All of us feel that way, right? Right?
The Specter of Gosnell
Wrong. The very existence of abortion (for reasons other than the mother's life being truly threatened by the pregnancy, or due to rape and incest) belies something that to me is utterly incomprehensible and horrifying. Abortion is one of those issues that people would talk about, but I didn't want to listen because it bothered me, and I figured it was rare and only done by misguided people who I had never met and likely never would. But this is wrong too. When I realized the estimates of how many abortions have been performed since the official "legalization" in Roe v. Wade (around 50 million), I realized that I surely know people who have willingly participated in this in one form or another. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, which increases my odds of encountering people like this materially.
Since the onset of the Gosnell case (just google search it, you'll find enough reading material to keep you occupied for a long time, just be prepared because much of it is very graphic) I have contemplated whether his utter contempt for life really was an outlier or if this behavior is more pervasive than abortion advocates are letting on. I have recently read story after story after story (in addition to Gosnell) that leads me to conclude it's definitely worse than its advocates claim (ahem). But a tougher question exists: even if they aren't dirty or reckless like Kermit Gosnell, are they still just as evil?
To answer this question, we need to go back to first principles and to examining results (as I'm wont to do). I'm going to tackle this not from a religious perspective, but from a practical/logical human perspective, even though the religious perspective strengthens the case substantially. But without it, we can still make a very compelling case, without even getting to the consideration of when a spirit quickens a baby's body (although that is important).
Life's Importance
What is life? Particularly what is human life? I think we all have a pretty good sense for that. There are esoteric scientific definitions, but generally we all understand with clarity that human beings have a consciousness and the ability to choose (some more easily than others, but unless a person is in a vegetative state and will never recover, the other variations in ability are not worth categorizing away from a full ability to choose). What, then, constitutes an important human life, one worth expending a great deal to save?
Let's start with an example. Suppose you have a ninety-year-old woman, who has lived a good, long, feisty life. She has much family, has contributed to her community, and has served many people. She is then diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of cancer, and she is not likely to survive long. Even with extreme intervention, the latest techniques and procedures, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, in all likelihood her life may be lengthened past where she would otherwise last at most six months. Both she and her family would likely agree, despite the heart-wrenching difficulty of the decision, that it is best to take some action: focus on quality of life management for the remainder of her time. And there's nothing alarming about that, although the situation is still saddening. If she had hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on her own medical care she might decide to go for it, but even then...probably not.
A second example, and this one is personal: there is a sixty-year-old woman who is suffering from the effects of cancer, and she has a lump of cancer dislodge and then come to rest in her brain, causing a stroke. She has great damage to her brain and is in a coma, very likely never to recover even after extensive brain surgery. Here pain management until she passes away is quite clearly the best course of action, even though it just breaks everyone's heart that this is the option left to them regarding a beloved woman's life.
And one more example: now there is a child, a cute little girl, ten years old, who is diagnosed with a relatively advanced stage of bone cancer. The family, the doctors, the community all band together to raise money, try the most effective techniques, pray, work, cry, and do everything they can to beat that cancer. Every possible resource available is brought to bear in saving the girl's life. She doesn't have a very high likelihood of making it, but nobody even bats an eye at the effort made to save her. And that is as it should be.
Why the difference? Why would we fight like mad to save the little girl, but not the ninety-year-old (still wonderful) lady? Why do we choose a non-interventionist, quality-of-life route for some, but pull out all the stops for others? The answer almost seems to obvious in hindsight: potential.
Potential
Human beings make judgment calls constantly. (That doesn't mean we're being judgmental, by the way.) We have to make small and large evaluations at nearly every juncture of our life. Whenever that pertains to other people we are of course urged to exercise caution, compassion, and forethought. So far so good.
When it comes to evaluating the value of a human life, things get very uncomfortable very fast. Many people default to trying to preserve every life in every way every time with all available resources, and that is an admirable default stance. But given the world has limited resources, we invariably end up seeing situations arise like I noted above; sometimes it's just not worth it to expend the resources, given the potential of the life we are trying to save. These decisions should be limited in frequency, and we all hope we don't have to get involved in them because they're never fun to make. But it happens, and we eventually get to participate in the calculus.
Generally speaking, people don't feel like it's the wrong decision to let someone go who is on their deathbed when there is clearly little to no potential left. We also have a very strong recoil when a life is ended when the individual otherwise had a lot of potential left. When a child dies, "they had their whole life ahead of them." This sentiment is natural, human, and good; it encourages us to protect the innocent, the young, and the defenseless. It is no fallacy to state that a young person who lost their life could have been "the next Einstein," an expression of the hope we have in the seemingly boundless potential of even a single life.
What then is the potential of a baby? Even if we try to obscure the humanity of the little creature growing inside of a mother by calling it a fetus or a zygote, or even if we try to minimize its importance by calling attention to the mother's consciousness and known ability to make choices, we cannot deny the potential of the baby. Specious arguments such as "if it were born right now it would die so there is no potential against the mother's choice" don't fly, because babies are not generally born preterm, and given the incredible potential of the person whose budding existence is already established, it would seem the mother's choice and the baby's obvious desire to live ought to be weighted heavily in favor of the baby. The potential for good done to all people by letting that individual baby live is simply too great to cast aside.
Arguments
Yet there are various arguments some people make in favor of abortion. Some of them are narrow, based on limited circumstances, and some are very broad.
Life of the mother in danger
One limited argument regards the cases where the life of the mother is in grave danger in continuing the pregnancy. This is a strong argument: there do exist pregnancies such as this, and they can literally kill the mother, and usually the baby too as a result. Competent and accurate medical evaluations can arrive at the conclusion that continuing a pregnancy is just too dangerous.
In some cases this may simply be the best option. However, my wife and I have a friend that had an issue with her uterus (related to endemytriosis) where her pregnancies were very difficult, her babies born pretty early, and she would hemorrhage a lot. And I mean a LOT. With her second child, she was born quite early because the doctors decided they couldn't wait any longer and did an emergency C-section. The baby was in the NICU for quite some time, but survived and is now doing just fine. The third pregnancy, she began hemorrhaging even earlier, and the doctors were recommending she abort the pregnancy right away. She refused, and they waited as long as they could, and did the emergency C-section again. Her baby lived only a couple of weeks or less in the NICU. But if you asked her, she wouldn't have changed a thing. It was very hard on them, but worth it to do everything in their power to save the baby, contingent on making sure the mother herself was also protected adequately.
Modern medical technology, while not entirely eliminating the reason for abortions in these cases, is making them less necessary from a strict standpoint. And it is entirely a noble choice for a mother to do as this mother did: expend whatever resources are possible to save the baby.
Rape or incest
Generally the main argument for abortion is "choice," or really the mother's choice. We'll talk more about that further below, but it is indeed a compelling situation when a pregnancy was thrust upon a woman (or teenage girl) against her will in any significant degree. As she truly didn't get a choice in the matter, the option of terminating the pregnancy may have some reason to it. There are often circumstances surrounding incest in particular where revelation of a pregnancy could clearly endanger the mother-to-be's life (an abuser in the home, etc).
But the root of these problems is that somebody is a criminal and deserves to be locked up for a long time, and the baby isn't the criminal and also got no choice in the matter. To take one person who had their will taken from them, and have them take it out on another person who also had no choice in the matter hardly seems like a good solution. The better avenue if possible (and it isn't always possible or easy, I'll admit) is to nail the criminal to the wall and remove them entirely from the life of the new mother. In conjunction with adoption, this is in my opinion the best outcome: the most life and potential is preserved, while the scumbag gets his comeuppance. The new mother does still have to endure what is undoubtedly a difficult pregnancy and potential stigma, but nevertheless she will have a clear conscience. A clear conscience is worth almost any price.
Deformities and disabilities
When Stalin, Hitler, and Franco began rounding up people with disabilities in those collectivist countries and exterminating them, the rest of the civilized world cried out in horror. How could anyone take an individual, much less one who cannot defend them self, and execute them simply because "they are a burden"? Our stomachs twist into a knot just thinking about it. Yet when a doctor offers to do tests on a pregnancy to look for genetic markers they usually are required to mention that the mother may choose to abort the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. My own wife always said, "why on earth would I take those tests when it wouldn't change my decision to fight to keep the baby?"
Many people are afraid of raising children with disabilities. It can be very difficult, very straining on the family finances, very taxing to deal with a child who never develops emotionally or can be properly reasoned with, etc. It is also hard to go through the process of birth with a baby who may not make it, or may not live very long after birth. These are very real concerns, and it will certainly be a life-changing event (but then again, having a child at all is a life-changing event). But we should ask: is it selfish? And what about the potential of a child with disabilities? What potential is there?
Let me illustrate with a couple of examples. Once I was at a regional conference for my church, and seated a few rows ahead of us was a particular family that had a few kids. There was a daughter, it seemed she was eight-ish years of age that had long straight dark hair, and her dad that had short but wavy hair. The daughter seemed wiggly, but was very affectionate with her father. He reciprocated, and seemed very happy to have his daughter leaning on him and snuggling with him. This continue for some time, and I thought to myself that must be a really good dad, as his daughter obviously adored her dad.
Then she turned back in her chair, and I could see clearly she had Down syndrome. I had this initial reaction of shock, like I didn't expect a Downs child to act like that. But then I realized she was so full of love, and so is her dad. She was happy, and smiling, and living life to its fullest as well as any child could. Her dad was living life to its fullest as well. I envy that dad. I envy his relationship with his daughter. I envy his heart, and wish mine was as pure.
A number of years later, in high school, I recall a boy my age that was in a special wheelchair as he had very little motor function, and could barely speak at all. His name was Mark Peterson. I'm not sure, but I think he had cerebral palsy. After he would arrive on the bus, some random student would wheel him into the school, and another might jump in and take over, taking him to his first class, and so forth. I remember riding the elevator with him once and asking him where he was going, and I could barely make out what class he said. But everyone knew him, and it was also clear his mind was sharp, but his body didn't want to cooperate at all.
Some other kids in the school who had perfectly functioning bodies, but their minds didn't keep up as well were also around. I vividly recall one of them falling asleep at his desk in one of the regular classes they had him attend, and he left a big pool of saliva as he slept. The rest of us tried to not laugh or make a scene, but it was a little amusing of course. We did our best to include them, and make sure they didn't feel too out of place, even though I'm sure sometimes not everyone was totally sensitive to them.
Then came graduation. My high school graduating class had 630 students, and we filled Abravanel Hall in Salt Lake City with students and family. I was a valedictorian, and had tons of medals and honor cords hanging off of me that day. But that's not really what makes that day memorable for me; something else of far greater importance happened. After the speeches and whatnot, and everyone was going up to get their diplomas one at a time, they had Mark come up. I can't even write this without tearing up. As he was wheeled out, the entire hall erupted in a deafening roar of cheers and claps. Everyone stood up. He stayed up there for at least 5 minutes of this deafening roar, which far outstripped what anyone else received. I was in the front as a Valedictorian, and I could see Mark's face, his big smile and teary eyes. He was on top of the world. He was a hero to us all, and we let him know it. His face radiated the most bliss I think I've ever seen. I felt a warmth wash over me and stay with me; I realized that Mark had brought out pure, unfettered humanity and love from all of us. I never wanted that moment to end. I will forever remember what Mark did for all of us, by living and enduring. Right after the other boys with mental handicaps came up, and they got the same treatment. They were beaming, and were so happy. That was their moment, where we told them they were not one whit behind us. Their potential was being fulfilled in a big way that night.
So, I say to those who would abort a baby who appears to have a disability detected in-utero: how dare you. How dare you deny them the joy of life, in whatever degree they can experience it, even if it is very short? How dare you deny them the chance to experience the good and the bad, the pain and the pleasure, the disappointment and the joy of living? How dare you be so selfish as to deny the rest of us the inspiring moment when these individuals teach us to be human and to be compassionate? How dare you take my heroes from me, and from my children? Do you not realize what you can learn from them? Do you not realize the personal growth you experience by being brave and strong for their benefit? Do you not see that they represent all of us when we are weak, helpless, forgetful, obstinate, or when we misunderstand or just can't do things the way we want? They are our mirror, and our conduct concerning them is one of the truest measures of what is in our heart and soul. And they deserve our protection. They deserve that deafening roar of claps and cheers to tell them they are one of us and that we've got their back. I don't think Mark is alive anymore, as his disability took the lives of all of his siblings that had it (and most of them did) by the time they were 25 years old. But the effect he had on me and others I know is causing his potential to still be fulfilled today with grand and powerful echoes. Mark lived; oh how he lived and loved life. I will never forget him.
Other reasons
There are various other reasons given to justify abortion, such as undesired gender, convenience, "relationship complication," embarrassment, anger, bad timing, etc. I think it's safe to say that these are not strong reasons, and with respect to potential they can easily be discarded as invalid. When terminating a life for any of these reasons after an individual is born we would call it murder. So, if potential is a main operative concern with the calculus of saving or terminating a life when the question legitimately arises, why should we wait to call something murder until the baby has taken a breath? Does that mean we can kill someone who is on a heart-lung machine with impunity and not be jailed for it? Yes, forbidding the termination of pregnancy for these reasons will certainly impact the mother's life, and her subsequent choices. But really, is her choice taken from her, or is this instead just insisting on her accepting the consequences of her actions (which is not a concept in contravention of liberty and rights).
Look at it this way: you can make your choices, but you cannot choose the consequences. Many people try very strenuously to avoid the consequences of their choices and actions, but in the end it always catches up with them. You cannot run away from your choices forever. So, then, where is the choice?
Herein lies a major problem the world is experiencing these days. Pregnancy is being disconnected conceptually from sexual intercourse. People go around having sex, and then seem surprised when the female cohort turns up pregnant, as if lighting had struck them. Here is the principle people are missing: unless a woman has been through menopause, sexual intercourse leads to pregnancy. There are many methods of reducing the likelihood of pregnancy, but there is only one way to completely eliminate the chances of getting pregnant: don't have sex. Any person who decides that he or she is ready to have sex needs to realize they have decided they are ready to produce a baby. Despite the world's inane attempt at decoupling the two, the truth reigns supreme that sexual intercourse makes babies, and that is its primary function in the final analysis.
The choice is made when a man and a woman mutually consent and decide to have sexual intercourse. If they didn't want a baby, well, they were only fooling themselves. The consequence of pregnancy is a non-zero risk, and it is a risk they assume in the act. If the other legitimate reasons (life of the mother medically truly in danger, rape or incest) are not fulfilled, then taking the life of the baby to avoid the consequences is somewhat akin to killing a witness to a robbery and dumping the body so that you don't get caught. From a non-religious point of view that couple (or whoever instigated the decision to abort) is pure scum and it will probably catch up with them. From a religious (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) point of view, it is guaranteed to catch up with them if they don't repent deeply before their life itself runs out of time.
To argue that a mother's convenience or other minor issues relative to a baby's, say, potential century of lifetime experienced are more important flies in the face of reason. Anybody who truly feels that way, that a growing baby is nothing more than a lump of tissue or is a parasite to be discarded at will needs to take a long, deep look inside. If the principle of potential is ignored, the entire framework for what constitutes morality and murder in all societies comes unraveled. The endgame for that type of society is clearly not pretty.
However, many of these women who go through with abortions for these other reasons have been egged into it by someone. A selfish boyfriend, a selfish parent, a misguided but close friend, etc. Many of them are scared, and are damaged after the procedure is done. They deeply regret it, and remain confused and likely to not talk a lot about it. I do not believe that these women should bear the full burden of guilt, but their handlers should.
To answer one of the earlier questions, if a doctor performs abortions (for non-valid reasons as detailed) even with a clean, "safe" facility that otherwise appears fine, is he still evil? In my opinion, yes. I believe it appropriate to apply Jesus Christ's characterization of the pharisees to such doctors: whited sepulchers. They are pristine and white on the outside, but inside are full of dead [babies'] bones.
What we should do
We should be compassionate and understanding to these women, as they need a forgiving and merciful group of people to welcome them and teach them a better way, one that preserves life and the boundless potential each tiny life brings. They are conceived in a careful cradle of life, by a mother who undoubtedly has trepidation and fear for her ability to take care of such an awesome responsibility: helping a child grow to fulfill their potential. We should inspire them to the desire to soon hold that soft, delicate and cute newborn baby to soak in the immense humanity that comes with that event. Even if they are to give up the baby to a desirous adoptive couple, their life will forever be changed for the better, and we need to help them see the grand potential of letting that pregnancy run its natural course.
It does not take a village to raise a child (it takes a family), but the village needs to defend the child, and all children, and all mothers. We carry deep within us the seeds of greatness, and it is our responsibility by virtue of having life to defend others' lives, especially those who cannot do so for themselves. We must treat each conceived baby, no matter what their stage of existence, as precious and inspiring. We should regard them as having the capability to change the entire world for the better. And we should help each mother see that their baby will change her life dramatically for the better, if she will allow that change to occur. We must support them, cheer them on, and cheer their beautiful children on. We must carry them up to life's graduations where they can hear the deafening roar of claps and cheers of their fellow men, women and angels who also carry the same heavenly potential as they do, making it clear that they are one of us, and that we will never forget them.
Always remember: when God wants to change the world, he sends a baby.
No comments:
Post a Comment