It is interesting how becoming a father has influenced my view on abortion. Prior to last November, it was such an abstract thing. We were always talking about other people's children, some other child, outside my monkeysphere. I knew through reason that we were talking about some one that I should protect, but it's hard to muster feelings for an abstract concept. Even my own nieces and nephew, I did not begin to feel a bond with until after they had been born, after I had held them in my arms. My choler over the issue was driven more by the ignorance and lack of reason on the part of those who sought to promote it, rather than over the loss of any life.
But now, I have a hard time maintaining a stoic, rational distance from the issue. Now, it's personal.
On November 1st, my purpose in life—the very point of my existence—changed. A change of such magnitude had only occurred once prior, on January 10th, 2004. Before January 10th, the meaning of my life was simply "to know, love, and serve God in this life so I can share ever-lasting happiness with him in the next." On the tenth of January, 2004, a new reason was added: to Love my wife, as Christ Loves his church. And finally, on November 1st, a third reason was added: to protect and nurture our children so that they, too, may one day share in God's love.
When I die, and am judged before God in all his majesty and glory, he will ask me two questions, in particular. He will ask me: "Did you love your wife as I have loved you?" and "Have you raised your children to know me, and strived with all your might to keep them from all harm?" If I cannot answer both those questions with a powerful, resounding, unreserved, unhesitating "yes" then I will be in serious, serious trouble.
And that is why my fury is beyond anything that this world could cause when there are those who would deny my solemn responsibility to protect my child.
Perhaps the most common justification for abortion is that it is not really killing an inoccent human life. It is merely a "removal of the mother's tissue". Abortion is sometimes referred to as "the extraction of menses", or as I heard one pseudo-feminist refer to it, "just like getting your tonsils removed, only safer," an assertion so ludicrous (read from point 22 at the bottom of page 24 (30 by the pdf's numbering) to point 100) that it would be funny, if it did not involve the wounding of millions of women and the deaths of millions of children.
These people do not really anger me so much. Instead, I look at them with confusion and pity. Their claim that my child is not really a child, but instead just a part of my wife, is so out-of-touch with reality that I can only shake my head in wonder at the monumental ignorance and denunciaton of what is manifestly true. I have seen pictures of my baby. I have seen him bouncing and dancing in the womb, as alive as you or I. I have seen and heard her tiny heart, beating furiously, pumping her own blood through her own veins. For someone to come up to me and assert "that is not a child" or "that is not really alive" or "that is a lump of undeveloped tissue" is beyond reason and reality. It is as if some one came up to me and said, "your car is such a very fiery shade of red." I can only wonder if this person really occupies the same reality as I. Do I really need to argue such a thing? Is the truth not self-evident for anyone with eyes to see?
No, these people do not anger me; they merely arouse my pity.
The second group of people are those who recognize the humanity of the unborn, but are too cowardly, or too uncaring to do anything about it. These are the John Kerrys of the world; the "I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I'll be damned if I'm going to do anything about it." (And it is likely they will be.)
These people I look upon with disgust. While they claim to be on my side, functionally they are opposing me. Not only do they refuse to offer help, but they actively prevent my ability to safeguard my wife and child. They refuse to give me recourse to the law to be able to bring to justice those who would prey on the most innocent. These are the ones that, If they really do believe that abortion is wrong, then they are willingly and blithely condoning the largest holocaust the world has ever seen. It is cowardess of the highest and most ignominious kind. It is shameful and disgraceful. It is as if, when the Soviets come door to door looking for Gypsies, Catholics, Poles, Ukranians, or other Undesireables, I simply stood by and watched as they dragged my neighbor away. "I feel for you man," I might say to the poor, condemned neighbor, in an attempt to make him feel better, "but who am I to tell Comrade Stalin what he should do with his own body?"
Then there is the third group.
These are those who do not merely deny my resposibility to protect my wife and child; they do not merely fail to help me guard them from the butchers who would take the innocent life and, in the process, grievously wound my wife. No, the third group are those who openly champion the cause of the butcher. They are the ones who stand up and applaude those evil men who would slice my child into pieces and suck him out of my wife's body; or poison him with salt; or pull her feet-first out of my wife and then, when she is mere inches from birth, slice open the back of her sweet, precious little head and suction out her brains; or use any one of the cruel and barbaric practices that have been designed to destroy those who are most innocent and most needing of our protection. They are the Gloria Steinems and the President Barack Obamas.
If I lived in a less civilized time, or if I did not have the benefit of a faith informed by reason, these people would drive me to take up arms, and give me cause for violent revolution to defend the rights of those I love.
And they ought to thank God that I am Christian, for in my righteous fury, one of the only things holding me back is the hand of Christ on my shoulder, and his voice in my ear, whispering "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and forgive them for they know not what they do."
I'm not sure what category I fall into - but the fact remains that I do fall into one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am curious to ask. While I understand that you are angry that some people (and I'd have to include myself in this group) don't recognize you as a father until the baby is actually born, what I don't get is why this is so personal. You would never allow something like this to be done to your child, so why is it personal if it does not affect your life? No one is saying you need to abort your soon-to-be-born child and no one would ever say that is the case. So why does what other people might do get you so angry and upset? And while I understand that mantra of "good people don't sit by while evil happens," how does this harm your baby and your life?
I'm really just asking. I have no agenda and am not trying to create an uproar. Just hoping you and/or your readers can explain this to me, in a calm manner.
It angers me in the same way that you would be angered if someone decreed that Paul was not a human, or was a sub-human, and had no inherent rights, because he was a Jew.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says that my child is not a human, or is a sub-human, it makes me want to slap them. "Who are you to sit in judgment over my child? Who gave you the right to enforce your arbitrary and subjective definition of 'humanity' upon my child? Who died and made you God?"
And while (thankfully) I married a good woman, who I know would never seek to destroy our child, there is the knowledge that if—heaven forbid—she did buy into the lies of the abortion industry, and feeling scared and alone, she did obtain an abortion, there would be nothing I could do. There would be no way for me to bring the doctor who killed my child to justice. And to top it all off, those who impose their beliefs that my child is not such, would stand up and cheer for the abortionist.
(I could go on, but I choose to stop here.)
I get that. However, I guess my question more centered around why what other people do bothers you. Yes, you could not hold anyone legally responsible if it were you, but that's my point. We aren't talking about you. We're talking about Sally Jo Smith and what she chooses to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd that was the point of my article. I mentioned that I wasn't angered when Sally Jo Smith gets an abortion, because I have no emotional attachment to that child. I still recognize it as wrong, but it's not a personal issue.
ReplyDeleteNow that people are trying to define MY child as sub-human, it's personal, even if they are not trying to kill it, but instead, just "merely" saying that it may be killed.
I saw an episode of House a while back where some 14 year old (I think) was determined to be pregnant (not by incest but by her own bad choices [why do I have to include that?]). House solves the issue by hurridly aborting the baby and only lets the daughter explain to her parents what happened AFTER the abortion.
ReplyDeleteGod help me and the "doctor" who aborts my grandchild when Hannah is in NO position to make any kind of serious decisions.
Devin, you said, "You would never allow something like this to be done to your child, so why is it personal if it does not affect your life?"
ReplyDeleteI want to ask you, if you saw someone sexually abusing a two-year old child, would your response depend entirely on whether the child was related to you? Wouldn't you be angry just because an innocent and helpless child was being abused? Wouldn't you feel protective toward the little boy or girl no matter whose he or she was? Wouldn't you want to stop the abuser? Wouldn't you say that the child deserved to be protected even if the mother didn't want him or her?
That is the way pro-lifers like Joe or me feel about abortion. Abortion is wrong because the child, being innocent and helpless, has a right to our protection just by virtue of its existence. We have compassion and concern for the mothers who abort their children. We have anger towards those who have lied to them and assaulted them by destroying their very motherhood, and left them damaged for the rest of their lives, and especially toward those who brutally and callously tear their children to pieces. But most of all, we want to protect the innocent children who are in danger of being killed. Our desire to protect them comes from the fact of what they are: human children at the most vulnerable and innocent stage of life. They exist, they are human, and they have objective value and dignity independent of anyone else's desires. Just like you.
Mom/Grandma B hit the nail on the head. In a civilized society, every member should be concerned about the well-being of every other. That's what makes it a civilized society.
ReplyDeleteDevin, Joe's commentary in part is a reflection on how the issue now has a direct bearing on his life. The status of his child and protections granted under the law are of immediate concern to him, whereas they weren't before.
The question is often brought up in regards to abortion (and gay "marriage" and legalization of narcotics etc. etc.), "how does what someone else you don't know and will never meet does affect you?" If it were just one person, it would not have much effect, but what behaviors and attitudes a society as a whole adopts obviously affects every member.
When a society loses the concept of the value of human life in and of itself, the consequences are not limited to "other people" having abortions. When a society forgets why marriage is important, and stops endorsing it, the ramifications are more significant than "gay people can now have a piece of paper they couldn't have before".
The pragmatic reasons for opposing things like abortion and gay marriage are that it's bad for society (meaning every member of that society). There are of course philosophical and religious reasons above and beyond that, but they are not the only reasons.
Joe's more recent post quoting the article about conscience has more things to say on this.
The basic facts that are denied by secular humanists, which denial has led to many of the societal problems we see today, is that mankind has a nature; we are not able to change it; a natural law exists and is ingrained in every human soul.
"the ramifications are more significant than 'gay people can now have a piece of paper they couldn't have before'"
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to add: Of course they are or the gay-rights crowd would be happy enough with civil unions which accomplish the same "piece-of-paper" results. But they are not willing to settle for that. They obviously want something more significant that would affect more people than just themselves (so much for the "people I don't know and will never meet" excuse) or they'd settle for what would only affect themselves*, civil unions.
*I don't actually think civil unions have zero effect on society nor do I condone them. I'm simply using it in an argument.
Off-topic: I've always thought that "how does my marriage affect you?" was a self-defeating argument. If it does not affect me (or anyone other than you), than why do you need government involvement in it? If you drag the government into your marriage, then you are making it public, and by definition involving other people.
ReplyDeleteDave, I have one question. Why is abortion and gay marriage, legalization of narcotics, etc. bad for society? It would seem to me that if we were to tax all of those things, we would be able to provide the ability to balance the budget and provide for things like prevention of abortion, better education for our children, better police, etc.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if you care about my opinion, but I rarely avoid telling people so why stop now.
ReplyDeleteThere are flaws in the very question you ask. The purpose of govt is not to find the best way to tax people. Taxing activities has multiple problems in that it discriminates against people who frequent those activities (what would you think of me if I suggested we raise a tax on fried chicken, watermelon, and orange soda? I think you'd believe I am sick in the head rather than trying to come up with good fiscal policy) unless those activities directly lead to a cost to govt (think driving leads to road repair). Taxing an activity also leads to govt encouragement of the activity or the funding would dry up (or of course they start to seek funding elsewhere). This of course entrenches the activity into the society because without that tax "the children will suffer". Besides those effects, taxing something immoral is equivalent to profiting from something immoral which is itself immoral regardless of the good objective “for the children”.
Also the question assumes a premise which is “if we only had this extra money then we could do these things”. The govt is by far too financially top heavy already. There is way too much money in the system and I’m not talking about “pork” projects. Those are tiny compared to “govt programs” like welfare, medicare, etc. If people really needed those programs (which I assume you would say they do), they could be approved at the local level and the local govts could oversee them. Such a system, besides being far more efficient, would enable other areas of the country who don’t desire these programs the opportunity to “opt out” by simply not instituting them. Then a true social experiment could take place where we could observe which locals benefit from either having or not having the system as opposed to everyone being forced under the same system even if it fails. But I’m a bit off of my point. My point: govt could shave PLENTY of waste out of the social side of the budget (that’s right, leaving the dept of defense alone and other things that the feds ARE supposed to do), and have tons left over for whatever you were proposing we could do with the “immorality tax”.
Well, Devin, that's true, the government could tax those things and probably raise some money for social programs, but Tom's basically got it right. The purpose of government is not to make money. The purpose of government is to secure the rights of the governed.
ReplyDeleteIf the goal of a government is to prevent something bad, it should start by outlawing it and enforce that law.
If people do not value human life, it should be obvious how this is bad for society. They will stop caring for the sick and poor, among other things.
I seem to recall that the reasons why gay marriage is bad for society have been discussed at some length here, but basically it's because the lack of recognition and government endorsement of "traditional" marriage lead to a disintegration of the family, the most important and valuable setting for the proper formation of children into productive members of society.