A friend asked a seemingly innocuous question recently: “If you could choose to be born in any time and place, when and where would it be?” Not surprisingly, my answer was: “Here in modern America.” The answer seemed obvious: By being born here and now, not only would I likely make it to adulthood thanks to our blessedly low infant mortality rates, but I would go on to have a life of freedom! We have unprecedented levels of personal freedom in our culture, and what’s not to love about that?
But my argument was turned on its head when my friend followed up with a similar question, to which I had a startlingly different reaction: “When and where would you choose to be conceived?”
Suddenly, modern America plummeted to near the bottom of the list.
More than one out of every five pregnancies ends in abortion. While it’s almost certain that I would survive if I were born here, my odds of surviving nine months in the womb would be tragically low—and hardly better than a coin flip if my life were to start in a place like New York City.
This is a stark commentary about the undercurrents that run through our society. In particular, I think it’s the perfect illustration of what happens when a people misunderstand what it means to be free.
When the founders who shaped this country’s ideals talked about the inalienable right of man to be free, it was always with the unspoken caveat “...to do the right thing.” Nobody ever fought for individual freedom so that people could become rapists or burglars or peeping toms if the whim struck them. Freedom meant that a person would have the opportunity to seek his own destiny, within the boundaries of morality. Self-control and self-sacrifice were always understood to be part of the package. As Lord Acton put it: Freedom is “not the power of doing what we like, but the right of being able to do what we ought.”
Now “freedom” has become synonymous with “being able to do whatever I want.” Responsibility, sacrifice for the greater good, living within the bounds of millenia-old moral principles are all secondary to the pursuit of individual comfort, if not disregarded altogether. This is often touted as an enlightened, progressive path: “Do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else,” the thinking goes. What’s not to love about that? It sounds great at first glance. The problem is that it doesn’t work. What previous generations understood, that we will have to re-learn at great cost, is that the fabric of a peaceful society is always the individual’s willingness to sacrifice his own self interest for his fellow human beings. When that’s gone, everything starts to unravel. “Do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else” is an impossible moral directive. When your life revolves around doing whatever you want, it will always end up hurting others.
There’s hardly a better example of this truth than our current abortion rates. Sex is part of the modern personal freedom package, one of many activities where people are told they should be “free” to do whatever they want. And if that activity should create a new, dependent life? That’s a big problem, because having responsibility to someone else comes with things like duty, a loss of autonomy, and self-sacrifice. In order to maintain this new kind of freedom, you have to avoid all of that stuff. And so abortion starts to look like an appealing—even necessary—option. Though this may not be the thinking behind every single abortion, certainly this tension between complete personal autonomy and sacrifice for others is a major driving force in the culture of death.
I keep thinking about my friend’s two questions, and just how much they reveal about what is going on in our culture. I’ve read plenty of lofty philosophical discussions about the different definitions of what it means to be free, including some erudite defenses of the “do what you want” view of freedom. But I think nothing brings the faults of this line of thinking into relief better than the simple fact that the “best” place to be born, by the standards of this worldview, is the last place you’d want to be conceived.
Comments
Post a Comment
The present Administration is playing a very active role in the creation of America’s most lethal WMDs - Wombs of Mass Destruction. Unfortunately, they are killing their own little brothers and sisters and, as a result, their country’s survival and continuity. Why worry about external enemies, aye?
This is a very telling set of questions, and kudos to the person who thought to ask you!
That’s what’s so problematic about moral relativism. It has this thin veneer of “freedom” but the reality is that you are a slave to no anchor in your belief system.
No. Thank. You. I’d rather have my roots firmly planted in something bigger than my flawed thinking.
Freedom is being allowed to do that which you ought to do.
I have noticed that everyone that is for abortion has already been born.-Ronald Reagan
Incredible reflection. Of course, abortion advocates will say that abortion allows us to enjoy the quality of life we have (which is why they want to export the practice worldwide), as if any amount of comfort or luxury can justify the killing of children.
It is when people put material possessions, status and luxury above the value of a life and call it their freedom of choice that makes me wonder when human thinking got so messed up.
I would stand up and applaud if I didn’t have a sleeping baby in my lap! Excellent.
I do agree with what you say, Jen—but did want to point out that the USA is not as stellar as many people assume when it comes to infant mortality rates. The last I read, a year or so ago, we were #34 in the world in infant mortality rates, behind such countries as Costa Rica. Some say this is due to the lack of available medical care in many areas, for moms without medical insurance who do not qualify for Medicaid. Could be, I don’t know. But technically speaking, there may be better countries in which to give birth, too.
Actually, the US has a bad track record of infant mortality compared to some other developed nations because of the high rate of unnecessary medical interventions. Developed countries that use midwives for most deliveries and reserve OBs for high risk pregnancies, do better.
Interesting, Barbara, thanks! Do you happen to have any data about that? I’d like to read more!
“More than one out of every five pregnancies ends in abortion”
—that’s a shame-sounds like more humans get destroyed than animals in shelters—what’s that say about our society?
More than one out of every four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Why does God hate fetuses?
Every natural life ends in death, some in the womb, some at old age some by illness. But it is God who is to decide. He creates life and it His do do with as He will. There is no hatred involved.
A mother creates life and it is hers to do with as she will. There is no hatred involved.
I think you misunderstand the state of mind in which people have abortions. They are not just looking to continue their party life, they are very often desperate, going out of their mind. Most women who have abortions already have multiple children, and having another means the ones they have will have even less to eat. And they regret it, quite often, but don’t forget the hell they went through to make that decision.
That’s not what I want to talk about though. What I wanted to mention was that although we have a lower infant mortality rate than most countries, we have the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world because of the birthing process. Unnecessary C-sections, unneeded medical interventions, the cespool of germs that is a hospital. The best place to survive infancy, at least the first few days of it, is Holland.
Emile, the mother does not create life. Life is created by God. It is not “hers”. It bothers me when parents refer to their children as possessions.
@CyraEm
Jen didn’t say that women who have abortions are cavalier about the decision, or that they make it so they can go on boozing with their friends. One of the most common misconceptions about pro-life advocates is that they think women skip into abortion facilities with grins on their faces, and come out euphoric and ready to go back to their regularly scheduled lives. Part of the reason many of us are pro-life is because we know the kind of harm abortion does to a woman, and we don’t want that to occur any more than we want babies being killed. However, you provide a good springboard for how the pro-life movement could expand its horizons, i.e., touting cleaner hospitals less unnecessary interventions and c-sections.
Abortions are not ideal and can affect a woman deeply but then I know of four that were thrown into depression by the miscarriage of a foetus at around 5 months. That’s God’s will is it? I also know several women who would have died in childbirth without modern medical practice. God’s will again?
Someone has already mention the high rate of miscarriages, but there is also the high rate of maternal deaths that would occur without medical help, and in too many parts of the world does occur. This is God’s love in action?
Maternal deaths per 100,000 births:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_mat_mor-health-maternal-mortality
Infant, as in under 12 months, mortality rates by country:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate∫=-1
Since these figures are per country, one must assume even higher rates of mortality in rural areas.
These rates would be our rates without modern society and science.
So, I return to a question I asked in another thread: In what way does god make life better for the people of Malawi, say?
But didn’t God give us the minds and ability to perform abortions?
@ac
God has an active will (He can make things happen) and a permissive will (He can just allow things to run their natural course). Suffering is part of God’s permissive will, and while many don’t want to acknowledge it, suffering also has a purpose. Not being God, we can either rage at Him because we don’t know why suffering happens, or we can try to accept that it does, and do our best to deal with it. Besides, God has clearly made you aware of other people’s suffering, perhaps we could argue that He meant for you to make it better.
@LaborLady
God gave us free will and motor skills, that does not mean He wanted us to make use of them by killing each other.
Christina: I’m not sure I understand what you trying to tell me. Do you really mean
that god could have stopped the Japanese tsunami, but didn’t?
That god could have stopped the Indian Ocean tsunami, but didn’t?
That god could stop the drought in Somalia, but hasn’t?
and so on? So what is the point of god? Seems rather useless to me.
I have no problem with the idea that things that I do, or decisions I make may well cause me suffering, and I have had the usual mix of problems, but those are problems that are self-inflicted, by and large. An earthquake is not self-inflicted, since your god could prevent it, then by default it is god-inflicted. Why does your god inflict so much suffering on some people but let’s the rest of us quite lightly?
This is David Attenborough expressing this somewhat more eloquently than I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfa88SeNohY
I’m surprised that I’ve had no response; the question of evil in the world is a very old one and I’m sure the church must have some rational response.
Mentioning the names of events as I did above, or talking numbers, does not really bring home what it was really about, so let’s make it a bit more personal. Meet a young Cambodian boy. We know nothing of him other than what we can glean from this photo and the certain knowledge that not long after this photo was taken he, and probably his family, were murdered by the Khmer Rouge.
http://www.tuolsleng.com/detail.php?photographsPage=9&photosPage=6
He would have seen many horrors, horrors I’d rather not think about, and suffered much before he died.
While I am content that I should suffer for my actions and decisions; I will take responsibility for my exercise of my free will, how much of his free will did this lad get exercise?
Where was your god, god the father, when he was really needed?
Further, since he was not a christian, not a member of your club, I believe he would have been consigned to hell in the after-life.
Meet a few more hell-bound people:
http://www.tuolsleng.com/photographs.php
just have one point to make ac—-Catholics believe that one doesn’t have to be an official member of the Catholic Church (or even another christian church) in order to get to heaven. So no, those people are not “hell-bound” because they aren’t Christians. they are either “hell-bound” or “heaven-bound” based on their *actions* and their *intentions*.
also (I guess I do have another point ^_^ ) the people who murdered him and the others were exercising *their* free will. God will not make us do what He wills us to—-that’s the whole point of free will.
Thank you for responding Myn
Regarding your first point, I think that is a new doctrine only recently revealed. I guess that god changed his mind.
As for your second point which is closer to the topic of my post; I have no problem with people exercising their free will and suffering accordingly, or not, depending on their wisdom. That’s not an issue, never has been. However, I do have an issue with an entity that is claimed to be like a father, that would let that lad suffer as he did and not raise a finger to help. To claim that it is about “free will” is fallacious; the lad was entirely unable to exercise his free will, just as children crushed by a collapsing school are unable to exercise their free will.
You and I suffer for our mistakes, and from the acts of those closest to us. All well and good, but the great majority of suffering in this world is not through the exercise of the victims’ free will or even of those close to them but from sources over which they and, in many cases, no one, has any control. Only your god, you claim, has that ability; your god is missing in action.
ac, of course death is not the will of God. It wouldn’t be with us either if we hadn’t let it in. I am speaking, naturally, of original sin. I am not saying it is the boy’s fault, which is made quite clear in the Gospels. The whole world is fallen, and it may be that some serious evil is tolerated (temporarily) for the sake of that kernel of good that would be wiped out too. The exchange between God and Abraham over Sodom comes to mind.
“Where was God?” I think the character in the little story known as “Footprints” asked that too. How quickly we forget that God Himself suffered torture and death on our behalf.
As far as raising a finger to help…ever think that maybe He is calling you to be that finger?
“Posted by Emile on Wednesday, Jul 27, 2011 9:15 PM (EDT):More than one out of every four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Why does God hate fetuses?”—my reply—God gave us free will. God does not hate. It’s a shame what humans are capable of doing.
and another TROLL classic:
“Posted by Emile on Thursday, Jul 28, 2011 9:52 AM (EDT):A mother creates life and it is hers to do with as she will. There is no hatred involved.”
—my reply—A “mother” creates life? hmm? Guess you need a lesson on the birds and the bees-It takes two to tango! “It is hers to do as she will?”—WRONG! Our bodies are given to us by God. We are to use them accordingly. KILLING an unborn child—that’s hatred: hatred towards life. What a cruel, heartless thing to do.
“Posted by ac on Monday, Aug 1, 2011 2:20 PM (EDT):I’m surprised that I’ve had no response; the question of evil in the world is a very old one and I’m sure the church must have some rational response.”
My reply—read the Bible—Genesis…
Teedy, I’m sorry but are you saying miscarriages are “free will “?
@teedy: “My reply—read the Bible—Genesis… “
You’ll understand that quoting the Bible at an atheist is unlikely to have much effect, especially when it is the early myths. Quoting Jesus would be better, if only because you claim to be Christian, and so quoting Christ would be more appropriate.
As it happens, I have read Genesis and am fairly well acquainted with the bible. I also know a little about the other world religions and see nothing particularly special about Christianity.
Genesis starts well, all nice and poetic but as an explanation for anything it leaves a lot to be desired, things like logic, rationality, that sort of thing.
In my reading of it, people in general are created on day 6 and Adam and Eve are created separately and are special to God, they are the origin of God’s chosen people. The OT, after all, was written by Jews, about Jews and for Jews. (Why some Christians are so obsessed by it is beyond me, surely the NT is the important text?) This understanding of that story explains references to ‘daughters of man’ and answers that question of who did Cain, Abel and the other one have for wives. Note that this means that original sin and the punishment of women is confined to Jewish women, not all of you.
I otherwise read it as an allegory of the transition of children living in their enchanted land to the harsh realities of adulthood.
The flood story is utter baloney. Noah is a drunkard and given to incest.
I’m surprised that god could find no innocent people among those on earth or in Sodom and Gomorrah for that matter, since by my reckoning at least 10% of all people are under the age of 10 and by any measure can only be innocent.
Since god created the world, has the power to rebuild and destroy it, commands everything that happens, the lesson I draw is that god is responsible for the evil in it, either directly (flood, destruction of sodom etc,..) or indirectly by neglect.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.