The
Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
I am Catholic, but I did not learn of abortion from the pulpit. I recall coming across the word in a newspaper as a boy and asking my Mom what it meant. My Mom, the mother of 7 (I'm the oldest), did have a point of view, but she gave me a clinical definition of abortion, in nonjudgmental terms. I remember my utter revulsion at what I was hearing. "But Mom, that's MURDER." My words, not hers. "What does the (Catholic) Church say about this? They have to be against it." In fact, as I researched the topic for a college essay assignment, the Church had from its start, as recorded in the Didache, one of the earliest writings within decades of Christ's death, confronting a Roman society that embraced abortion and infanticide. Politically opportunistic pro-abort Catholics, like Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, and Cuomo, sought to rationalize their ideology based on an obscure theological distinction involving ensoulment: the idea that the soul entered the baby's body after a certain point of development, roughly speaking viability or quickening. the time that a mother can first detect her baby moving on his or her own. Some Church theologians had been influenced by Greek philosophers (Aristotle) on the notion. So a consequence of this distinction was that it was especially heinous to kill a baby after ensoulment. But make no mistake: the idea of taking preborn life before ensoulment was still seen as a grievously sinful rejection of God's gift of new life.
The pseudo-Christian argument that abortion is not discussed in the Gospels is particularly disingenuous. First, it isn't unusual Jesus is not quoted on the topic because the practice was not accepted in Jewish culture at the time. Second, Jesus was very strict in a moral sense; recall, He was dismissive of Moses' tolerance of divorce. His disciples often warned Him that His words were "too hard", strict, intolerant, uncompromising. There are specific references to Jesus' love for little children. Jesus is furious at what He regards as corrupt money-changing in His Father's House, the Temple. The idea that the same man, who staved off the stoning of an adulteress, would silently stand by as a mother killed her child, is unthinkable. Would He love the sinner? Yes, but that's different than tolerance for evil. He did not say the adulteress was "free to do what she wanted with her own body"; He said, "Go and sin no more."
There are other sophistic arguments made by perceived inconsistencies, like different punishments on killing a child at this vs. that point of development (as in sanctions for being responsible for a woman's miscarrying a child) . That may simply reference some influence of the ensoulment doctrine, but make no mistake: there's no doubt that abortion at any stage was regarded as intrinsically evil, a rejection of God's gift of life.
But my religious beliefs have nothing to do with my position on abortion. Even if I would declare myself an atheist tomorrow, my position opposing abortion would remain the same. The teachings of the Catholic Church are of 2 types: religious and moral. This is not a doctrinal issue, a matter of faith. It's a moral teaching: a necessary discussion relevant to the prohibition of murder. It's astonishing that people don't regard the general issue of taking the life of another "imposing your religion on other people". I see the time of birth as incidental; any child, at least through the first few years of life, is profoundly depending on his or her parents, and the stage of development is an incidental fact of terms of the child's co-equal, unalienable right to life. A child's DNA is biologically different from his or her mother's, from the moment of conception.
But as a libertarian, what about the mother's rights? Well, let's point out first of all, the vast number of pregnancies are the consequence of voluntary sexual activity, and pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. I'm not in favor of child quotas, of micromanaging women's sex lives, of a woman's right to prevent future pregnancy through surgical and other means. But once a child has been conceived, the game has changed: the child has an unalienable right of life. Yes, parenthood can be demanding and inconvenient. I made a bad decision years ago of buying a GM car. GM abandoned the brand while I was still paying off the car; I never would have bought the car if I had known that. But I was responsible for my decisions.
My Dad didn't make much money in the military as an enlisted man; in fact, there were times in my early childhood where he moonlighted on base, I qualified for the "free lunch" program all through high school, and along with a tuition scholarship, I worked my way through college. Would it have been easier in terms of family resources and my share of attention from the folks without 6 younger siblings? Of course, but I wouldn't change a thing. My younger siblings were a blessing from God.
There's a related anecdote. My younger siblings yearned for a pet, in particular a puppy. We did have a beautiful white Siamese cat when Dad was stationed near Panama City, FL (where sibling #6 was born). But she got pregnant and the folks had to give her away.
Four years later, my Mom gathered the 6 of us together (3 boys and 3 girls) for an announcement. "Would you rather have a puppy or a brand new baby sibling?" Well, that's didn't go the way she intended; the 5 younger siblings enthusiastically rooted for a dog; I was the one holding out for a baby. Mom had to break the news--no puppy. She then asked us for gender preference. To my brothers' chagrin, I betrayed my gender; my folks later named me my baby sister's godfather. (I think it may be because of that that I was later named godfather to two nieces, but no godsons, even though I have more nephews.)
It was clear that my pro-life beliefs were not popular in a culture saturated with feminist ideology and political correctness, even at a Catholic university. My philosophy professor Dr./Fr. Lonergan chided me, "Don't make Donceel look like an idiot." (Donceel was a modern-day proponent of ensoulment.) A lay religious studies professor said I was "much more reasonable" speaking vs. writing on abortion. I purchased "abortion is murder" buttons by mail from a young couple, apparently frustrated in spreading the message, expressing relief at finding at least one person who shared their values. (I think I still have those buttons in my trunk). The subject of abortion rarely came up in daily conversations. I do recall one Latino dorm mate simply expressed astonishment that I didn't support rights of mothers to make the choice whether to kill their children.
It is very difficult to navigate through life knowing there are people who do not value preborn life. Nobody earns my respect by supporting abortion "rights", Perhaps my two best professional friends from the 1990's, a Jew and an Indian immigrant, are staunch pro-aborts. In fact, the former confessed to me his girlfriend when he was 18 or so had an abortion. Now he also had a habit of trying to push my buttons, knowing I was Catholic.
I think I'm more effective in providing a less strident, more positive pro-life position, like my recurring miscellany "choose life" series. Oddly enough, trying to find a middle ground for the sake of civility can be controversial. I have a nephew-in-law who is an abortion abolitionist. When my niece got married, I accepted his Facebook invitation and found my news feed choking with some very strident, judgmental anti-abortion pieces. When I quietly told my niece he needed to tone it down, he posted that I was a gutless "pro-life" hypocrite and defriended me. I'm going to stay the course in my current approach. This doesn't mean turning this blog into a single-issue propaganda forum. I am not shy about expressing my point of view, but I'll pick the time, place, and context of making my points, let's be clear: the deaths of 60M babies in the Roe v. Wade era are an abomination.
