To ClamoringChampion
I found your blog by searching Vox for tags like "abortion" and "blogging for choice." Truth be told, I was surprised there weren't more posts, pro and con, given that today's the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I didn't wake up this morning planning to blog about abortion rights. I was interested in your thoughts on the subject, and in any other well-written, intelligent, reasonable, persuasive arguments on either side of the discussion. We don't have to agree; mutual respect is a good start.
I really struggle with this. I believe, utterly, in a woman's right to control what happens to her own body, including her right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I also believe that life is a sacred gift (given, perhaps, a bit too freely to those who don't appreciate it, and withheld inexplicably from some who do). I happen to believe that quality of life does matter, at least in a pragmatic sense; most of us would not choose to inflict pointless suffering on ourselves, our loved ones, or our pets.
Autonomy over one's own body is a right that should be protected by law and goes hand in hand with the separation of church and state. Women do not uniformly share one set of beliefs. To tell an atheist that she cannot have an abortion because it is an affront to G-d is offensive, in my opinion. But I believe the only moral ways to change someone's beliefs are through example and gentle persuasive argument - not through browbeating, belittling, or abusing them.
Redzilla pointed out that she would not sign an abortion referral for any woman who expressed a feeling that abortion was "wrong." That would have made her complicit in their "wrongdoing." I think that's a very ethical approach. If you believe it's wrong, then it is certainly wrong for you. (And you may well believe it's wrong regardless of other's beliefs; however, you do not have the right, in this country, to force others to agree on religious grounds.)
My choices and their ultimate consequences for my soul are between me and G-d. If I am religious, the Church can provide its guidance and its teachings, but ultimately the choice is still mine. That choice is not up to a Church whose teachings I don't follow. It's not up to you, my family, or society. And even though I would be inclined to give my husband some say in the matter, he feels strongly that it is not even up to him. I have to say, after giving it much thought, that I think he's right in this. The responsibility that comes with the right to choose is mine, as are the physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual consequences of that choice.
I don't see that the Catechism clearly allows for abortion as a consequence of medical treatment, in any case at all, but particularly if abortion itself IS the treatment. That's pretty much what was called for in my friend's case; it was the pregnancy, itself, that placed unbearable stress on her organs. Ending the pregnancy was the treatment.
You assert that,"In fact, in the Catholic faith (which says that the taking of any life as an end in itself, is immoral) acknowledges that there may be times when the treatment of the mother might cause or be abortive in its means. The key difference is that the abortion not be the desired end."
What the Catechism actually says is that "abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law."
Where does it provide an exception for treatment of serious, life-threatening illness in the mother? I'm just not seeing it.
However, I believe it would have been morally wrong for my friend to put her life at imminent risk and thereby jeopardize the well-being of her husband and her living children. You read Redzilla's comment about her friend who was left to raise her siblings when mom died giving birth to twins? The twins lived, but was their life really more precious than their mother's? Was their life worth the sacrifices demanded of the eldest daughter? Was it worth the destruction of the father?
I could argue that it's a test of faith - that if only the mother's or father's faith was strong enough, a miracle would occur and all would be well. I just don't believe that G-d plays those kinds of games with people, nor do I believe a loving G-d would condemn a whole family to hell on earth OR everlasting damnation for choosing to put the mother's life and health first, and ending the pregnancy.
I trust that most women do not procure abortions for mere convenience' sake. (If there are any who do, there's a special place in Hell for them, no doubt - I'm not going to worry about their fate.) Sure, there are "unwanted" children who go on to have comfortable lives and turn out well - perhaps even brilliantly. But there are many of them living in filth and squalor, suffering neglect and abuse. Of those who survive, many will go on to repeat the cycle, because it's all they know. In an ideal world, there would be adoptive parents waiting in the wings for every one of those kids, ready and willing to provide a good home, love, basic necessities, and a good moral upbringing. Sadly, this is not an ideal world. And there are a lot of hypocrites out there.
You have a right to speak out - you and your wife have faced this choice and made it in accordance with your beliefs. And look at those adorable kids! There's no "mistake" there - not in their conception or in your choice to bring them into this world or to become a family. Imagine, for a moment, a topsy-turvy world in which that choice were not an option - where you were forced, by law, to abort a child not conceived in wedlock. Where that was the only "moral" alternative. Isn't that an offensive notion?
You wrote, "[m]y wife and I have to live with this, and this is our punishment, but I will not stand for a world where my child was seen as an inconvenient choice." I find it difficult to look at pictures of you and your family and believe that you can say "this is our punishment" without laughing. Man, did you get off light! Can you honestly believe you're being "punished"? You made the right choice for you. Your joy in your children is so evident on your face in those photos. Would you really trade them for more successful careers?
When I was researching "Baby Doe" cases for the paper I wrote in law school, I learned of some genetic abnormalities I wish I'd never heard of. Rare as they are, they haunted my dreams for weeks. When I got pregnant with my daughter, right before the start of my third year, those photos and stories flashed through my mind and I prayed that G-d truly wouldn't heap on my shoulders more than I could bear. The one that really terrified me was Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome. Never mind that I had none of the risk factors and it was about as likely as getting knocked unconscious by a chip off SpaceLab...
Children with this chromosomal abnormality are compelled to chew off their own lips, fingers, and toes, and engage in other self-mutilating behaviors. They are often moderately to profoundly mentally retarded and suffer other serious and painful physical ailments. With physical restraints, adequate medical care, and their every bodily need attended to by others, they're apt to die by age five or so. Nowadays, with newer therapies, they can live to age forty or beyond. Still, the prognosis is "poor." Imagine the torment for every other member of the family. Some would say, "So what? That doesn't matter. They don't count." I think they do.
Had genetic testing revealed this in my pregnancy, I would have opted for an abortion. I make no apology for this fact; I would have terminated the pregnancy. But look here - here's a family who made a different choice.
Click on the picture and read his story. I'll be here when you get back...
Look at the smile on that young man's face. Who could look at Ernie and not respond with a smile in return? But when I think what his family has had to endure over the last seventeen years, in order to enjoy that precious gift of life from G-d, I can only think, "I'm not worthy." Really. I'm not.
There's a special place in Heaven for people like this. I won't even be allowed to sweep the floors in their little corner of Paradise; I know that. And you know what? I can live with it. I'm a flawed human being. I thank G-d He knew my limitations and didn't "test" me thus. I've had some challenges; all parents do, I think. I've had more than my share of blessings. But this? I'm not up to it. Which would have been the bigger sin - to give birth and abandon a child like Ernie, knowing the likelihood of adoption is almost nonexistent, or to terminate the pregnancy? G-d bless the parents who chose to have him and KEEP him, but what if that's not the choice? What if adoption or abortion are the only alternatives? Let's face it, most communities are not going to step up to the plate and offer any real help or support in cases like this, and it's unrealistic to expect all parents to rise to the occasion.
Once upon a time, they wouldn't have had to, but now, with advances in medical care and technology, we're having to deal with thornier moral issues.
I have two children. The notion that children are beings brought into life to serve another is actually more old-fashioned than it is modern. Children now are seen as more of a luxury. And it's a good thing - we bring them into the world and spend most of the next eighteen years serving them (the little tyrants). I'm kidding - for the most part. But you see my point. It's not a question of whether they'll serve us well, but of whether we can serve them adequately. Is honesty a sin? To say "I'm not worthy of the gift"? Even to admit "I'm not capable of seeing this as a 'gift' right now, and I'm not up to the burden"?
Your concern regarding "choice" and eugenics has merit; it doesn't figure into my thinking, but it is commonplace and troubling even today. It would be easier if we could immediately grasp a person's motives; if they could not be hidden or couched in pretty terms. I think, though, that it is better to allow a woman autonomy over her body than to restrict that because some women make evil choices. Make no mistake: I think abortion for mere convenience, or to choose the sex of your child, or to weed out undesirable physical traits (cosmetic ones, not related to health) is reprehensible.
All I can say is, so long as there are circumstances under which I would seriously consider abortion, I absolutely cannot and will not judge anyone else harshly for having one. Because I'm very anti-hypocrisy. And even if I couldn't think of one circumstance that would drive me to terminate a pregnancy, I think such judgement is best left to G-d, while the rest of us pray for and work towards a more ideal world, where such "choices" aren't even necessary.
I could go off on a tangent here and say that there are religions outside of Christianity that teach that ALL life is sacred - even to a greater extent than Catholicism (I only bring them up to illustrate that Christians don't have a corner on the "life is sacred" doctrine):
"... the Jain reprobates meat-food without exception as involving the unlawful taking of life. For similar reasons the Jain does not content himself with straining his drinking water and with remaining at home during the rainy season, when the ground is swarming with lower forms of life, but when he goes forth, he wears a veil before his mouth, and carries a broom with which he sweeps the ground before him to avoid destruction of insect life. The Jainist ascetic allows himself to be bitten by gnats and mosquitoes rather than risk their destruction by brushing them away."
(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08269b.htm )
Leaving aside any criticism of Jainism (let's just not open an utterly pointless can of worms this late at night), let's accept for the sake of argument that life - in all its forms - is a sacred gift from G-d. Who are we, then, to "rank" it in order of importance? Or, if we do, where do we draw the line? Human life? Born or unborn? (Right now, I'm feeling really tempted to be ridiculous and carry a broom with me to sweep my path free of insects, so as not to harm them. The fact is, though, I can't live like that. It would be hypocritical of me to push the point I'm trying to make here, but there's a part of me that does believe it.)
Your comments were taken as sincere, and opposing viewpoints - stated without personal animosity - are always welcome. Didn't Moses say he wasn't a gifted orator? Didn't he find the words, when words were needed?
Comments
Where does it provide an exception for treatment of serious, life-threatening illness in the mother? I'm just not seeing it.
I don't know about catechism so much, but there's an explanation or exploration of the Catholic Church's position on such things here. The relevant bit:
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; That the immediate effect be good in itself; That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it -- a procedure never allowed; That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect. All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good -- no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother -- the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life.Hope that helps.
I think that agrees with my understanding, rotheche - in other words, according to Catholic doctrine, chemotherapy (even knowing that death or damage to the fetus is a likely - but provided that is not the intended or wanted result) would be licit, but terminating a pregnancy which, in itself, is causing deadly stress on the mother's organs, is not? (...That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect;)
I think, if that's what you believe, then that's what you must (or must not) do. But the right of religious freedom - at least in the U.S. - stops (or should stop) when it comes to imposing itself on others who don't share those beliefs. The freedom to choose, and having autonomy over my body, means that I can choose to follow religious doctrine and die for my beliefs, if need be. If my beliefs allow for abortion - under whatever circumstances present themselves - then it means I can terminate my pregnancy. Bottom line, it's not only autonomy over my body and privacy rights, but religious freedom that's at stake. And should I choose to act in opposition to my faith's doctrine, it's not the law that should step in, but G-d and the Church.
Obviously, the law can and does legislate morals, but it's a balancing act. When it comes to causing the death of another person being defined as a crime, there are exceptions under law. I can't stand here and say "Oh, that collection of cells isn't 'life' - abortion is not 'causing the death of another person,'" but I can say that I believe until that "person" is capable of sustaining its own life, independent of the mother's body, the mother's rights should supercede. Other family members' needs should be considered. (One argument against suicide has always been the negative impact on family and society.) Again, I can legally cut off my own healthy arm. I'm not sure that any church would find that a moral, G-dly act (though I could argue it "offended me" and the Bible told me to do it). For a while, that severed arm consists of living cells and is a part of me - a sacred part of me, if you will, if you accept that we were created in G-d's image. Many would argue that I was wrong to cut off my arm, but I'm not sure anyone would say that I had no legal right to do it. (I can just imagine Judgement Day. G-d, staring in horror at the stump where my arm used to be: "What were you thinking?" Me: "Well, I was trying to prove a point. You didn't have to create me to be such a stickler for matters of principle.")
Just throwing in my 2¢
Your 2¢ is always welcome - helps pay for my Starbucks addiction, but not so fast I get the caffeine jitters! Thanks!
I think you're right; ironically, it's not just "octegenarian males" or a "council of males" who try to limit what women can and cannot do with their bodies. All too often, it is other women trying to impose their beliefs and morals on women.
My 2 cents: It is the role of government to impose the majority view of beliefs and morals on society. There are people out there (in other cultures) who believe it is okay, even honorable, to eat other people. Our society has deemed that practice to be immoral. We have thus legislated our beliefs and morals views. It is the majority view that women after the second trimester should not be allowed to have an abortion. However, due to imperfections in the democratic system, that is not law. I work to make our government more democratic.
Besides, at least octegenarian males have more experience and less selfish motives than politicians - they should be enjoying their retirement and being a priest don't pay well.
I'm willing to stipulate that this accurately reflects the majority view. I'm not sure that's a fact, but I'm not going to refute it.
I don't disagree. After the second trimester (that's "after six months" for those who can't count or may be inclined to quibble), the fetus may be able to live on its own. There's certainly precedent for it. It's also true that a full-term baby may die at the moment of birth or shortly thereafter, through no one's "fault." Would it be okay to hasten birth? To perform a C-section at this point and say "If the child lives, it lives?" (I'm asking this, not to be argumentative or gross, but say my friend with kidney disease could have carried the pregnancy to six months - at that point, would it have been acceptable to attempt a C-section, arguing that the child ought to be viable given appropriate medical care? If the motive was the good of the mother, and NOT the demise of the infant - even knowing that early birth might bring the risk of death?)
Setting that aside, for the moment, I don't agree that "majority rule" is always a proper or actual basis for a determination of what constitutes our basic human rights, or which rights outweigh other rights. And this is why they're referred to as "inalienable" rights. A fetus is not legally recognized as a person protected under law in all states. And I contend that until it's capable of survival outside the womb, it may indeed be "human life" but does not yet stand on an equal footing with the mother, if the rights of one have to come before the rights of the other.
You're right - in some cultures, it's perfectly acceptable to eat people. I can even make an argument in favor of that, provided we're not out hunting them down as food (or raising them as food). I mean, really - if I crashed in the Andes and I died, and other survivors could live by eating me, what do you think I'd want them to do? Die? For what? It's going to be a whole lot harder on them than on me, but I'll say right here and now: "Get over it. Live." I don't eat my dead ancestors to "honor" them (and I'm not at all sure I could choke them down even if we agreed it was a good thing to do), but I can see it as a moral act within a different cultural and religious context. It's hardly harming the dead, nor is it dishonoring them, when done with the specific intention of honoring them. I've heard of eating one's enemies, for similar reasons - to acquire their strengths and their honor. Ooookay... well. Again, in another time and place, this could be seen as a moral act. (I can imagine a conquered hero, insulted, saying "What, am I not good enough for you to eat? You want to do what? BURY me? Under dirt?")
On the other hand... if you read that bit about Armin Miewes and his "willing victim, Bernd-Juergen Brandes," I'm not sure which was the sicker puppy. Makes me want to toss my cookies just thinking about it. Immoral? I'm inclined to say yes, though perhaps not - in another context, another time, another place, another culture. In our society, the next "entree" is not likely to be so willing.
So, of course you can turn all that around and say that the unborn child is also not willing. And that's where I say you have to make a tough call. Does one person have the right to demand sustenance of another's body, even for survival? Say I need blood - and you are a type match - do I have the right to demand you give me your blood, so that I might live? Perhaps I need a kidney. You have two; you can live with one. You're a perfect tissue match. Do I have a right to demand your kidney of you, that I might live? Why are your rights more important than mine? Giving blood won't hurt you at all. At worst, it will cause you about twenty minutes' inconvenience. Giving a kidney is a little riskier, but the donor usually does survive and goes on to live a long and healthy life. Bone marrow - should there not be a law that all healthy, potential donors be screened and added to the bone marrow registry, and compelled to help their fellow man when they are able to save a life? Why not? And assuming you have one willing donor, how do you choose between two equally sick recipients?
Such relationships between people should be entered into freely, voluntarily - and gladly - in my opinion. I'd rather die than have you be compelled to save my life by giving up a part of yourself unwillingly or at risk to your health and life. And yet that's what you'd demand of these women.
I'm of the "don't play if you're not prepared to pay" camp, to be honest. But then, as a non-Catholic, I also believe the contraceptive use is a good thing, if you don't want to have babies. I have no moral struggle whatsoever on that issue. The more clear-cut debate between us would arise in the case of rape, I suspect. There, you have two innocent human beings: the mother and the fetus. You have to choose. Well, I'm sorry - blessing from G-d that child may be, but I don't think it's morally wrong at all for the woman to opt for an abortion. She didn't choose to have sex. She didn't consent to turn over her body to the use of another human life for nine months. And the only argument I can make for her right to terminate the pregnancy, given that both are utterly innocent, is that I put her right to choose whether to host that life within her body or not - as a fully-formed human being and citizen of this society - ahead of the rights of a human life that's not yet fully formed and capable of sustaining itself outside the womb. Period. That, as Redzilla would say, means I can't say "Right for her, but wrong for that other woman..."
MY CHOICE might be very different from another woman's, and you might agree or disagree with it, but it's rightfully mine.
The wealth of knowledge of the Church span's two centuries and is the stable institution to do so. Her scholarship has given rise to some of the most brilliant minds of history - St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, John Henry Cardinal Newman, etc. etc. I do not condescend to compete with these intellectual giants and I do not dismiss them. Their writings have been preserved, reiterated, and expounded upon through the ages by other, lesser brilliant minds. This is the body of knowledge we call the Magisterium, and it is great. I don't understand why people are so quick to dismiss the wealth of intellectual history in the Church for modern, anti-Catholic pop-philosophy.
I posted my response on my blog. Thanks again for keeping our discussion cordial.
By neglecting to donate whatever organ to save another's life, a person is not causing his death by inaction. The cause of death is the disease itself. There are an infinite number of outcomes in this situation - the person may live through their disease (miraculously or otherwise), someone else may chose to donate, the person might die of something completely unrelated. And the donors lack of action is not directly causing the death, even if the recipient's death is somehow consequential to his lack of action. There is no guarantee that his action will save the person. So long as the donor does not withhold his organs with the express purpose of causing the person's death, the donor has no moral obligation to donate. Because there is no way for a governing body to unequivocally discern a person's purpose, forced donation can not be legislated.
Abortion is a very different circumstance. Even people who wish to die do not in fact have the right to it, so as long as the fetus is alive, it has a right to continue living. Abortion directly impedes this right, and unless another's life (again, not health) is at stack, is not morally justified.