Mother and child

On February 11, 2003, these pages featured a viewpoint by Stephanie Glass ("Why women may choose abortion") in response to an earlier viewpoint of mine ("Why men love abortion" 2/5/03). Ms. Glass should be commended for adding a thoughtful voice to the subject, and I thank her for taking the time and effort to keep the issue in focus.

Ms. Glass' viewpoint examines "the ramifications, for both mother and child, of not aborting an unplanned for and unwanted child." Her viewpoint concludes that they are mostly negative. Before we go further in her argument, I should clarify something I may have failed to make clear in my original viewpoint. It was never my intention to play suffering against suffering so as to prove why one should not get an abortion. I could not prove it in that way. A true proof, that abortion is a wrong, hinges on the question of the baby being a person (as I said in the beginning of the article). That is a matter of scientific fact that is either true or false, and requires a separate investigation. What I did intend to do was to, firstly, raise the question whether abortion helps men to abandon responsibilities and, secondly, dispel the popular myth that abortion is entirely "clean" and above all, "inconsequential."

Having said that, the points that Ms. Glass makes do trouble me. Rather than respond to them all, I will address the main thrust, the article's main point: "Until a woman can and wants to devote her life and emotions to a child, that child should not live the alternative." Glass' viewpoint appears to affirm that that which is aborted is indeed a child. She presents, then, the following: Life is not worth living if it involves some level of inconvenience or pain (level not specified). A baby conceived by a disinterested or disadvantaged mother is given a life not worth living. Anyone living a life not worth living should not live (should be killed). Therefore, the baby should be killed ("terminated" in the words of the writer).

The writer would not lack support for this argument in some academic circles. But please note it applies equally well regardless of the age of the child. Can the child become unwanted when she starts throwing mashed potatoes at Mom? If a wife is unexpectedly widowed, or abandoned, ought we kindly offer to terminate her three-year-old son? He looks far too much like his father to prevent emotional distress. Are any of us

safe? To who else can we apply this principle? The terminally ill, or elderly? How about the disabled? The poor in general?

The answer ought to be no one. There is no such thing as a life not worth living. I understand the temptation to think there is. It seems to be merciful, even compassionate. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous. Glass writes, "My God tells me to care for others, that this is the highest way of life and the best way to honor Him." I quite agree. That is, we speak of the same God (there cannot be a "my God" and a "your God" but only one God). God shines the same sun on everyone, and offers Himself with no partiality. I am no better than anyone else, nor any more deserving of life, and so ought to direct my gratitude to the care of others. But how can we care for innocent people by killing them? That a single mother and her child need the full support of the public is beyond question. But you don't cure a disease by killing the patient. Especially when the "disease" is temporary. Children are not children for long, and quickly leave the period of extreme dependence on the mother to live their own lives and potential, free to make their own choices in education, work, and viewpoint-writing.

Mother and child are not enemies. They are not naturally at war. Glass' viewpoint says that it is an act of "bravery and fortitude" to get an abortion. I highly doubt that it is bravery that brings most women to an abortionist's table. They do not look at their child, stiffen their lip, and hand the doctor his forceps. They do not even see the child at all. Planned Parenthood does not allow the use of the latest ultrasound imaging technology in their clinics. Most often these women are fed misinformation and rhetoric about "globs of tissue" or why having a child is a defeat for womanhood. Most unexpected mothers are simply scared.

The natural, uncorrupted relation of mother to child is love, concern, and joy. No one needs empirical "scientific data" to figure that out. I don't even know how it could be gathered (how do you calibrate "willingness to change a diaper at 2 a.m.?"). Of course, the relationship isn't without its difficulties, trials, and pains, and Glass is right to point that out. It is the nature of relationships to involve giving and receiving, sacrifice, and help. But certainly it's not "idealistic" to construe the relationship as something more than being saddled with an eighteen-(plus)-year parasite? Anyone nervous about such prospects might be advised to avoid baby-making from the start.

Letting a child live is not, as Glass' viewpoint suggests, selfish. Indeed, to raise a child the last thing you can be is selfish. Fortunately for parents who doubt their abilities or their assets, or who are victims of forced pregnancy, there are millions of couples waiting to adopt. As Glass says, "part of life should be the full and wholehearted care and safety of a parent or guardian." Adoption is not without its own consequences, but at the least the choice to live is not taken from the child.

Before closing, I must admit that as much as I truly value the possibilities of public debate, I do not enjoy this one. I can argue all I want from this bubble, but meanwhile the real perils of abortion are facing real women in real pain. And the most silent are those who have had an abortion and now seriously regret it. If there are any such women in our community, I invite them to speak out. You can speak far better than I. And there is a chance for you to do some real good. A group called Operation Outcry (www.helpafterabortion.com and ooc.lexi.net) is seeking to challenge the practice of abortion in the court system as physically, emotionally, and psychologically damaging to women. They are collecting "Friend of the Court" statements (similar to the affidavits currently being filed in affirmative action cases) from women who have had abortions. Because abortion hurts. And the world should know.