 |
| Are we a science-based society? Photo by Pavel Danilyuk from Pexels |
It is important to recognize that in all the debates about foetal development over the centuries since the beginning of the Christian era all reputable leaders and theologians in the history of the Church have always taught that abortion is a form of homicide and a serious sin. It was obvious that intercourse gave rise to the new human person and so it was clear that the unborn child's human dignity had to be acknowledged. Along with fostering respect for women, Christians transformed pagan society by emphasising the dignity of children, unborn or already born.
That human life begins at conception is not a matter of faith or doctrinal definition but of the evidence of our senses and science.
The Catholic Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1974 "Declaration on Procured Abortion" has this to say on the scientific aspects:
From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with [their] own growth. [They] would never be made human if [they] were not human already.”
To this perpetual evidence ... modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the programme is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man [or woman], this individual-man[/woman] with [their] characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time ... to find its place and to be in a position to act.
The Church's 1987 "Instruction on respect for human life in its origins" titled Donum vitae expands and makes a more explicit statement on when the spiritual soul combines with the material body to become one entity the demand recognition if its dignity. It states:
This teaching [of the 1974 document] remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization, the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.
Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?
Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in [their] bodily and spiritual totality.
The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and, therefore, from that same moment [their] rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. [Source]
The Church teaches that it is because scientific evidence supports the reasoned conclusion that a human individual with a personal presence is present at or immediately after conception that each human individual should be treated as a person from the first moment of existence.
This is why Catholics are so strong in their opposition to abortion. It's not because the Church has made a doctrinal declaration independent of whatever scientific information is available on the matter, but rather, it is pointing to the scientific reality and telling its members and all people of goodwill: "Do what the facts decree."
This is one area among many where Catholics uphold the findings of science, whereas "progressives" deny science or blatantly ignore it on their pursuit of a self-centered "right" necessitated by sexual promiscuity ("Self-indulgence up to the very limit of hygiene and economics" - Huxley's Brave New World).
The self-absorption of so many in society is evident from a member of the up-and-coming elite, the valedictorian at her Dallas high school's graduation:
I have dreams and hopes and ambition. Every girl graduating today does. We have spent our entire lives working towards our future, and without our input and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us,
I am terrified that if my contraceptives fail, I am terrified that if I am raped, then my hopes and aspirations and dreams and efforts for my future will no longer matter.
I hope that you can feel how gut-wrenching that is, I hope that you can feel how dehumanizing it is, to have the autonomy over your own body taken from you.
There is not much room in that perspective for the needs of a young being inside the woman with no other protection than their mother - and remotely, society and its moral strictures and laws.
On the other hand, we get a clear idea of what we are talking about with regards abortion by considering the case of Richard Hutchinson's survival after being born four months before due date. The baby had a gestational age of 21 weeks and two days, recognised by Guinness as the world's most premature baby to survive. Meanwhile, the survival rate of babies born early continues to climb.
Many who consider themselves "progressive" promote abortions in the second trimester, (which covers Richard Hutchinson's timeframe) and even till late in the third trimester (see here). Polling found that 23 percent of Americans say abortion in general should be legal in all cases, while 33 percent say it should be legal in most cases.
These figures point to a toxic society, where the belief exists that it is an abuse of personal "rights" if consequences of unrestrained behaviours rebound on the actors. Fortunately it's only a minority who hold it, but the belief is certainly abroad that it is a woman’s right to end the life of her fetus at any stage of a pregnancy.
One reason for the confusion among many women is their acceptance of the slogan that, as one 2015 magazine column argued, "Gender Equality Is Not Possible Without Abortion". Absurdly, the column rails at the reality of sexual differences, but the reasons for abortion presented highlight the fact that women's struggle needs to be mounted, not against innocent life, rather within the economic and social spheres so that equal pay is universal, where recognition is given comprehensively to the needs of both parents to allow a reasonable work-life balance, that there is better healthcare and much more that would reduce the burden of childcare.
This is the direction in which the "women's rights" brigade should be driving its campaigns. As has been pointed out by other writers, it's far easier for political parties to push for a raft of cultural "reforms" than it is to tackle the power bloc that is the corporate sector in order to recover, by way of better pay and benefits, the investment society has made and that companies have reaped, leading to bumper profits and outlandish executive pay.
Another serious matter here is that there is no reason for abortion in cases of foetal abnormality, writes Alexandra DeSanctis in The Atlantic. She states:
To argue for abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality amounts to defending the selective killing of human beings with disabilities or terminal illnesses; whether these abortions stem from callousness or misplaced compassion makes little difference to the life at stake.
DeSanctis cites a physician's evidence about the lack of need to abort late term babies:
In cases of third-trimester abortion for “fetal viability” exceptions, meanwhile, it should be obvious that no fetal deformity or disease is cured by killing the afflicted unborn child. Consider this testimony from Omar Hamada: “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no.”
DeSanctis faces off against the "progressives" and the money-makers like Planned Parenthood whose abortion centers sell babies' parts to pharmaceutical companies and researchers:
This is why the abortion-rights movement has long relied upon euphemisms to obscure the unpleasant truth about the right they advocate. Phrases like women’s rights, the right to choose, and reproductive freedom dominate their advocacy, along with dismissive jargon like clumps of cells.
The key point in this horrible, horrible affair is that at every stage of pregnancy, abortion is the taking of a human life.
Men realise this, too, but are often sidelined:
BBC News delved into the issue in a 2019 investigative piece, in which reporters spoke with men who desire a larger say in whether or not their partners could abort their preborn children. As one post-abortive man told the news outlet, "I tried everything, I offered to marry her, to take the baby myself, or to offer it up for adoption.” Another spoke of deep-seated shame, depression, and regret, explaining: “Men are meant to be protectors, so there is a sense of failure—failing to protect the mother and the unborn child, failing to be responsible.”
A national [US] web-based study of post-abortive men supports the idea that abortion is traumatizing, reporting that “4 out of 10 men experienced chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms . . . 88 percent feeling grief and sadness, 82 percent guilt, 77 percent anger, 64 percent anxiety, 68 percent isolation, 31 percent helplessness, 40 percent sexual problems.” A director at the Institute for Pregnancy Loss noted the study and called a woman’s right to abort despite her partner’s unwillingness, “unequal protection under the law”.
Some pro-life men have experienced abortions of their own and joined the anti-abortion movement after coming to terms with the psychological damage done to them. One such man shared his story with a pro-life organization, explaining that his lightbulb moment came years later:
“I've become far more enlightened on the procedure, realizing there's an all-too-real human dimension to the process. Long after the abortion was carried out, the emotional fallout continues, at least for me. I still occasionally have sleepless nights, thinking about what we did and why. . . . Who was the child we never knew? Would he have been my son? What would he or she be like today, at 20 years of age? How would I justify either of my teenage daughters having never been given the chance to be the remarkable young ladies they've become?"
Other insights by the article writer are that:
Despite popular insistence that abortion is a vital tenet of gender equality, the reality is far more complicated, as both men and women consider the societal implications of giving a woman the right to “opt-out” of pregnancy.
The pro-life perspective stands out in comparison to the others, which focus largely on how to even the playing field between men and women to achieve reproductive equity. Rather than eschew responsibility for pregnancies, anti-abortion groups argue that both men and women are best served by accepting full responsibility for any life created during sexual intercourse. This worldview examines humanity not from a lens of equity but from one of personal responsibility and respect for the existence of human life.
Abortion is, as we have seen, the killing of a human being. The death of the child is the result of a decision to opt out of parenthood. Recognising that there are cases of the mother's severe hardship or health difficulties that call for a heroism beyond most people in carrying a baby to term, the fact remains that the decision to abort is often a matter of avoiding disruption to one's lifestyle (I'm thinking that this applies to both the mother and father), or an escape from embarrassment. Humans are better than this!
Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.
No comments:
Post a Comment