It is high time I responded to those anti-life advocates. Though public opinion has turned against abortion, advocates of abortion are becoming more vehement in their fight against life. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of hearing their poor excuses. To destroy an innocent life is simply inexcusable. Period.
I’m sure you’ve heard the usual excuses. Let me just state some them here.
“It’s my body.”
“The child lives inside of and depends on the mother. So the mother has a right to terminate the child’s life.”
“In cases of rape and/or incest abortion should be allowed. The woman did not consent to the sex.”
“Many women can’t support another, or any, child. It is unreasonable and unfair to ask the woman to abstain from sex. It is her right to have sex, and to choose not to have a child.”
The first argument is, perhaps, the most ridiculous. How can anyone take it seriously? Anyone using this argument needs to study biology. The child is a totally separate being from the mother. Hence, no mother has the right to terminate the child’s life.
Yes, a woman’s body is, to some extent, her own. Still, one person’s rights end where another’s begins. This includes the area of procreation. In the case of consensual sex, the woman made her choice when she agreed to have sex. When you sign the back of your paycheck you accepting responsibility for that check. You are liable if you write any checks, and they bounce because your employer didn’t have enough in his account to cover your paycheck. Your bank will penalize you, because you should have made sure your employer’s check cleared before writing your own checks.
It is no different with sex. You know the risks involved. It is unreasonable and irresponsible to engage in sex, and expect to avoid the consequences.
The second argument is also pretty stupid. People who use this argument should really give a lot more thought to their position. To claim that you can end the life of the child growing in your own body precisely because it lives in you, and depends almost solely on you for its existence, is an argument that has great consequences for mankind as a whole. Basically, you are claiming that anyone depending on others for their existence can be done away with by their “caretakers”. You can say that you only apply this argument to abortion cases all you like. Using this argument to justify euthanasia and other various forms of murder is the inevitable consequence of this argument. No one, save God alone, is entirely self-sufficient. We all have depended on someone for our existence at one point or another.
If I tire of taking care of my eight year old son, can I just kill him? Why not? After all, he’s only eight. There is still a lot he can’t do on his own. Without help from an adult he will most likely die. If I don’t want to take care of him anymore, why can’t I kill him? I could argue that it’s unfair that I have to use my financial resources and time to take care of him. What’s that? I should just put him up for adoption, or find someone who will take care of him? Well, why can’t pregnant women who don’t want their babies do the same?
Cases of rape and/or incest do not justify abortion either. I understand that such instances are traumatic for the woman, and the sex isn’t consensual, but you can not punish the child for the sins of the father. Killing the child is a case of misplaced anger. None of us gets to choose our parents, or the circumstances surrounding our conception. You can not kill an innocent life because you are not pleased with the circumstances surrounding its conception.
The financial argument is likewise a bad argument. The conception of the child is the natural and normal consequence of sex. If you don’t want a child, then don’t engage in sex. Expecting to have sex and not suffer from any consequences is like messing with a grizzly bear’s cubs, and expecting the mother bear not to attack!
Abstaining from sex can be quite healthy for you. It teaches you self-control. You learn to master your own passions.
That isn’t to say that you can’t morally have sex just because you can’t afford children. (All of this, of course, presupposes it happens within marriage.) Sex is not solely about procreation. There is a unitive aspect for husband and wife. If there are grave reasons why the conception of children must be avoided, then NFP may be used. Artificial contraceptives, however, can not be justified. Such artificially hinders the main and natural effect of the sex act from occurring; and it shows a lack of trust in God.
One last point I would like to make here. Abortion is dangerous because it cheapens human life. It gives one the view that life is a burden. Instead of a gift, children become a nuisance to be avoided. This is a terrible view to have!
Abortion supporters inevitably turn to the government to help them achieve their end. They try to make a vital spiritual issue a legal issue. When the government declares in favor of abortion for any reason, a dangerous precedence has been set. Suddenly human life at every stage becomes subject to the whims of the government. Oh, such may not occur immediately, but it will gradually. Once the people become desensitized to killing unborn children, and children are viewed as a nuisance, then the government tries to regulate life at other stages. Why not? It makes sense that this would happen. After all, if the government can prevent you from being born, what can’t they prevent? A citizenry that has no right to life, has no rights at all!
Peace in Christ,
David J. Pollard
American Catholic Solidarity