This is another cartoon from the series 9 Chickweed Lane. The daughter (on the right) may be pregnant. She certainly seems to be having the symptoms, and she has gone fearfully to her mother to talk to her. The series has been having quite a good discussion so far on the whole issue of unplanned pregnancies. I do not know where the series is heading, but it does allow for me to make some comments!
The cartoon above shows something that is quite true. There are many reasons to get pregnant. There are also many reasons why an unplanned pregnancy occurs. But, there is a point that those against abortion need to try to make over and over, and they are not doing so often enough. And that is that while it is true that there are some women who forever regret having borne a child, there are overwhelmingly many more women whose final conclusion is that though their pregnancy may have been unplanned yet they have gained rather than lost. Many is the woman who regrets her decision to become pregnant, or who may repent of the sin which led to an unplanned pregnancy, or who knows that the child she has borne was unexpected and unplanned. Yet, they look at what they have borne and know that they would never regret that they have borne the child who is their love, who is a shining star in their life. As the mother says above, even when they have found themselves in a metaphorical lifeboat, they yet know that they would not change that unexpected event.
That is the point that we need to make. Aborting a child is often aborting a life experience that changes your life in a positive way. Yes, I know that there are women for whom having an unplanned child is a negative thing. But, they are the minority. And for those in the minority, adoption is a clear option. In our justice system we look for reasons to not execute a prisoner. This is correct because it prevents us from executing a person who may turn out to be innocent. Even in a secular system, should we not look for reasons to not perform an abortion the same way that we look for reasons to not execute someone? After all, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an excuse to find someone innocent rather than making a terrible mistake.
No, I think that elective abortion is wrong. I am not making secular arguments for the sake of making secular arguments. I am simply pointing out that even in a modern secular system, there is reason to look for that which is life-giving rather than that which is life-taking. And, I am also pointing out that many of us Christians are so busy making the argument that elective abortion is wrong that we miss pointing out that having an unexpected baby is not a quality-of-life-ending-experience.
Your argument reflects a message that the pro-life organization Feminists For Life puts in some of their materials. Actress Patricia Heaton, their honorary chairwoman, said. “Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.”
It’s a beautiful thought and I affirm it. What I would love to see from those working for legal restriction of abortion is at least as much energy put into working for policies that would ease the financial and other burdens on women facing unplanned pregnancies. Hard to find that unplanned joy when you can’t get health care for yourself or your baby.
*change that period after “said” to a comma in my comment above.*
Hate it when I don’t edit. 🙂
Very wise words and I REALLY think this is the manner that debate should take…helping women overome whatever emotions-fear, shame, panic, whatever that makes them feel that abortion is the only answer because I assure you, even in the field I am in, I have met very few women who felt it was not a huge deal to get an abortion. Most would tell you it was the most difficult decision of their lives.
That being said, I wonder if you could comment on an issue that causes me great grief over the whole abortion debate. In my experience, almost every woman I know that had an abortion did so because of a fetal abnormality. Most, if not all, of these abnormalities would’ve made life for the baby and the mother a living hell-not to mention a very expensive proposition. For example, a friend of mine was in a long term relationship and found herself pregnant. Testing revealed quite early that the child had an oomphalacele…the liver and most of the stomach were outside of the body cavity. While her ob doctor told her she should accept this as what has been given her, the surgeons explained that it would could cost over a million dollars and even then, they could not give any better than 50-50 odds the child would even live. There was a very real chance that this child would’ve had astronomical medical bills and questionable quality of life-if it lived. Add to this drama the fact that the father was not interested in helping and she had no family (both parents dead, no siblings). She chose to have an abortion. She did ask my opinion, but Father, I just could not fault her. I think if maybe I didn’t see what happens to these unfortunate children after they are born and the unbelievable amount of medical intervention necessary to keep them alive, I might feel differently. I know that not that long ago, she could’ve delivered this child and it would not have survived, relieving her of having to make that heartrending decision. Unfortunately, with modern medicine, we can heal so much but I I have also seen the bad side to that…God may be calling the patient home, but the doctors refuse to let it go! I know in my own family, a baby was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (liver was in the chest and her heart and lungs never formed completely) and after 6 months, multiple surgeries and over a million dollars, the poor child died anyway having never been out of the intensive care unit or off the equipment that kept her breathing and fed. This happens quite often and I have been questioned about it (maybe because I am known to be a Christian and its a test?) but I only answer that I do not have the wisdom to make that kind of call. What say you, Father?
Betty, I sympathize with you in these cases of dramatic fetal abnormalities. The diseases truly are terrible. I’ll offer my $0.02 as a Protestant. With that being noted, I would like to point you to Romans 3:8 (NIV) Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!
So, as heart-rending as the scenarios you describe are, it is still impermissible to “do evil” (have an abortion) even for a (possibly) good end. Such is true even if we can say that the end is without question good.
Now, as to the very expensive medical treatments that ultimately failed, we have a tougher question. When is medical care futile, and when are we permitted to stop expensive and painful treatments that are of questionable benefit? How questionable is questionable enough? When may we stop them for someone else (a sick baby)? Even if the refusals can be reasonably expected to lead to death, if death is unavoidable in the short term then refusal may be prudent and wise. The difference here is between killing versus letting die (assuming that God’s calling). I would be very interested in hearing other perspectives on the “futile care” issue.
My two cents worth…in the case of astronomical deformities such as above described, instead of abortion, give birth, baptize and bury the child with dignity. Of course easy for me to saying being a man but to go through the expense and pain of treatments that will likely fail seems even more painful that what I propose. In my mind the worst alternative is to abort which in this case is akin to mercy killing. May God be merciful to all who face no good choices and may those who minister to them show mercy. If abortion becomes the choice in the above case, i will absolve the person and bring them straightway to Holy Communion, assuming this is a baptized confessing Christian.
My question is twofold: If a person decides to give birth to a child with such horrific deformities, do people even have the option in our society to decline “life-saving” surgery for an infant? I really don’t know how this works, legally.
But if parents are forced to allow doctors to attempt life-saving measures (again, I don’t know if this is this case), then wouldn’t that become the opposite of the Romans 3:8 remark: Let us do good (avoiding abortion) so that evil (prolonged suffering due to ineffectual surgery) may result? Sorry if that makes no sense.
I am not sure how “life-saving” surgery works legally in terms of an infant either. What I do know is that at least in the case of anencephaly it’s permitted to “let nature take its course” and provide hydration and nutrition only.
Romans 3:8 forbids doing evil to cause good. Logically speaking, yes it would also forbid doing good to cause evil (rule of the contrapositive). I wonder if it’s even possible to “do good” to cause evil though; as a modified consequentialist (what causes good results is good… PROVIDED that nobody’s rights get violated in the process), something that causes evil almost cannot be good by definition. With the possible exception of something that’s good based on multiple effects that are good in their summation, but contain an evil part.
There is also the question of whether “avoiding abortion” really is *doing* good rather than letting the natural course of events (giving birth) happen. At the same time though, the commission/omission thing, while certainly present, shouldn’t be overemphasized since it tends to lead to legalistic results.
Thank you all for your input…very thought provoking. I guess the bottom line is mercy. When Jesus was at the well with the Samaritan woman, He apparently did not call her names or in any other way made her to feel shame or embarrassment. On the contrary, she ran back to the village proclaiming His Name, yet, she was not only a reviled “lower class” but she was an adultress/fornicator because of her living arrangements. Hmmm…she must have felt great love from Him. That is and has to be my fallback position on everything. As we’ve discussed, there are some very difficult questions facing us and I for one prefer to error on the side of love.
BTW, I might add that neither of the young women I mentioned knew the Lord so unfortunately, they only knew of the condemnation but not the hope of “religion”. I’d like to think that maybe we should work to change that…as Rick Warren said a few years ago- a lot of people know what we are against but few know what we are for.