Time plays on and views evolve. Right now, I still feel that it is somewhat a disservice or inaccuracy to talk of "healing" related to child loss. A few reasons right of the top of my pointed head are:
1. I have a hard time believing that any mother who loves her child can "heal" from his death (no matter what caused it).
2. I am a stickler for words and believe that what the "post-abortion healing ministries" are actually referring to is not "healing" but "helping". Therefore, IMHO, I believe it is more accurate and beneficial to refer to such efforts as "post-abortion helping ministries".
3. "Sidewalk counselors" frequently hear from mothers (who are entering abortion businesses to abort children) that they "know" it is wrong but that Jesus will forgive them. Further, the logic is that they're really already forgiven before the abortion takes place.
Forgiveness, it's a given. Is healing or ultimately, the lack of any lasting consequences, a given too? WHERE oh WHERE in the Bible does it say that unethic (or, sin, if you like) carries no consequence here on earth? (And what does this theory do to the ABC link?)
Is abortion really that neat? Can I kill my child, be forgiven by God, and then be "healed" from it to boot? Boy, that sounds like a really sweet deal to anyone considering abortion in a crisis.
On the way into the abortion business I was one who thought I was already forgiven, particularly because I was aborting for a potentially life-threatening maternal health issue. I knew in my heart of hearts that God wasn't really in love with my choice, but I felt that surely He would forgive me. It was a given. No problem there. And I had lost my parents to cancer. I was an "orphan" at 24. Dad died of cancer and four years later Mom got cancer and took the big dirt nap. It was sad but I was handling it. I was still completely functional, completely together. In the same way, I would "heal" from the abortion. Forgiveness and healing, pre-abortion, post-abortion. What could be more tidy than that?
The logic was deception; nothing could have been further from the truth. A child is not a parent and abortion is not cancer.
I question the accuracy and beneft of conveying the idea that mothers can "heal" from killing their own children.
From Websters: healing - To make sound or whole. To restore to original integrity.
Whole? Original integrity? I think not. This is why I have such a problem with the term "healing" used in conjunction with abortion. But ok, ok... to be fair, there is also another definition of healing: To overcome. I suppose that is the spirit of the "post-abortion healing ministry" as it is. At least, that is what I am told.
Even so, I am pig-headed, and can't shake the idea that more than anything, these programs are about coping with abortion, about integrating the experience into one's life without becoming wholly destructive to one's self and others. The programs don't "heal" but certainly they help.
So why can't we call it that?
I invite you to write me with your views on this. Bear in mind, I might like to post a sampling of your comments, all anonymous of course.
:: ashli 1:45 PM # ::