Under what circumstances would you be okay with taking a human life?
It's safe to say that most sane, law-abiding citizens abhor the thought of homicide; however, most of us have a few narrow conditions under which we believe it would be morally acceptable to kill another person. And it always comes down to self-defense. You see this reflected in our laws, which state that murdering someone in the street because he's annoying you is a crime, but murdering someone who has broken into your home and is running at you with a knife is not a crime. You see it in popular opinion as well: Who among us wouldn't agree that a woman attacked in a dark alley has the right to use any means to defend herself, even if it puts her attacker's life at risk?
Certainly, it should be a last resort; all non-lethal methods of protecting yourself should be tried first. But I think most people would agree that if you find yourself terrified and with no other options, sometimes murder is the only way out.
It is telling, then, to consider the new turn the pro-choice movement has taken, in which some abortion advocates are finally admitting that unborn children are human, and yet say that it's okay to take their lives anyway.
Mary Elizabeth Williams has ushered in this new angle to the abortion debate in her explosive article at Salon.com, called So What if Abortion Ends a Life? It's a shock to the conscience to see someone defend the humanity of unborn babies, then coolly state, using her own motherhood as a credential, that she believes these young lives can be taken at will.
Yet Ms. Williams' article made me wonder:
If I had become convinced that babies within the womb were human when I was pro-choice, would I still have believed that abortion was okay?
I eventually realized with a feeling of great heaviness that the answer was yes. Though my own pro-choice views were based on the assumption that life within the womb is not fully human, I would have continued to support the pro-abortion cause, even if I changed my mind about the humanity of unborn life. I would have been right on board with Ms. Williams and any other pro-choice advocates who admit that our youngest children are still our children, yet say that their lives are expendable. In fact, I would have even believed it to be the humane, compassionate position.
That stance may sound insane when you first hear it, but it begins to make more sense when you consider the dark paradigm from which it flows.
Imagine, for a moment, that our country had been fighting a war for 40 years against an enemy who wanted to enslave us. These enemies lived behind great walls, so we rarely saw them face to face, but we knew that if they were allowed to come into our lives, they would take away our autonomy. Many of them kept coming into our territory and stealing people's freedom despite our best efforts to control them, and so we believed we had to kill them as an act of self protection. For years we made the killing easier by dehumanizing them, referring to their ranks with terms that stripped them of their human dignity. But over the decades the photos started to filter out. New surveillance technology allowed us to see their faces, and the enemy's humanity became undeniable.
At that point, maybe some noble folks would step up and say that they could no longer fight this war knowing that there were real lives at stake in the enemy camps. But many of us wouldn't. We'd say that the war still had to be fought and the lives on the other side of the line were still expendable, because of their threat to our freedom. After all, killing is okay when it's done in self-defense.
As crazy as this analogy sounds, I don't think it's too far off from the way that Ms. Williams and other abortion supporters view unexpected new life.
These women are steeped in a worldview in which sex has no inherent connection to the creation of life. They are part of a horrific society-wide experiment in which, for the first time in human history, women are given two entirely different lists of conditions for when it's acceptable to have sex and conditions for when it's acceptable to have a baby. They are told that it's just fine to go ahead and engage in the act that creates babies, even if they're in absolutely no position to have a baby. Under these circumstances, normal, morally upright women who seek to do the right thing and live responsible lives end up engaging in sex under a variety of conditions in which being pregnant, giving birth, and raising a child would be a crisis. And when those two lines pop up on the pregnancy test despite their best efforts to be "safe," as happens more frequently than anyone wants to admit, they feel trapped. They're terrified and often alone, facing consequences that they had never prepared for, because they live in a society whose most sacred ideals rest on pretending that these consequences don't exist.
Under these conditions, babies become the enemy. And there are two ways to justify killing an enemy: To dehumanize him, or to plead self-defense. For decades, the pro-choice movement has gone with the former option; now that modern technology has made that intellectually impossible, they're switching to the latter.
I believe that Ms. Williams' article at Salon is one of the most important pieces to be written on the subject of abortion in years. She is brave enough to say things that are true, but that no one else wants to say. She has blown the lid off the culture of avoidance and word games that plagues secular thought on this issue (rightfully pointing out, for example, the nonsensical disconnect of pro-choice pregnant moms joyfully calling the unborn children they want "babies," and dismissing the ones they don't want as sub-human clumps of tissue). To me, she did not come across as a monster. She came across as someone who does not see women as having any control over when they conceive children, and is rightfully angry about it. She came across as someone who, in accordance with what our culture teaches us, sees suffering and self-sacrifice as the worst evil, even worse than death. She came across as someone who is full of misguided compassion for women whose society has left them without real reproductive choices, who is trying to help them by justifying what she sees as their only path to freedom.
Mary Elizabeth Williams doesn't deserve our scorn. In fact, I think we should thank her for bringing some much-needed honesty to this debate, no matter how painful it is to hear. Most of all, we should offer our prayers and sympathy to her and to anyone else who shares her views. They are not heartless people; they're merely part of a generation of women who have been backed into a corner by their own worldview, feeling like they have so few options that murder is the only way out.
Comments
Post a Comment
You are right! The saddest part is the need for over-argumentation. Where is the shock just to hear the word and the concept? How can PROGRESS EXIST in SPIRIT without changing this horrible fact? “Alas for you lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge! Everyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, but no one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven.” Luke 12:10
I think we need to be careful in choosing our words. Not all taking of human life is murder. “Murder” is an intentional killing of a human, and always if innocent unless by accident. Killing in self-defense is usually an unintended consequence of the great force used coming from the terror experienced. Even the original language of the Commandment is best intrepreted “murder” and not “kill.”
In no way can a person be terrified of an innocent human life in the womb, and abortion is no accident. In every case it is murder, no question.
Awesome article, keep up the good work.
I don’t think this is a new argument - I remember hearing it back in the 80’s in terms of the “just war” angle. Back then, of course, it was more theory than anything. Today 26 week babies are routinely saved and there can be no question that the child in utero is a living human being.
I’m with Rich here. If the truth is important to us, we have to choose our words carefully. This applies BOTH to his example regarding the difference between “murder” and “kill” AND to the difference between “justify” and “rationalize”. If I really justify an act, I in fact demonstrate that the act is just.
Wonderful piece, Jennifer. I hope you’re feeling better.
I would second what Rich said: a quibble about word usage. Not all killing is “murder.” But aside from that, awesome writing that has me thinking about things in a new way.
Great article, thanks!
I’d chime in, also, about the difference between murder & self defense.Self defense is pro-life in that it defends an innocent life.
First of all, Mary Elizabeth Williams, does deserve our scorn.
Perhaps being an honest murderer is less infuriating than being a dishonest one, but the bottom line is the same.
Anyhow, the underlying idea is Atheism.
Look at the preamble to our Decladration of Independence
“We hold these truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal.’
Without a “creator”, it is self evident that men are unequal.
They have no inalienable rights.
Ask any Athesit to defend the preamble. You get silly contortions from most. Intelligent ones admit that its nonsense.
This was nonsense:
She “sees suffering and self-sacrifice as the worst evil, even worse than death.”
Mary Elizabeth Williams sees HER suffering and self-sacrifice as the worst evil. Anything else matters little to her.
“It is telling, then, to consider the new turn the pro-choice movement has taken, in which some abortion advocates are finally admitting that unborn children are human, and yet say that it’s okay to take their lives anyway.
I find it also telling that a Catholic institution would legally argue that fetuses are not persons in Colorado. The irony is indeed telling.
I have to say that I find it challenging to withold scorn from Mary Elizabeth Williams. Especially when she accuses the pro-life movement of monopolizing the term “life”, making the other side have to scramble for less emphatic terms such as “choice”. Please. It’s the other way around. The perception of “choice” as synonymous with the pro-abortion movement is astronomical. Choice is a factor in countless situations, yet they have been able to successfully claim it and distract from the real issue at hand.
Jennifer
Thank you for the wonderful article. I find myself saving more and more of your articles for future reference because you have a way of capturing with words the essence of the arguements and communicating it clearly to a everyday guy like me. The connection between contraception and abortion described in your article today are spot on! I too beleive that Ms. Williams is in need of our sympathy but also her and the people she represents are in much need of our prayers. They are the victims (as well as the aborted children) of the terrible lion St. Peter describes as roaming the earth and devouring souls. The lion is the father of lies and one of the worst that we as a society have believed is abortion is ok and can be morally justified.
I am hope you are feeling better and may God grant you many many more years in peace, health, and happiness!
“I find it also telling that a Catholic institution would legally argue that fetuses are not persons in Colorado. The irony is indeed telling.”
Not exactly. The Catholic institution’s LEGAL team, who may or may not be Catholic, is arguing that they are not defined as persons UNDER COLORADO LAW, which is true. The legal team needs to be reined in, but it’s not as damning as what you are saying.
She “sees suffering and self-sacrifice as the worst evil, even worse than death.”
So how do we explain to someone like this that suffering and sacrifice are GOOD and to NOT choose them is actually choosing death? Death IS worse than suffering and sacrifice, right?
Regarding the divorce of sex and conception, Janet Smith’s remarks on “accidents” comes to mind, namely that when a man and a woman have sex, pregnancy is not an “accident”, it is what happens when the two bodies involved function properly. It is what is supposed to happen.
Is there any other part of human physiology where the proper functioning of the body is to be suppressed 100% of the time? Any other area, this would be considered to be a) unhealthy if not dangerous and b) rooted in mental illness (e.g., something like bulimia).
It’s hard to not feel angry with someone who crows that she would have “The World’s Greatest Abortion” if she found out she was pregnant today. I can understand someone choosing an abortion because they believe the child is a clump of cells and I can understand someone doing it because they truly are scared (e.g. a teenager). But her article stresses that children can be killed because their rights don’t trump the mothers rights. That doesn’t sound like a scared pregnant woman, that sounds like a woman who doesn’t want to be inconvenienced with a baby.
Blessed Mother, pray for us.
They are not terrifed; they just don’t care. I know people who personally oppose abortion who just don’t feel like it’s their place. In that case, it’s not terror; it’s apathy.
They’ll run into a problem legally though, because even under Roe and its progeny, once it is admitted that prenatal life is human, that human life is, in the eyes of the law, accorded the exact same constitutional rights as the mother under the 14th Amendment. Her rights to privacy and freedom would have the same weight as the unborn baby’s freedom. At that point, only a risk to her life would lawfully justify an abortion (i.e. if both were going to die, it would be okay to at least save one by sacrificing the other). This same line of reasoning has made its way into each and every one of the abortion cases since then.
So if the pro-aborts loose the argument on when life begins, they will loose the argument.
Ms. Williams is one of many, many women and men who over thousands and millions of years have chosen evil. Whether or not she understands her stance to be evil is more complicated, but it doesn’t make evil subjective. Only God can see what happened to her,—what was within her control and what wasn’t. This short life on earth sifts our souls. At the end of our lives we will be fixed in our decision for self worship or God worship. This state of soul will determine where our soul will spend eternity. The only sin that can’t be forgiven, is the blasphemy of the soul that clings to the belief that Good is evil, and evil is good. The soul literally becomes so permeated with selfishness that it is *incapable* of wanting the Good.
God didn’t make robots or puppets on strings to serve him mindlessly. The choice is ours, and it’s presently clear which camp Ms. Williams has defiantly staked out for herself. Some women repent over abortion. Ms. Williams couldn’t have more pride in stating she’d have the “greatest abortion in the world.”—Poor woman. Presently, all the evidence reveals a disposition inclined toward Hell.
I have always thought that the only logical extension of a pro-abortion position is that infanticide should be legal and justifiable, a la Peter Singer, up to several years of age. Ms. Williams is taking the next step along this extension for the pro-abortion side, and I can actually applaud her intellectual honesty because we purposely no longer teach people, and especially not students, how to think critically. She is thinking critically. The tragedy is that her thinking is revealing her own monstrosity (possession/delusion/selfishness = all and more - to which we are all prone, btw), only she does not care. That is real evil.
It’s weird that the author,Mary Elizabeth Williams, refers to the slogan: “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart” as some illogical, prolife propaganda & then provides a link that demonstrates the slogan is true, even from the very early weeks of pregnancy.
It’s a disturbing article to read.Pretty vulgar, too.
I think the point of the article is that we can view abortion as a monstrosity without viewing those who are pro-abortion as monsters. It clouds the issue, divide us from people and makes it harder to make rational arguments.
Jennifer:
I always like your articles. Your premise on self defense is correct, but I would encourage you to use correct moral terminology. We do not use the word “murder” to describe an act of self-defense because it would be self contradicting. Murder, as a moral term, speaks of the taking of innocent life. An attacker intent on hurting you is not innocent. We therefore would call it “killing” but not “murder”.
Keep up the great work.
Craig,
TheologyGeek.blogspot.com
God bless you for saying this!
A few thoughts for consideration:
Ms. Williams’ article was bold, different, and bone-chilling in its calculated disregard for human life—not just the life of the unborn child, but all life. One passage is particularly troubling:
“Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal….Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
This line of thought is very similar to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that determined that the black person is only worth 3/5ths of a white person. An absolute travesty of justice and assault against the basic human rights of every person. If we were to make that claim today, we would be accused of being a racist and committing a hate crime. Yet I have no doubt that the comments made by Ms Williams will resonate with many, and for those that support abortion, be seen as a way to take some of the wind out of the sails of those who seek to overturn Roe v Wade. If that line of thinking is allowed to manifest in society, soon we will be able to make arbitrary determinations of rights for a person, a class of people, or all people in a geographic region, and in reality society will no longer recognize the rights given to us by the Creator and memorialized in the Constitution. We will somehow justify the killing of children outside the womb to say, 2 years old, allowing time for any potential disability to surface, which might prove to be an inconvenience to the life of the mother…can’t have that can we…kill the child. If you missed it, that discussion has already started.
The selfishness and me-centered attitude of our current society permeated every aspect of this article. It’s all about me, what I want, what makes me happy. If I want a child, then I’ll have one, if not, I’ll kill the child, a “life worth sacrificing” to ensure that I’m happy and get what I want. In the end, it is that societal attitude, that complete disregard for God, natural law, and the love and respect for our fellow human beings, all children of God, that takes us down the path we’re heading. If Ms. Williams’ comments and attitude are now or become the mainstream attitude, the arguments we’ve had over the last 40 years since Roe v Wade will seem mild. It is not out of the realm of possibility that can happen, and given our current administration’s attitude and legislative priorities, we may be closer than we’re willing to admit.
What can we do? First and foremost, pray for the conversion of each person who acts in this manner. Second, live a life worthy of the promises of Christ, a life devoted to virtue, love of neighbor and enemy. Third, work tirelessly for what you believe in and don’t compromise because the going is tough, or inconvenient. Finally, remember it’s not about any one of us individually, it’s about all of us together working together to create the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. Idealistic? Absolutely not, because Christ told us otherwise. And in the end, if we follow Christ’s lead, we will see those who advocated abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, etc., in paradise with us, because in the end our prayers and works helped them have a true conversion of heart, a conversion brought on by the power of the Holy Spirit. That should give us great joy in Heaven.
Ed,
I get your point, but what if the rational argument IS that she is becoming a monster and just doesn’t care? We’re not judging actions she has done, but actions she says she would do—so really, all that’s left is state of mind and soul in those desires and intentions. I don’t want to be the final judge, and I’m not saying she’s beyond conversion. But to me there comes a point where evil needs to be recognized for what it is, even in thought. And if you willfully embrace and glory in that evil? It gets pretty difficult to see the monster line between the person and the person’s desires.
Jennifer, this may be the first time that I’m not cheering in agreement at one of your articles. I will have to noodle on this one for a while. But this strikes me: “They are not heartless people; they’re merely part of a generation of women who have been backed into a corner by their own worldview, feeling like they have so few options that murder is the only way out.” Ummm, I don’t know about that. To so flatly say that a helpless human being is a life worth sacrificing for your own sake is just cold and heartless. I have a very hard time indeed finding sympathy for someone who thinks as Williams does.
The biggest argument she’s clinging to is that of body autonomy. She thinks that since the baby resides in the mother’s body, the mother’s rights take precedence. But what she’s ignoring is that not all rights carry the same weight. The right to life is fundamental. Other rights take a backseat to the right to life.
I’m noticing a trend of good pro-lifers who want to be so compassionate that they are afraid to sound condemning of pro-abortion women. It would be useful to be honest and admit there is a big range of reasons women have abortions, from those who are scared and victimized to those who are terribly selfish. We won’t help convert hearts if we won’t really listen to what people are saying.
This woman isn’t scared. She is pridefully bold. Who knows what got her to this point? She isn’t afraid there aren’t options. She’s happy she can choose this one. Very sad.
I want to be horrified by the position Mary Elizabeth Williams takes. But I find it difficult since I (sadly) have long believed that her opinion is far more common than most pro-life people want to believe.
What I find almost more terrifying is the idea that women like her don’t see the inherent connection between sex and the creation of life. It’s scary because that perception is shared by by so many people who claim to be pro-life.
While the argument on abortion continues to divide Catholics it is interesting to note that Pro-Life groups continue to generalize subject and avoid reference to situations under which the family has no other option but to abort. Just take following cases (as presented by Daniel C. Maguire, professor of Ethics of Marquette Catholic University}from real, complicated life, and see how wise it would be not to pretend to be infallible.
Case 1: A woman is happily pregnant, two months pregnant. She is diagnosed with cancer requiring immediate chemotherapy treatment which also attacks the fetus. She aborts.
Case 2: In spite of her best contraceptive efforts a woman gets pregnant. She has a heart condition which would put her at high risk of dying if she stayed pregnant. She aborts.
Case 3: A young woman is bi-polar, manic depressive and her psychotic condition pregnant in spite of her best efforts. Lithium would devastate the cardiovascular system of the fetus and probably already has. She aborts.
Case 4: A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl is raped and impregnated. She cannot bear a child at her age without disastrous effects on her body as well as on her mind. An abortion is arranged.
Case 5: A case was once brought to the attention of Fr. Bernard Haring, the distinguished Redemptorist moral theologian. After removing a tumor from the uterus of a pregnant woman, a surgeon in Germany could not stop the bleeding. He removed the non-viable fetus so that the uterus would contract. It did and the woman survived and a Catholic surgeon had performed a direct abortion. A priest told the surgeon he had acted wrongly. The surgeon appealed to Fr. Haring. Fr. Haring disagreed, saying the surgeon acted morally and properly. He had saved as much life as was possible. Fr. Haring asked: by what thinking could the fetus have such a right to life that it could kill both itself and the woman by exercising it? Such rights, he said, do not exist.
Case 6. Alicja Tysiac, in 2000, was advised that her pregnancy, if carried to term, would cause blindness. She was forbidden to abort and lost nearly all her eyesight. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in her favor saying she should have been allowed to abort.
Case 7: In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Peru violated the rights of a 17-year-old girl who was forced to carry to term an anencephalitic fetus, missing most of its forebrain and unable to survive outside the womb. The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights ordered Peru to pay reparations and establish a framework for women to access therapeutic abortions.
Case 8: In 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made Mexico pay a 13-year-old rape victim who was forced to give birth $40,000, plus a stipend for her son’s education. Few ethicists in any of the world’s religions would argue that abortion is immoral in those cases. Recognizing complexity is the beginning of wisdom on abortion or any other moral issue.
If you find that you cannot agree on these exceptions than you probably have never experienced a similar heart rendering crisis and therefore may not be qualified to make such a terrifying decision. While I too am opposed to abortions om general I recognize that we cannot know (only our Creator does}+he situation under which some some abortions are absolutely necessary. Can you trust to leave that matter in God’s caring hands, or should we turn it over to our legislators? In the meantime we should be more Christian and considerate in our choice of wording about abortion.
While the argument on abortion continues to divide Catholics it is interesting to note that Pro-Life groups continue to generalize subject and avoid situations under which the family has no other option but to abort. Just take these cases (as presented by Daniel C. Maguire, professor of Ethics of Marquette Catholic University}from real, complicated life, and see how wise it would be not to pretend to be infallible.
Case 1: A woman is happily pregnant, two months pregnant. She is diagnosed with cancer requiring immediate chemotherapy treatment which also attacks the fetus. She aborts.
Case 2: In spite of her best contraceptive efforts a woman gets pregnant. She has a heart condition which would put her at high risk of dying if she stayed pregnant. She aborts.
Case 3: A young woman is bi-polar, manic depressive and her psychotic condition pregnant in spite of her best efforts. Lithium would devastate the cardiovascular system of the fetus and probably already has. She aborts.
Case 4: A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl is raped and impregnated. She cannot bear a child at her age without disastrous effects on her body as well as on her mind. An abortion is arranged.
Case 5: A case was once brought to the attention of Fr. Bernard Haring, the distinguished Redemptorist moral theologian. After removing a tumor from the uterus of a pregnant woman, a surgeon in Germany could not stop the bleeding. He removed the non-viable fetus so that the uterus would contract. It did and the woman survived and a Catholic surgeon had performed a direct abortion. A priest told the surgeon he had acted wrongly. The surgeon appealed to Fr. Haring. Fr. Haring disagreed, saying the surgeon acted morally and properly. He had saved as much life as was possible. Fr. Haring asked: by what thinking could the fetus have such a right to life that it could kill both itself and the woman by exercising it? Such rights, he said, do not exist.
Case 6. Alicja Tysiac, in 2000, was advised that her pregnancy, if carried to term, would cause blindness. She was forbidden to abort and lost nearly all her eyesight. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in her favor saying she should have been allowed to abort.
Case 7: In 2005, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that Peru violated the rights of a 17-year-old girl who was forced to carry to term an anencephalitic fetus, missing most of its forebrain and unable to survive outside the womb. The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights ordered Peru to pay reparations and establish a framework for women to access therapeutic abortions.
Case 8: In 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made Mexico pay a 13-year-old rape victim who was forced to give birth $40,000, plus a stipend for her son’s education. Few ethicists in any of the world’s religions would argue that abortion is immoral in those cases. Recognizing complexity is the beginning of wisdom on abortion or any other moral issue.
If you find that you cannot agree on these exceptions than you probably have never experienced a similar heart rendering crisis and therefore may not be qualified to make such a terrifying decision. While I too am opposed to abortions in general I recognize that we cannot know (only our Creator does}+he situation under which some some abortions are absolutely necessary. Can you trust to leave that matter in God’s caring hands, or should we turn it over to our legislators? In the meantime we should be more Christian and considerate in our choice of wording about abortion.
I was not aware that the term “pro-life” was so effective against abortion supporters. That term was coined because the pro-abortion contingent wanted to avoid the word “abortion,” which most people were against, so they coined “pro-choice.” In reaction, the opposing side called themselves “pro-life.” Now, obviously, the pro-abortionists have decided it’s time for a new campaign, and I guess that entails changing the terms used and taking a whole new tack. I am now hearing the term “reproductive justice” from their side. Talk about obscuring the matter further! I don’t know if Ms. Williams’ arguments will get very far, since the denial of the humanity of the fetus has been the bulwark of the abortion movement. But the new tack she refers to by Planned Parenthood “reframing the vernacular” (aren’t they clever?) may be a push toward eugenics. Ms. Williams claims to deny it, saying, “All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.” But it seems that is what she is advocating. I’m not surprised. Can’t you just hear them saying now, “But there is no quality of life for an unwanted child!” How wise the Church to call for the protection of all life from conception to natural death. They can see the enemy from afar.
In the battle of ideas, we’ve got them on the run
We need to be Grant, not McClellan
We should be proud, indeed arrogant, about being in the right.
We should NEVER make any excuse for a person who is supporting murder.
Most people are wishy washy.
They want a middle way
Dont give them one.
Make it black or white
Dont compromise. Make the enemy seek compromise.
In a battle of ideas seeking compromise is a retreat.
That way we win.
Well said Bonnie!
Trebert: yes, we should leave this issue up to God. Because when we start deciding when it is okay to kill another human being, that is us playing God.
Trebert,
The principle of double-effect answers several of the cases you addressed. If you look it up, it would not be abortion under that condition. It would be a secondary effect. Without understanding that principle the Catholic teaching that abortion is always morally evil won’t make sense in cases like that.
Also note Fr. Benard Haring dissented from Humanae Vitae so not everything he said could be thought of as Catholic. See this answer from Catholic Answers on his teachings: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=461230
If interested, see also the catholic answers website and its message board which will has clear catholic teaching on all things catholic.
Great article. Ive noticed for a long time that people disconnect sex from pregnancy. But Ive always wondered how that happens. It IS because of the importance they attach to those things! The idea of it being casual vs the idea of childbearing being significant. Since you dont want to deal with life altering significance in what “should” be casual, unborn children come as a shock. It must, i suppose, come as a dangerous shock even to those who would have accepted a child had they thought about it before hand. Perhaps if we can change pur culture in thi sone thing, abortions would be severly reduced.
Hey, i hope your feeling better. God bless!
A number of Catholic bishops think & teach that abortion is wrong under any circumstances. That’s why I posted these exceptions.
Because this article and some bishops do not consider the ‘principle of double effect’ they do tremendous psychological harm to those couples who have undergone an abortion when no other options were available to them. Can anyone imagine the additional pain and suffering these individuals must suffer when we use such damaging words as ‘killing’ and ‘murder’ to these exceptions?
A family that is forced to abort when no other options are available needs our support not condemnation. Ethics and morals cannot be legislated since there are simply too many exceptions. We simply cannot decide for others what we have not experienced by ourselves. At the same time we will never reduce abortions by force or by applying guilt and shame. Instead let us seek the advice of our unconditionally loving God for ourselves not for others.
I don’t think anyone here would condemn women who abort under those circumstances. That doesn’t mean that it should be legal to murder an unborn baby (cases of double-jeopardy don’t fall under that category). Not all ethics and morals can be legislated, but some can, which is why we have laws against rape, murder, etc.
Nope Trebert. The Catholic Church is very clear about when abortion is licit. Please post the names of the Bishops who have preached or written that abortion is never licit 100% of the time.
.
This article quotes a woman who thinks killing a human being that inconveniences her is her “right” for any and all reasons.
Trying to muddy the water with tragic cases is disingenuous. Some of the “real life” situations you listed are unfortunate but still morally reprehensible. If a human being can be licitly killed because of a DIFFICULT situation, then we could have all been aborted with a shrug. LIFE is difficult. This is what puts us to “the test”. Yes, God is forgiving. This doesn’t mean that the repercussions of what we have done will be hidden from us when we have to face how our choices impacted the lives of our neighbors, in the next life, at our personal judgement. It’s not like God wants to ban us from His heavenly banquet. Yes, we can avoid hell with our desire for forgiveness and compunction, but there’s a state of being called PURGATORY, and it’s not a walk in the park! Read what the Saints have written about it. Your big, loop hole, tent of compassion hits a bad note, and could make you morally culpable for leading a weak person down a very treacherous path.
Trebert,
I’m here because an illiterate 12 or 13 year old girl gave birth to a great grandparent.She went on to successfully raise 8 more children.Her youngest was born in the same year she found herself widowed,impoverished,& on the wrong political side in a war.If you aborted that child, we’d never have Robert Lowell’s poems.
The list you gave is not compelling to me.
@Trebert
PLEASE, READ THIS EXCEPTION:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/im-going-to-heaven-you-stay-here-with-dad-italian-mom-sacrifices-life-for-u/
Chiara and Enrico defeated 3 exceptions in less than 5 years. Chiara is for sure a SAINT. Enrico helped her on this journey of sanctity and buried 2 of their children and his wife in less than 5 years.
“I said: ‘But Chiara, my love, is this cross really sweet, like the Lord says? She looked at me and she smiled, and in a soft voice she said, ‘Yes, Enrico, it is very sweet.’
“In this sense, the entire family didn’t see Chiara die peacefully, but happily, which is totally different.”
Another exception is mentioned in the same article:
“Saint Gianna Molla was an Italian pediatrician who died in 1962 from complications caused by a fibroma on her uterus, after she refused both an abortion and a hysterectomy because she was pregnant with her fourth child.”
JENNIFER has been, just some 2 weeks ago in hospital, with a serious diagnostic!
No other comment!
It seems there are some who would be prepared to allow the women I mentioned to die because . . . ?
How did we ever learn that God is a vengeful, punishing and wrathful deity just waiting for us to sin or make a mistake? When did we stop listening to Jesus when he spoke about compassion and understanding? When did we stop listening to God with our hearts and instead of our heads merely to place guilt and shame on others regardless of their circumstances? Not everyone is blessed with sainthood nor should we expect them to act accordingly. It often takes life’s most difficult circumstances to grow in our faith; this and sin can become the catalysts that brings us to a new non-judgmental understanding.
The very divisive abortion issue has become completely absorbed by a kind of false legalism which seems to prompt some the presumed right to decide for others about what is wrong and what is right. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven (here on earth) is theirs.” For those who truly believe they would be prepared to die,– God will be with you. For those who cannot – God will be with you.
No one here is painting God as vengeful or wrathful. Instead of accusing us of shaming and judging women in the circumstances that you have described (which we have not done), how about responding to the points that people have made regarding the examples that you offered?
Trebert, why do you think life on this earth is the highest good? It ends eventually.
Greater love hath no man (or mom).
Sometimes a life can be saved, sometimes it can’t. You can get to heaven either way.
An unmentioned consequence of our (USA & Western Europe) decision not to bear children: When today’s young and middle-aged adults reach an assumed retirement age - say 65 or 70 - there will be TOO FEW people of working age to support the hopeful retirees. The aggregate decisions of young adults to refuse to have children is on the way to destroying the old age pension scheme in the USA. In Greece, as a model, every 100 adults of grandparent age have only 46 grandchildren among them on the average.
Selfishness today as young adults means working more years tomorrow or living in extreme poverty. Or perhaps we should say “God is not mocked.”
Demography rules, even when a culture ignores morality and God.
TeaPot562
@TREBERT
HERE ANOTHER EXCEPTION, FROM IRELAND:
http://www.youthdefence.ie/latest-news/ireland-faces-its-own-roe-moment/
“Op-Ed in the Washington Examiner written by Dr. Eoghan de Faoite
In July 2011, a 32-year-old pregnant woman went to her local hospital in Kilkenny, Ireland, feeling unwell. She was 23 weeks pregnant with her first child and found to be suffering from severe pre-eclampsia. Doctors were concerned that her escalating blood pressure was putting her life at risk; she was told that unless they intervened, she may die.
She and her husband were told that “[the doctors] will do everything they can for the baby, but that [she] is the priority.” She underwent an emergency Caesarean section and delivered a baby girl at 23 weeks and five days—the cusp of viability. The baby girl was transferred to a neonatal intensive care unit, where specialists worked to keep her alive while other specialists stabilized and care for her mother.
After five weeks, Mom was discharged home well. After five months, baby went home as well, becoming the most premature baby to survive in Irish medical history. Irish obstetrical and neonatal care was celebrated in the press. Tributes were paid to the excellent care of the medical teams who intervened to save a sick mother and also did everything they could to save her baby.
Such is the standard of Irish obstetrical practice today. Doctors always intervene to save the life of the mother if she suffers a life-threatening complication of pregnancy (including sepsis) while at the same time doing everything they can to preserve the life of the baby. Such interventions are “never considered abortions,” according to the former chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, even if the baby does lose his or her life as a consequence.
These interventions are permissible in Ireland today under current Irish law, which bans abortion. “
Trebert,
I don’t see a single example you give where it’s certain the mother would die.You list rape, underage moms,risk of blindness, etc.Chemotherapy can be administered without necessarily harming the unborn child.A friend of mine experienced this when she was diagnosed simultaneously as pregnant & suffering from breast cancer.Both she & the baby did fine.
The case you pose of bleeding following uterine surgery does not appear to be a direct abortion.
Again, I’m not finding your examples compelling nor do I understand your purpose in presenting them.
Right now, we have virtually no limits on feticide.A woman can go somewhere in the US & have her child destroyed right up til the very moment of birth.And occasionally beyond that it seems.Even secular nations in Europe have a higher standard than we do.
Ana Daniela,
Thank you for your post.
My daughter suffered from the same condition with her first baby. Without the emergency C-Section both she & the baby would have died.It’s not a matter of choosing the mom over the child as much as trying to save both.I think in Catholic teaching-and good medicine- both patients are the priority.
Still waiting for the names of those Bishops Trebert…
The cases that were presented were real live situations. The facts and results were clearly provided. My purpose in doing so was to illustrate that these exceptions. and many. more do indeed exist. How do you think God judges these cases? Have you considered that their decisions affected their entire families and may have been made in a prayerful commitment?
The danger of generalizing abortion does not bring out the necessary compassion and understanding needed to eliminate or reduce unnecessary abortions elsewhere. If we cannot find the love of God in these matters then perhaps we have lost sight of what it means to be Christian.
Trebert,
Those weren’t exceptions that I can see.Catholic teaching meshes just fine with modern medicine.
Trebert: once again, instead of answering specific questions that people have asked you, or responding to specific comments that have been directed at you, you are speaking in sweeping generalities. Who said that we can’t find the love of God in matters of abortion? Who here is denying love to people in the examples you mentioned? No one here lacks compassion to abortive women (except maybe people like this pro-abortion author who talks flippantly about having the abortion of all abortions).
Yesterday, while listening to some arguments used in Roe vs Wade I’ve understood:
Trebert exemplifies how a woman can be a VICTIM because of the pregnancy, defends this with Margaret Sanger disguised arguments and intensifies the smoke attacking the Catholic Church through fr. Bernard Haring, a critic of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. GOT IT?
In the mean time PLEASE SUSTAIN Personhood USA:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/as-catholic-hospital-argues-fetus-is-not-a-person-personhood-looks-to-chang
The state’s bishops—Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, and Bishop Fernando Isern of Pueblo—issued a joint statement promising to investigate CHI’s court actions.
Keith Mason of Personhood USA:
“Catholics and Catholic institutions have the duty to protect and foster human life, and to witness to the dignity of the human person—particularly to the dignity of the unborn,” they said. “No Catholic institution may legitimately work to undermine fundamental human dignity.”
@Kathleen: You are welcome! On the other side of the Big Pond, I’m learning a lot from USA pro-life movement! Abundant blessings!
Wow. I just read a BBC article online about a new movie premiering at the Sundance Film Festival.It showcases the late-term abortionists trained by Dr. Tiller.Really disturbing.I guess the only hopeful news is that all 4 abortionists are elderly.
Here’s the article if you care to check it out on BBC:
After Tiller: America’s four late-term abortion doctors
By Emma Jones
BBC News, Park City Utah
“This state of soul will determine where our soul will spend eternity.”
Typical religious nonsensical “scare tactics”.
“How do you think God judges these cases?”
Well, why do you think there really is a “god” to “judge”? Because that is the dogma of your cult?
From the onset I hoped it was clear that I am opposed to abortion in general. My attempt to view the situation, including of course the exceptions (provided by Professor Maguire), was based on how I believe Jesus would respond to the family deciding on an abortion. Do any of you really believe that Jesus would have used words such as killing and murder in speaking of abortion?
Such language is guaranteed to drive people away – not bring them in touch with a God who loves us unconditionally (as unbelievable that may sound). Perhaps more importantly, rest in the assurance that the souls of the individual that is aborted is never lost to their heavenly Father.
I am sure that Jesus would be merciful to the families in the examples that you mentioned. That does not justify making abortion legal, however. As far as whether or not Jesus would refer to it as killing, I’m sure he would, just as he would refer to taking the life of an infant, toddler, child, adolescent or adult as killing. Even in the presence of mercy, definitions can’t be changed.
Trebert ,
Our Lord was not sparing when He spoke regardng the fate of those who would harm children.
I think we presume too much.
How about the family “deciding” on infanticide? Folks in impoverished conditions practise infanticide under duress, too.Resting in the assurance their children’s souls are not lost to their Heavenly Father does not legitimize child murder.Every crime against innocent life could be softened by that approach.
Our Lord is a God of mercy & justice both.When we only reference one side, we show a God of imbalance.
When we focus exclusively on punishment we lose sight of God’s compassion and understanding. (Isn’t that the reason why Jesus tells us so many times “do not judge?. God’s understanding reaches far beyond what we can see and judge from a distance. God can look into our hearts and does not make judgment with worldly punishment in mind. God’s judgment is based on healing and restoring the love we never received during our brief moment on earth. The human soul is eternal only in the perfected sense. Our purpose in life is to find the God within and in others.
Trebert, no one here is focusing exclusively on punishment. I can’t understand why you make these sweeping generalization about anyone who opposes abortion. Just because we think that abortion should be illegal does not mean that we are focusing exclusively on punishment, or judging the heart of another, or lacking in compassion.
Dear Trebert,
There’s a difference between justice & judgement/punishment.
My guess is that you are not approaching the conversation from an orthodox Christian vantagepoint.It’s a free country & you have every right, but it tends to cause detours in the conversation.We’re using different roadmaps.
God bless.
If no one here is focused on punishment why are they using words such as ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ and demanding a law prohibiting abortions under any circumstance?
There have been laws against murder for ever but has that stopped that from happening? Do we really believe that such a law will stop abortions from taking place and not force them from being performed underground?
What is needed here is God’s wisdom which speaks of the value of all human life from the Alpha to the Omega not stridency or condemnation.
Trebert,
You’re still focusing on punishment.What would you propose society do regarding protecting its members from each other, especially the most vulnerable?
So Trebert, you don’t think murder should be illegal, since it happens anyway?
Case 1: A woman is happily pregnant, two months pregnant. She is diagnosed with cancer requiring immediate chemotherapy treatment which also attacks the fetus. She aborts.
DIRECT ABORTION - MURDER. The church says it is moral to receive chemo anyway, but to proactively kill her child first, that is wrong.
Case 2: In spite of her best contraceptive efforts a woman gets pregnant. She has a heart condition which would put her at high risk of dying if she stayed pregnant. She aborts.
SAME ANSWER AS BEFORE—including, aborting the child does not cure her hear condition, also another requirement in the Catholic teaching. Now she has 2 problems, a bad heart and a dead baby.
Case 3: A young woman is bi-polar, manic depressive and her psychotic condition pregnant in spite of her best efforts. Lithium would devastate the cardiovascular system of the fetus and probably already has. She aborts.
SAME as 1 &2: Also, I work in the medical field and a lot of statements are presented as fact, are just simply untrue. MANY women take MANY meds that are considered dangerous because the risk outweighs the benefit. There is NO GUARANTEE that it will deform your baby, it is only a guess.
Case 4: A nine-year-old Nicaraguan girl is raped and impregnated. She cannot bear a child at her age without disastrous effects on her body as well as on her mind. An abortion is arranged.
OKAY- REALLY? The doctors can’t monitor her or perform an early C-section is her life was truly in danger. You realize babies are birn at 6 months via emergency and are just fine. Once again applying absolutes to things which are not written in stone. This is not justification for killing a baby.
Case 5: A case was once brought to the attention of Fr. Bernard Haring, the distinguished Redemptorist moral theologian. After removing a tumor from the uterus of a pregnant woman, a surgeon in Germany could not stop the bleeding. He removed the non-viable fetus so that the uterus would contract. It did and the woman survived and a Catholic surgeon had performed a direct abortion. A priest told the surgeon he had acted wrongly. The surgeon appealed to Fr. Haring. Fr. Haring disagreed, saying the surgeon acted morally and properly. He had saved as much life as was possible. Fr. Haring asked: by what thinking could the fetus have such a right to life that it could kill both itself and the woman by exercising it? Such rights, he said, do not exist.
This priest is wrong. He obviously does not grasp the moral teaching, also I saq a comment about how he is dissedent, this is obvious from his response. Also, this Marquette professor is obviously in the same boat. He is throwing red herrings to skew truth.
Case 6. the blind girl
Case 7: encephalitis
ALL the same answer
—-as Catholics we are asked to bear certain crosses in our lives, it is part of the teaching of redemptive suffering. Many of these examples show how many people are more self-focused versus Heaven focused and have no understanding of how our sufferings here on Earth can puify and sanctify use for Heaven. I would be morning the fact that these people were not formed with proper conscience where these things were recongized instead of feared. This fear has resulted in a lot of dead babies and that is something they will have to continue rationalizing for the rest of their lives. That is going to be a very hard thig to do.
Case 8: rape- you are punishing the child for the sins of the father. Also misplaced compassion. Many rape victims will tell abortion did not heal them, it only broke them more.
“as Catholics we are asked to bear certain crosses in our lives”
Fine. But in the name of your religion, you require others to “bear crosses”. Not so fine. Why are your opinions on these matters always the “right” ones and the opposite opinions always the “wrong” ones?
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.