The New York Daily News used an expression that isn’t seen much these days: “with child”. The reason it isn’t is because we have become a society of casual aborters; we abort for convenience, birth control, greed – we don’t want to pay to raise a child -, selfishness, hedonism and solipsistic self-absorption.
Ideas are formed through language: we are reluctant to use language that might make us question our hell-bent determination to kill our unborn children and abort ourselves into extinction.
Good for the New York Daily News for swimming against the tide:
In recent days, Kate gave no sign of being with child as she kept up a busy schedule of royal appearances.
It’s probably safe to say there are selfish reasons involved in anything, including the decision to become a parent [consider Sir Elton]; or not to become one. Thus it is I know people who are great parents; just as I also know parents who are selfish, hedonistic and solipsistically self-absorbed people. Nonetheless, because it’s a complex calculus people make in these modern times to become parents, it is they rather than I who should render the calculations. I wish Kate and William well. And I say who wouldn’t have lots of children if the prospect included the extraordinary wealth and privilege, not to say fleets of attendants … Kate could give birth to 15 or 20 children none of whom, postpartum, she need ever see again … that will be available to them.
Another example… The Manitoba Liquor Control Commission boasts ads that say “With Child, Without Alcohol”
Have you read Cranmer’s similar article (“Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have made a foetus”, 4 Dec., http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/)? Selfishly wanting to be a parent, or not want to, are not the only alternatives. There is a third, which I recommend: You have to be certain in your mind that it’s not “MINE”, but God’s, person; God wants it (whoever/whatever it is/becomes).
Thanks – no, I hadn’t.