I’ve been thinking a lot lately (yes, yes, I know that thinking is a dangerous thing to be doing, especially for a woman) about a particular topic, namely, abortion. The topic has been brought to mind lately in part because of recent political activity, in part because of a recent e-mail thread on which I was cc’ed, and in part because I’ve also run across a couple blog posts that have talked about abortion. Let me begin by saying that I am adamantly pro-life, as any close friend will tell you, and nothing written below should be construed otherwise. Further, my apologies in advance to anyone on either side of the debate whom I might offend.
My purpose here is not to debate whether abortion should or should not be legal, or what steps should be taken in either direction. Rather, my primary aim is simply to comment on a few observations about abortion. My pre-existing opinions have been shaped in part by a homily given by our parish priest in which he discussed how a culture’s mores are a part of what shapes an individual’s idea of shame, or right and wrong. In light of this, I would submit that our culture’s mores are such that aborting a child attaches such a minimal amount of shame to a woman (if any) that the “war on abortion” is already, for the most part, lost. (I may just be a pessimist; I pray that I am.)
My observations:
When Vogue magazine published an article (Jan 2008) relating one woman’s experience of aborting (via partial birth abortion) her baby who would have either died in-utero or been born so prematurely that the baby wouldn’t’ve survived, pro-lifers were called “zealots” and “haters” for protesting the “high-fashion makeover” of PBA (the article ran with a single large 'candid' photo of the woman and her born daughter in designer clothes). Comments on blogs primarily sympathized with the woman for facing such a horrible situation; few comments even mentioned the fact that the child was born and killed via PBA, which was in no way medically necessary. When I raised this point on one blog, I was attacked for basically being a callous, soulless person who clearly hated the woman and couldn’t possibly “judge” because I hadn’t faced the same situation. The emphasis was so much on the woman and how she felt and the pain she experienced facing the death of her child that readers essentially said that whatever she decided was “okay” (note, there’s no idea of right or wrong here), because she agonized over it and “believed” it to be so. Essentially, no one else can judge a “woman’s choice” as long as she thinks about it and is doing the “right” thing “for herself.” What criteria!
Additionally, the Pill and other chemical forms of birth control are widely accepted by Christians, and by anti-abortion Christians (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) despite the fact that they act as abortifacients when they fail to suppress ovulation, or properly kill the sperm or egg, or fail in whatever other manner they are supposed to work. By preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, chemical birth control kills life in its earliest stage. This fact, however, is either off the radar for many or is brushed aside as the desire to not have children (at least, “not right now”) trumps the fact that a couple will probably kill one of its own offspring in the course of their relationship. The argument that life doesn’t actually begin at conception is bunk scientifically and morally, and getting started down that slippery slope can land one in unbelievably demonic arguments, like the one that claims that a child is abortable until the point that he can breathe on his own because the Bible refers to “the breath of life.” Yes, that argument has been put forth by someone professing to be a Christian. Let’s call this what it is: bullshit. Again, these mindsets are not uncommon among Christians, who are supposed to act as lights shining in darkness, as Christ is the Light of the World.
I simply think that our culture has passed the point of no return as far as abortion goes. Because economic and social success and general “happiness” are seen as “ultimate goods”, and because children are seen as barriers to this, an unplanned pregnancy is a hurdle to be overcome by means of abortion. It’s just too easy. What 19 year-old college student wouldn’t want an abortion so that she can go on to a professional job and attain financial ability and independence, rather than deal with the consequences of her (and his!) actions? Abortion is a boon for men and women whose highest goal is "happiness" in this physical, material world. Kids can come later (if they’re wanted), and, after all, it’s just a parasitic lump of tissue growing inside her. People honestly believe this, and the numbers of those who don’t are growing smaller every day. I would argue that any occurrence of post-abortion guilt depends on one’s upbringing and immediate cultural milieu. A devout Christian might believe that, yes, she just killed her baby, but a woman who has been brought up in an agnostic or a-theistic setting, or a morally flexible “Christian” setting (all of which seem to be happening far more often than ever before) sees that baby as an expendable mistake.
I’m at a loss as to how to battle such a pervasive cultural mindset (I’m not speaking to political tactics here). Though I believe that women should have to participate in some sort of full-disclosure counseling session prior to abortion (it is, after all, a medical procedure), I’m totally grossed out by those whack-jobs who carry around signs with pictures of bloody aborted babies. Is that really the way to go? My husband and I will certainly raise our children telling them that abortion at any stage of life is wrong, but we are among a diminishing number. I fear that there is no common ground between the two sides and that they will only grow farther apart. One side denies that a "fetus" is a human with any significant moral claim upon the woman who carries "it" (the point at which this fetus "becomes" a person is a matter of opinion); the other side recognizes that the life carries a moral claim (make no mistake here, though; this is not a broad endorsement of the "right to life" movement's rhetoric, tactics, or politics). As I contemplate this issue, I want to cry: nobody cares, and nobody is going to. Any appeal to a moral standard when it comes to abortion has lost any authority that it may have once had. I can’t help but think of the verse from the prologue to John’s Gospel: “The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” Pray God that I am only a person of little faith and that these words will prove true.
17 comments:
Laura, as a woman, I'm not sure you should have a blog, nor am I sure if it is safe for you to be thinking at all. On top of that, you shouldn't use swears on-line, the government is watching. Ha!
Great thoughts. Please don't let this be your last post. Although, if you write as much as your husband, between the two of you, I'll have to quit at least one of my jobs just to keep up.
dcn. t.
Laura,
BRAVO!!
I've just started reading Gabriel's blog the last few weeks (I'm a late bloomer, I guess), and followed his recommendation to take a look at your post. Not only does your post deserve a look, it should be required reading.
I share your pessimism. I share your dislike of radical pro-life tactics. I also share your absolute stubbornness and refusal to give up in the face of so much--as you eloquently put it--bullshit. Preach on, sister. The truth is worth saying, even if no one listens.
Peace,
Nico
this is a timely post for me. Because of upcoming elections, this is an issue I have been thinking about a lot. Here's some thoughts I had on it and suggestions. I'll admit, I don't know if the suggestions are good or bad and I am willing to be chastise by any fellow commenter.
As a pro-life advocate, I have been frustrated over the years at the course of social and political changes regarding this movement. I have come to several conclusions and possible solutions. First it is disappointing that the abortion stances has become assigned to the two political parties. There are times I would have prefered to vote Democrat yet no prolife Democrats could be found, and the Republican rhetoric was convincing that change could be possible. I have become convinced that the Republican party had no large scale desire to make change on this issue. It was an issue that polarizing enough to garner a large voting block that allowed them to win multiple elections. This is not to say that there were candidates that felt strongly on this issue and would be willing to move it forward, but it never happened en masse. The evidence that secures this case is the early administration of George W. Bush. At that time, the Republicans basically controlled all branches. Roe could have been overturned, and laws could have passed that prevented legal abortion. It did not happen, but the issue was still used hold onto a conservative voting block and win elections. Perhaps this is true of the Democrats as well in regards to the pro-choice movement as well. As a result, I do not feel forced into voting Republican due to abortion because there is no willingness to challenge the status quo on this issue.
I do feel that the majority of Americans regardless of political persuasion detest abortion even if they support its legality. It is on this assumption that I believe change can happen not necessarily by banning abortion or overturning Roe (because I don't think the political courage exists), but by making policy changes that help change the culture of abortion in this nation. I think most people on both sides long for a reduction in abortion. No one wants to see it as birth-control and would rather see it as rare. The following are policies that could be supported by both parties and hopefully could make abortion rare and even unthinakable in the long run.
1. Abortion should be provided pro-bono with no government support. Unfortunately any activity that generates profit will protect itself and its industry. This is no exception to the abortion industry. Yet if the profit component is removed, and it must be done by willing medical staff pro-bono then it will lessen the amounts of abortion. Doctors who support the serious cases such as life of the mother will be willing perform the act freely.
2. Governments should increase funding for crisis pregnancy centers.
3. Governments should increase funding for pre-natal care for those on the margins.
4. Governments should increase funding for orphanages and adoption centers. It is truly tragic that thousands of families in the US have to go overseas to adopt due to the cost and red-tape in this country. Laws should make it easier to adopt.
Mark,
Thanks for your comment. A question: What about the argument that even if the Republicans won't overturn Roe v. Wade, they might at least try to limit abortion (even if just to appease social conservatives) much more than the Democrats would? Wishful thinking? How much weight should this carry in one's political decision-making?
Laura,
You make a great point, and another reason I am conflicted over the whole problem. You could also argue that a Republican president is more likely to appoint pro-life judges. My frustrations come from several places. Abortion seems to be one of the few things that I agree with Republicans anymore, and I feel used as a result.
Also it seems we have reached a stalemate regarding political action on abortion, yet I don't want to give up. We need to come up with other ways to influence the culture to avoid and think evil of abortion regardless of its legality.
I hate to advocate a book by Fredrica Mathews-Green, (It might be habit forming) but I found her book "Real Choices" to be interesting, in that it focuses the issue on the damage that Abortion does to Women. Much as I dislike the Harry Potter books generally, there was actually a depiction in the last of the series of the damage that killing does to a soul; the description of Voldemort's soul as it lay on the floor of death's antechamber even sounded like an aborted fetus. Of course, as Orthodox, we know that any sin damages the Soul, and of course, we know that the kind of self-indulgent lifestyle which leads naturally to abortion is itself sin. What can we do for those deluded ones who so thoughtlessly damage themselves? Pray, I guess.
As distasteful as some of the images put about by Pro-Life people may be, they at least serve as a graphic and unforgettable reminder that the woman is not the only sufferer; there is one who pays the price of hideous torture when she chooses the "easy" way out. Oh yes, another aspect of the book is that it says women often feel coerced into abortion by parents or lovers, so it's not solely her responsibility (lest I be labeled sexist, and fall into the ranks of the sub-human).
Laura,
Thanks for your post. As I was reading it, I was reminded of something that a college freshman wrote in an essay for one of my classes (her topic was abortion). She wrote, "EVERY woman who gets pregnant thinks about getting an abortion."
When I read it, I couldn't believe my eyes! It is painful to think that there is ANY truth in her statement. I fear there may be.
The issues that you raise concerning the Pill and other forms of contraceptives only add to this mess. At what point does a woman (or couple) go from NOT wanting a baby (because they are too young, too "poor," not ready, not married, etc.) to WANTING one? Clearly, the evidence is found in the numbers as women are waiting longer and longer to conceive children (finally realizing it might be nice to have a pretty little pet child when they are in their forties), and then they start with in vitro fertilization, etc. At that point, so many people go crazy (and spend fortunes) over their "right to have a child."
I'm just spouting random thoughts, so sorry. Here's another one: When I was pregnant, I was struck by how people would respond to me when I would make a comment about Miles (in the womb) that made it sound like he was already born (i.e. "Miles has already been to the Atlantic Ocean!"). It seemed to make people so uncomfortable to hear me talk about him as though he was already here. Or better yet, they would say, "WHEN you're a mother . . ." and I would say, "I'm already a mother. I'm reminded of the fact every time I feel a kick in my belly." Still, people were hesitant to agree with me, I suppose for fear that they might be struck by lightning.
We should probably add that this issue doesn't end in the womb. It seems that our culture teaches us to be so caught up in ourselves and our own "fun" and "happiness," that having children is simply a nuisance. At best, they are experiments so we we can try to make their lives more "fun" than ours have been. Spending money sounds like fun, so we buy them stuff and put them in programs and activities, take their photographs, and place them on pedastals. What is there for them to look forward to in adulthood? What a disappointment it will be to them . . . What kind of relationships will they remember from their childhood?
Oh, what a mess we humans make when we demand control of God's work!
I certainly don't have the answers to all these issues, and I have certainly contributed to these problems during my life. I think that we have a responsibility as Christians, women, mothers, and Americans to speak out about these issues to try to impact our culture. I am very grateful for the men who take the lead and/or speak on these issues as well.
Thanks again for starting/ continuing this converstaion on your blog.
Lord, have mercy on us sinners.
Maxim,
I've actually had it in mind to read the FM-G book but have never followed thru. Maybe this time... Without having read the book, I can't respond to her in particular, but I do question in general how much "post-abortion syndrome" and post-abortion regrets are particular to women of certain upbringings or faiths or subcultures. I read an article in the NY Times several months ago about women in prison who have never given their abortions a second thought until confronted with a prison ministry that connects abortions to their past difficulties and their present state (not exactly as a cause, but something like it). Feel free to call me a big lib (for reading and believing the Times!), but in a culture in which pre-born humans are only called "babies" if they're wanted, and a (disposable) "fetus" if not, I tend to believe that many women get an abortion without lingering regrets unless they've been raised to believe otherwise. I am prone to believe that abortion is essentially a form of birth control in the minds of most women; distasteful, yes, but "just" another form of birth control.
You are of course correct in stating that the graphic images put forth by some pro-lifers are only a true depiction of what happens in abortion, and perhaps it is only fair to show women what they are doing. A part of me agrees with that. However, it reminds me of the "fire insurance" version of Christianity: "You don't want to go to Hell, do you? You'll burn! It sucks! Get saved!" All true, doubtless, and maybe the ends justify the means, but is scaring people into Heaven the way to go about proselytizing? Though, again, maybe such graphic images are a viable last resort tactic in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies. Still, my gut tells me that it's really gross.
Finally, another difficulty in this whole thing is that we Christians know that abortion is murder and that it damages the soul and dehumanizes the individual. But saying that to anyone who views the issue differently will only be seen as patronizing condescension; the question, "Who are you to judge?" is certain to follow. I would agree with your assessment that sinful lifestyles are themselves delusions, but I have a feeling that a growing majority of people would not agree. Without a massive cultural about-face that recognizes life at conception, how can any significant progress in stopping or slowing abortion be made when one side recognizes the new-formed life as an individual human with some of its own rights and the other simply does not? Tis is the fundamental difference, and this is why the "aboriton debate" goes nowhere.
Dear Laura:
What you say is true; I believe that many of the women FMG was interacting with had only come to understand the implications of their action as they grew older. Her Forum was composed of women who volunteered to talk about their abortion, and how it had affected them; obviously a select group, and a woman who regards abortion as birth-control isn't going to feel that she has been affected by it. I think it is as spiritual growth takes place in the course of the woman's life that she begins to understand the wound that she has suffered, and to understand that it is no less a wound because it was done in ignorance. My daughter's monastery publishes a pamphlet titled "Akathist of repentance for a Woman Who has had an Abortion". Some feel that publishing that pamphlet is a crass act, and that they shouldn't be pushing a woman's past sins in her face, but I think it could be a thing of immense comfort for a woman who has truly had the courage to face the enormity of her deed, for repentance is the only balm for the healing of spiritual wounds. So Abortion needs to be treated as all sin; our energies should go more toward treating the spiritual wounds created by sin, not so much to ending sin itself; while one woman is on the slow path of spiritual development, in which she painfully discovers the wounds in her soul carelessly self-inflicted and strives to heal them, another generation of young women will have come out of Public School believing that Abortion is birth-control. It would be great if we could reverse these trends, and we should work for it, but Heaven rejoices for every Soul that comes to the awareness of sin, and the consequent possibility of new life.
The Fathers speak of three motives which cause people to wish to stop sinning, in an ascending order of spiritual development: (1. Fear of punishment (2. Desire for spiritual rewards (3. Love of God. None of them are to be disdained; each of them is appropriate for those in that particular stage of spiritual development, and lead naturally to the steps above it. The Proverbs say "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom" (The Beginning, not the End), while St. Anthony the Great says "I Love God, and do not fear Him, for Love casts out fear". It is of course a mistake to focus exclusively on Hellfire, as our Protestant friends have done at various points of their history; our temptation (articulated at length by all the Jesuitical Doctors of Orthodoxy) is more in recognizing Love without fear as the higher state, and trying to leap there immediately without any intermediary passage, which tends to produce variants of the "My good buddy Jesus" theology.
Mama K: I think it may be true that every woman who gets pregnant wonders if she is really ready for this; I know it is true even for some who have greatly desired to become pregnant. When my wife and I were first married, she was almost ready to graduate from college, and had always planned to purchase a brand-new, custom painted car as a graduation present to herself. When she began to talk of having a baby, I said I wasn't sure we could do both the car and the baby. She said she would be willing to give up the car. Well, she became pregnant much more quickly than either of us had visualized; on our way back from the doctor's visit which confirmed the pregnancy, she was very quiet, and was looking a little pale. As I glanced solicitously over at her, she blurted out suddenly, "I think I should have gone for the car!". Of course in our day, having any doubts about a pregnancy leads to thoughts of abortion for those who regard it as the last line of birth control.
I'm jealous. This conversation is exponentially more fascinating than anything that's taken place on my web-log in months! :)
Maxim,
Based on your comments, I take it your daughter is at St. Paisius Monastery. I own a few of their akathist hymns, which I've always been very thankful for. They do good work. On an unrelated note, I see you are part of a (closed) blog titled "ROCOR Refugees." Not that I'm asking for an explanation here, but I am curious what the meaning behind it is. (Perhaps we could exchange e-mails?)
As for the topic being discussed here, the publication of the Akathist is hardly indecent; what's indecent is how easily Orthodox sidestep many of these problems within their own flock. Sadly, I have heard priests invoke what I've disdainfully come to call the "doctrine of haziness" when it comes to many moral issues. (Granted, none have said abortion is "ok," but the sort of behaviors, mindsets, and political programs which have given rise to the culture of death are not seen as proper subjects of moral scorn.) It's difficult to witness to people about the wounding of their souls and the distorting of their very natures when the Church itself slips into a strange antinomianism in its desire to focus on "spiritual things" rather than dwell on "mere" moral issues.
It doesn't surprise me that abortion by itself fails to trigger an immediate state of regret, loss, and guilt. Human history is replete with entire civilizations engaging in mass acts of depravity which would make even carefree Christians weep. The reality of man's fallen (but not utterly depraved) state is that is that it acts as a shield between ourselves as we are and the Children of God we are called to be. Christians put quite a bit of stock in invoking "natural law" and some fantastical belief that moral norms are immediately discernable without reflecting on the uselessness of the natural/unnatural distinction for a world we confess as having been distorted by sin. Without getting into the trickier question of whether or not we can know anything by nature, i.e., natural right (as Aristotle and Plato taught), I do not see how we can embrace any optimism in man's capacity to discern categorical moral rules (presumably from God) without first accounting for how that is even provisionally possible to a warped consciousness.
Gabriel:
I will e-mail you, but probably not very soon; I have a couple of other responses which must take priority, one of which is going to take a little research, and also, I need to write another blog post, before people go away and forget about me.
I certainly didn't mean to imply we shouldn't confront immorality in what I wrote; when I wrote about focusing on healing the wounds of sin rather than on ending sin itself, I was addressing a type of utopianism that disturbs me in the way modernity addresses moral issues (even the ones it believes in). Our friend Visibilium says "Scratch a Utopian and you find a Tyrant"; I believe this is necessarily true, for the Utopian believes, with a sincerity born of desperation, that if they can just hit on the right formula for the ordering of society, evil will go away, and for this right ordering of society to be achieved, freedom must be abolished, or people will, in their ignorance, order their families and communities wrongly, thus wickedly frustrating the noble project of stamping out all evil in society. For instance, in seeking to address the issue of want (certainly it should be addressed) its solution is to declare a War on Poverty, a great, noble crusade that everyone can feel good about to utterly end for all time the possibility that anyone should be without the basic necessities of life; but it does so without any real tenderness for poor people as such, (and in fact, its contempt for the poor is a large part of the reason for the crusade, the poor being so contemptible that it is just too awful to contemplate that there should continue to be poor people, therefore we will eliminate them, by making them like us, in other words, perfect) and in its insistence on perfection, tends to increase the difficulties of the poor by sweeping any manifestations of poverty it can't figure out how to get rid of under the carpet, so it can pretend that the problem has been adequately dealt with, like when city officials pull down the shacks homeless people have erected, which are at least keeping the rain off their heads, and think that thereby they are dealing with the problem of homelessness. But the proper way to deal with the poor is to care about them, and meet their needs as they arise; that is why poverty can't really be addressed adequately by vast social campaigns, and needs to be met by individual alms-giving, the meeting the needs of those around you. So it would be possible to have a crusade against Abortion that would be totally unresponsive to the needs of women in trouble. In such a case, you actually have two states of sin represented, that of the woman who has committed the Abortion, and the self-righteousness of those who point the finger and say, "Shame, Shame". It is not going to be possible to end sin; it would be possible not to encourage sin as we do at present, but we have to deal with conditions as we find them. That's all I mean when I say we have to focus on the healing of sin. Of course, when you provide people with sound moral teaching, you help to prevent the wounds from occurring in the first place. I agree with you when you say that, by and large, the Church evades its responsibility to teach morality to its flock. I agree with Laura when she says that by and large, most people aren't going to be able to immediately understand those teachings. One thing I liked about the church I attended when I first came to Orthodoxy was that the Priest, during the Great Entrance, as he was making the circuit of the Nave, would pray for the "tiny babies killed by Abortion"; I thought that was just one of the standard prayers for the Great Entrance until I started attending other churches. He told me he used to say "tiny babies murdered by abortion" but he became aware that there were women in the congregation who had had an abortion in the past, whose hearts bled because of it, and when he said MURDERED, it was like stabbing them in the heart; so out of compassion, he softened his language a bit. That seems to me to be the right balance; not to evade the responsibility to always confront the evil that is being committed among us, but to have compassion on those who have sinned.
The Apostle tells us that there is a Law written on the heart of Man, and that there is therefore no excuse; but the truly frightening thing is how easily that knowledge is obscured, how souls grow obtuse, and opaque to the light of Divine knowledge. Ignorance is indeed culpable when it is willed ignorance, when our minds shy away from a knowledge that is accessible to us, because it might be in some way inconvenient, or even because accepting Divine light is seen as an infringement on our "inalienable" right of self-determination; and what can we do when all self-inspection reveals to us is a hall of mirrors in infinite regression, all reflecting the image we project on to them? All we can do is pray that we will not be left as self-deceivers, but that the Spirit of God shatter our pretense, and leave us exposed in the hard light of reality, so that we can in all sincerity say, "Lord Jesus Christ, O Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner".
It might be nice to examine which women get and don't get an abortion.
I worked as a medicaid eligibility worker at a health clinic. I saw many young women, 14, 15 years of age and up come in, applying for medicaid for abortions. Most had gotten pregnant by "accident". Most, if not all, were completely unready for motherhood. Most were not capable of even living on their own.
What would the "solution" be for those?
Anon,
I fear that my point has been lost. I don't know that I have any "solution" for the pregnant teenager. From a material standpoint (only!), an abortion is perhaps her most "logical" step, though from a Christian view, it remains a murder and is in fact degrading.
I don't know that I have much more to say than to ask: Where are her parents? Where is the man who got her pregnant? Where is anyone who is willing to tell her that it's okay to not have sex, and is in fact much safer? Why is our culture saying that it is her "right" to have sex, at an age when she is still a child? And why are my tax dollars paying for this, anyway?
The point that I tried to get across in my post is that I am pessimistic that the sweeping cultural change that is needed to reduce abortion is anywhere in sight. Or, if such change is in sight, I fear that it retreats too fast for us to catch it.
As distasteful as some of the images put about by Pro-Life people may be, they at least serve as a graphic and unforgettable reminder...
I wonder if the unbloody photos from 3D-4D ultrasounds can do more to 'prove' the humanity and personhood of a fetus, over and against the bloody, dead aborted fetuses normally touted. To those that deny the humanity of the fetus, it is no more than an organ in formaldehyde; showing pictures like that seems simply to preach to the choir and stoke already in place anti-abortion feeling.
Anon: There aren't always pain-free solutions for the evils created by sin, but only a scoundrel makes the killing of the innocent the solution of any problem.
Orrolouge: That may be true, but the photos showing the graphic images are then important for reminding those who oppose Abortion what Abortion is. It is easy over time for fervency to wear down, and for the initial horrified outrage to become a more blase "realistic" general opposition; we need pictures like that to remind us that there is no social necessity or personal inconvenience that can ever even partly justify the thing, and that no compromise is possible.
I'm not arguing for an either/or, just pointing out that perhaps more honey and less vinegar may be a tactically more successful way ot get at the same point: the fetus is a living child, a person, with certains rights (i.e., life).
'Fetus fatigue' is a phrase that has popped around Evangelical circles to describe just the worn-down, blase, general opposition to abortion you describe.
Post a Comment