious man if he considered himself a truly pious person. He responded that while he aspired to be one, he felt that he fell short in two areas. One of those areas, he said, was his not being a happy enough person to be considered truly pious.

His point was that unhappy religious people reflect poorly on their religion and their Creator. He was right; in fact, unhappy religious people pose a real challenge to faith. If their faith is so impressive, why aren't these devoted adherents happy? There are only two possible reasons: either they are not practicing their faith correctly, or they are practicing their faith correctly and the religion itself is not conducive to happiness. Most outsiders assumer the latter reason. Unhappy religious people should therefore think about how important being happy is -- if not for themselves, then for the sake of their religion. Unhappy, let alone angry, religious people provide more persuasive arguments for atheism and secularism than do all the arguments of atheists.

This is encouraging to me; while I may not have the testimony of big trials in marriage at this time, my happiness can still be used as a testimony to God's glory. I don't have to be 10 years into my marriage, and have "stories to tell"; God can use me where I am right now, in my happiness, just as He uses reconciliation and forgiveness, to honor Him and reflect His goodness and mercy.

Get Rid of All Earwax

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:07:30 GMT

I watched my first ear candling last night. Seeing my mom with a flaming cone sticking out of her ear was equally horrifying and fascinating. Apparently, she'd done it before and said it worked really well for removing earwax. It seemed pretty effective, though I'm not particularly inclined to perch a tongue of fire in my ear canal, so I'll take her word for it. Something about setting my hair ablaze...

As I drove home afterward, I couldn't get the image of the dancing flame out of my head. I suddenly remembered hearing a sermon years ago on a passage that talked about getting rid of our earwax — something about the phrase moral filth actually being earwax in the original Greek. I finally found it in James:

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth earwax and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says (1:19-21).

It goes on:

Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it — he will be blessed in what he does (1:23-25).

Hearing the Word and responding to it are two sides of the same coin. But I can't obey God if my ears are so plugged with wax that I can't (or won't) hear Him.

And I must confess: I know I've got buildup. I get my own ideas of what's fair and what's just and who deserves mercy. And when I let those dictate my perspective and the direction of my life, I miss out on being part of God's work. I need to spend more time setting aside my agenda so I can participate in what God's already doing, rather than assuming I know what He's going to say or think about a given situation or person. While I may not want a flame in my physical ear, I do need to let the fire of the Spirit remove my spiritual earwax (as long as my hair doesn't smolder).

May it be so, my King.

What earwax is building up in you?

Is Marriage a Lifestyle Choice?

community@focusonlinecommunities.com — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:59:15 GMT

The New York Times recently published an article on the issue of extended adolescence — or delayed adulthood. Many of the historical benchmarks of adulthood — completed higher education, moving out of Mom and Dad's, marriage, children — are happening up to a decade later than they used to. Having gotten married at 32, I relate. The article says a major shift in society's perspective on marriage may be responsible:

Marriage and parenthood — once seen as prerequisites for adulthood — are now viewed more as lifestyle choices, according to a new report released by Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.

The stretched-out walk to independence is rooted in social and economic shifts that started in the 1970s, including a change from a manufacturing to a service-based economy that sent many more people to college, and the women’s movement, which opened up educational and professional opportunities.

Women account for more than half of college students and nearly half of the work force, which in turn has delayed motherhood and marriage.

Women putting career first, parents urging young people not to rush into marriage and cohabitation are three factors that may be responsible for pushing the average marrying age up to 26 for women and 27 for men — the highest on record. Marriage and family are viewed as just one lifestyle option for personal fulfillment among others, many of which may seem a lot easier.

How do you think the perception of marriage and parenthood as lifestyle choices is affecting young adults, both single and married? Is adulthood a thing of the past or has it simply been redefined? [Note: MY answer.]