This was a response to an article claiming pregancy outside of wedlock is not a sin. It claimed that while sex outside of marriage was a sin, pregancy is always a wonderful things, and there should be no shame for pregnancy outside of marriage.
In past days of decency people felt shame for pregnancy out of wedlock because their sin was made public. In these days we have discarded decency and we feel like no one should feel ashamed for anything. But that is not true. Shame is important. When Peter wept bitterly for denying Christ, was his shame a blessing or a curse? I think in retrospect he would rejoice that he felt shame that would prevent him from ever repeating such an act. Would you take his shame from him in that moment if you had the power to?
We have decided shame for sin is bad. Shame for sin isn't bad. Shame for sin is important. It is God's gift to us through our conscience, a burn, a sting, to help foolish mortals never do something again. It is important for you and for me because the sting of it can turn lives around.
In days of decency, people felt shame for pregnancy outside of wedlock and for sex outside of marriage. Why would we argue that was wrong? Is our societies morality better now than 50 or 70 years ago?
I think this article is the sort of crap that coddles people out of feeling their own God given conscience. It won't hurt them to feel it. It is god given, and it is there to help, by redirecting them to better ways. This article sounds good on the surface, but is really no more than softening immorality in precisely the way that has led to our societies present disastrous abandonment of morals.