A REFLECTION FOR THE 5TH SUNDAY AFTER EASTER
The past week has seen the passage of two very strong pro-life bills in the respective state governments of Alabama and Missouri. They both approve a ban on abortions even in the case of rape and incest, and for some reason this has caused a flurry of alarm and even open dissent among otherwise firm pro-life voices. It is a good example of how political expediency often interferes with common sense and the laws of ethics and morality.
The problem is quite simple to understand—in cases of rape and incest, we’re not dealing with the unwanted result of a deliberately chosen act. Instead, unfortunately, it’s the unwanted result of an equally unwanted act. The mother is now the victim, while the baby is perceived more as an invader than as the victim of the parents’ inability to control themselves. How can it be fair to force these women through pregnancy and childbirth and endure the constant reminder of the violation they suffered?
The problem may be easy to understand, but it’s impossible to answer in a way that will please everyone. Such is the nature of evil. It has consequences, and some of these we are not going to like. However, in terms of ethics and moral theology, there is only one valid conclusion. The legislatures of Alabama and Missouri got it right by saying that a person is a person from the moment of conception not the moment of birth. Once you accept this premise, everything else must, and I repeat, must follow.
To reach this premise, we must, of course, define personhood. What exactly is a human being? What makes us one? A human being is usually defined as a rational animal. In other words, we belong to the genus of animals, but are separated from all other animals by our ability to reason.
However, some might object that this does not include infants and young children who have not yet reached “the age of reason.” So for the sake of those who might be tempted to say that small children are not really human we must include the idea of “potency” in our definition. Children are already human because they have the potential to reason once their minds are sufficiently developed. It’s the same as pointing to the unpacked bags of groceries on the table and saying it’s “dinner.” It will be, once it’s unpacked, prepared and cooked. Potentially, it’s dinner.
Now, if a small child is a human person, based on its potential to reason, it follows that the unborn child also has that potential. If nothing is done to disrupt the normal and natural course of events, the “fetus” will one day be delivered into the world and eventually realize its potential as a fully rational being. Take it back further in time—can we come up with any moment after conception, when it does nothave this potential? Of course not, and so we must acknowledge that not only is the child in the womb truly a human child—a person—but it has been a person since the moment of its conception.
As noted above, once this premise is acknowledged, everything else necessarily follows. At the legal level, if the unborn child is a person, then by law, it is accorded all the rights of personhood granted by the United States Constitution. It may not be arbitrarily put to death at the whim of the mother, any more than a child of three or an adult of twenty-three. It becomes impossible to argue, either on legal or ethical grounds, that it would be admissible to kill the unborn child, even in rape and incest cases, just because of the unfortunate circumstances of its conception. We may have compassion for the violated mother who must take her unwanted unborn child to term, but we cannot give her permission to kill the other innocent victim of the crime just to make her feel better.
And yet, so many good people feel so badly about these violated mothers-to-be that they go against their own better instincts, they go against the teachings of their faith, they go against the code of ethics, they go even against logic and common sense. They give in to their feelings, and say effectively, “Poor thing, that’s too much for you to handle. We understand. Just go ahead and murder that innocent human being in your womb, that little boy (or girl) who has done no wrong, who seeks only the nurturing care of you, his mother. That’s okay. Kill him.” And these are the pro-life advocates?
I do understand the mentality of their point of view. It’s prompted by revulsion at the crime, and by sympathy for the victim of the crime. But it certainly wasn’t that little baby’s fault that his father was a monster, who possibly ruined this woman’s life forever. No amount of sympathy gives the mother the “right to choose” to end that baby’s life. How can it?
In the case of some politicians, I wonder if the desire to make exceptions in these cases is also motivated by the desire for votes, as their view is apparently reflected by those of most of their constituents. Nevertheless, it’s wrong. As Catholics, we must remember that morality is never determined by majority consensus, but rather by the will of God. We must not be taken in by the sympathy argument—compassion for one victim must not make us create a second victim. We must use our heads rather than our hearts on this one, following the teachings of our faith first and foremost, but also the science that confirms what our faith teaches, that life begins at conception—in this case, human life.
Nor must we ever forget the violated victims who are forced to conceive against their will. There is room for conversation on this topic, and we must investigate all options for caring for them in the physical, psychological and spiritual hardship they are called upon to endure. Meanwhile, though, we need to continue praying that Congress, the Supreme Court, and our fellow-countrymen may one day agree to end this artificial controversy of abortion by defining the unborn as persons, thereby obliging the Constitution to cover the rights of all unborn babies—without exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment