Another Pro-Life Post

"The greatest act of evil was the murder of the second person of the Blessed Trinity. But this greatest act of evil wad turned to the greatest good."--Fr. Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, in a homily on EWTN on the feast of St. Isadore, about the importance of the Cross to Christianity

It's been haunting me lately. It's always all around us--the problem, the "issue" of abortion. I want it to Go. Away. I'm weary, weary, weary of thinking about it. Worrying about it. Visualizing it. Being sad. Being emotionally involved with it. And this is not to say that I want to stop worrying, because it's obvious--I have choice when it comes to my own emotions. Clearly I could choose to stop worrying about it and being emotionally caught up in the wrong--wrong--wrong rhetoric in favor of abortion, but to do so would be to go against all of my moral principles. I used to feel as though the issue was very much removed from me. After all, I knew that I would never, no matter the circumstances, choose to have an abortion. And what others did, well, that was subject to their own beliefs, right? I think in part I did not realize that abortion was so hugely important to some people. I was appalled by the news of anti-abortion activists committing murder. I wasn't sure that something that was a moral question could be enforced by law. I didn't think that I should be paying for what was obviously someone else's immoral choice, but I just didn't see that it impacted me otherwise. I have always felt that abortion was an act of desperation, and so didn't want to judge women who were in such a horrible state that they would consider what must seem like a grievous evil to anyone, right? I'm not so sure anymore that abortion is always considered regrettable, unless the testimonies I have heard are not genuine, but to say that someone might be misled in their choices, not capable of making the choice, misrepresenting their feelings about the choice, etc., etc., is implying all sorts of bad things about the individuals involved. So, believing their own testimony, I have come to see that abortion can indeed be a very casual choice to some. And this saddens me. It was a gradual conversion of the heart to move from "always regrettable, but. . ." to "always regrettable and shouldn't happen--ever."

Someone who is tired, tired, tired of being emotionally involved in pro-choice/pro-abortion arguments (and I don't think the two are necessarily the same, as I was not "pro-abortion" when I considered myself "pro-choice by default"--though they frequently are, as in my examples below) has no business being on the internet. At all. And 'lest anyone get their knickers in a bunch, I don't (unfortunately) see the "right" to abortion being taken away, or a certain court interpretation being overturned. I think anything we can do must be done culturally rather than politically. Save not supporting politically those who believe that abortion is an inalienable right. 'Cause it's not. Even "choice" is a better term than "right," though I suppose it comes to the same thing, inevitably. But I am on the internet, too often for my own good. And I stumble across and into things that hurt and upset me.

Last week, for example, I was first discovering the new blog I've been mentioning, Stuff Christians Like. I took a look at a post about being honest in pre-marital counseling about one's past sins. It kind of throws into sharp relief the beauty of Catholicism's teaching about sexuality. Like, ummm, what part of "never outside of marriage" did you not understand? Meanwhile, poor Protestants find themselves able to stumble around and make their own theological justifications for this or that sexual encounter. Not all do, but it is something that can happen. And as many of the comments on the post imply, that causes hurt--to more than oneself. My first impression of the post about confessing one's past sins to one's spouse was, "Hey! This is exactly how Catholics feel about Confession! Cool! This is an opportunity to explain the concept to some who might misunderstand--as I did when I was not Catholic!" Well, that part of my comment was never addressed, and the comments devolved into a discussion of the evils of abstinence-only education and, finally, an overt pro-choice/pro-abortion statement, which I answered only by saying (in a nutshell), "No, not all Christians think that abortion should be permitted in cases of rape and incest," "Some arguments can't be won, but we could at least try to listen to one another," and "Where there is Life, there is Hope." Although I was restrained, I am always the most disturbed by so-called Christian justifications of abortion. In this case, the commenter who led the thread astray said, "My God has a plan and a will and it's bigger than doctors and lawyers and scary teachers waiting to seduce your children into satans arms (or whatever)."

Well, I put off addressing this until my daughter turned on the TV this morning, which was on EWTN and happened to be in the middle of the homily quoted above. And well, doesn't that say it all? The fact that God can turn an evil act to his own purpose and make of it the greatest possible good does not make the initial act any less evil. Free will and God's omniscience play into this, too: While God knows what choices we will make, He does not endorse our wrong choices, and we are free to make them--just as we are ultimately free to reject Him, though He desires our love. I was reminded of Tolkien's discussion of the great song of the Valar with Illuvatar in the beginning of time, in which the Valar were co-creators, along with Illuvatar of what would be Middle Earth, without realizing the significance of the song they were helping to create. Melkor would try to introduce discordant melodies, but each time, Illuvatar would weave the discord into ever greater and more beautiful melodies. God does not endorse evil; rather, He supersedes it and sanctifies it by His Grace and what wonders he works after, out of, and upon it.

Case two that I wish to mention is Sitemeter. I would be much better if I would just remove it from my sidebar. You see, many, many people find my site while doing Google searches relating to being pregnant in Grad School. That, as I see it, is likely a good thing. But they also find the Berkeley Parenting Network. Most often, they find the thread relating to terminating a pregnancy because one is in grad school. They find advice like the following:

• Remember, though, that you made that choice because you're a responsible parent who wanted to make sure your two existing children received the attention and support they're entitled to, as well as ease any blows to the marriage from the stress of the an additional pregnancy and new baby. I had the same experience. Two wonderful little children and I got pregnant with a 3rd. At the time, my second was a terror---- tempermental to the max. It was very demanding, emotionally. I didn't want #2 to become an ignored, middle child and make my future life more miserable, due to lack of attention from child #3. I chose abortion.
• Just because everyone else is having 3 kids doesn't mean you have to, too. There seems to be a bit of peer pressure/keeping up with the Joneses to have 3 kids. Pro-choice isn't just for non-marrieds
• I had an abortion earlier this year-- totally the right decision for our family (we decided long ago to only have one)
• I'm not in your situation but I felt that I needed to respond because I remember that aching. I have always wanted children. I got pregnant when I was 20 and felt very connected to that child. I new it would be a girl, I knew what she would look like. I was in a stupid relationship and really felt that I had no option but to terminate the pregnancy. I am now in my 30s with a wonderful toddler.
• I commend you in taking consideration all the consequences of bringing another into your family. I beleive it is a wholeheartedly selfless act on your part to want to maintain the preservation of your household and family by not adding to it. Bringing a child into this world should always warrant such consideration--everyone should want their children to be raised in optimal conditions

"Safe, legal, and rare"? I think not!

I debated about quoting these. However, they are on a public forum, searchable through Google. I will not post a link. I also think it is a crime that this is the second or third hit that someone gets when searching for information about pregnancy in grad school--depending on the search terms entered. So while I realize that I am offending the sensibilities of some, I feel the need to offer some contradiction to these sentiments.

What tore me apart were the mothers who have 2 children--or any children, really--who have chosen to kill a child because of the other children. Not wanting the second to be a "middle" child? My God! What if I had felt this way??? I struggled with these concerns, too. Not wanting her to be jealous, resentful, etc. But when abortion is not a "choice" that's even on the radar, you have to accept the situation and work within it! And what about the other children, those children whose welfare was the determining factor in the elimination of their sibling(s)? Their families have been deprived of the moments when they show their tender affection to their siblings, loving , learning and playing with and alongside them, yes. But I wonder about something else. . .

When a pro-choice mother teaches her child about abortion as a valid choice, does she share her own experience? And what does her child think? Does s/he think that could have been me? Glad I was the one Mommy wanted? Am I the reason I don't have a younger sibling? I have wondered about this for some time. Unless the fact is hidden from the children, which is probably preferable. But one can't hide something and pretend it's no big deal, even to oneself. Admittedly, not everyone thinks it's no big deal to have or to have had an abortion. But some do. And they shouldn't.

I think I need comments off for this one. I had to get that off of my chest so I could stop composing it in my head, but I don't need to be checking back obsessively. In fact, I might take a blogging holiday and edit my dissertation. Or read a book. See you in a week or so.

A Logical Extension

Another thought. . . I feel myself to be an advocate of the idea that the presence of children need not be regarded as a burden, just as some people consider themselves advocates of reproductive rights. The idea that children ruin one's life and career goals is unfortunate and pervasive. While I have been told not to blame feminism for this, I was 8 months pregnant with my first child (and 19 years old), sitting in a senior-level undergraduate literary theory class, when my male professor asked me, of all people in the class, a visual representation of motherhood, to read a passage from a Marxist-Feminist essay on that standard piece of feminist reading (and one of the most reprehensible works I think I read as an undergrad) The Awakening, that concluded that motherhood renders one's life meaningless. Hmmmm. . . If I can, in a small way, make people think about the presence or absence of children from our lives and our spaces in a different way than how they are accustomed to thinking, I am satisfied. It's my own pro-life crusade, if you will, because how many abortions start with the thought, "I just can't. . ."?

A Rare Pro-life Post: Two Poems, a Lamentation, and a Conclusion

the mother

by Gwendolyn Brooks

Abortions will not let you forget.
You remember the children you got that you did not get,
The damp small pulps with a little or with no hair,
The singers and workers who never handled the air.
You will never neglect or beat
Them, or silence or buy with a sweet.
You will never wind up the sucking-thumb
Or scuttle off ghosts that come.
You will never leave them, controlling your luscious sigh,
return for a snack of them, with gobbling mother-eye.

I have heard in the voices of the wind the voices of my dim killed children.
I have contracted. I have eased
My dim dears at the breasts they could never suck.
I have said, Sweets, if I sinned, if I seized
Your luck
And your lives from your unfinished reach,
If I stole your births and your names,
Your straight baby tears and your games,
Your stilted or lovely loves, your tumults, your marriages, aches, and your deaths,
If I poisoned the beginnings of your breaths,
Believe that even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate.
Though why should I whine,
Whine that the crime was other than mine?--
Since anyhow you are dead.
Or rather, instead,
You were never made.
But that too, I am afraid,
Is faulty: oh, what shall I say, how is the truth to be said?
You were born, you had body, you died.
It is just that you never giggled or planned or cried.

Believe me, I loved you all.
Believe me, I knew you, though faintly, and I loved, I loved you
All.

This is one of two poems that I read as an undergraduate that broach the subject of abortion--both of which I find haunting. The second is written by a male poet, Richard Katrovas, a former teacher of mine, who nevertheless attempts in some way to account for the feelings of the woman who has been betrayed by her former lover (or who feels betrayed; it is not quite clear to me whether he has betrayed her or if she feels betrayed because she is estranged from him and yet pregnant--betrayed by her own body, if you will). In this case, the reader's sympathy falls squarely with the male character in this contemporary "dithyramb"; perhaps this is because he (in spite of the refrain, "Yippi-yi-yay, another roll in the hay!") is portrayed less stereotypically than the woman, who fears loss of control and the relegation of her body to the status of mere "meat."

from "Eat What You Kill" by Richard Katrovas

Male Chorus Leader:

Vaguely repentant, even ashamed, I lunged
from one false enthrallment to another,
my affection like a blight of locusts,
though more voracious, quiet, and complete.
Yet when she starved herself to kill the child,
then reported the deed as liberation,
I did not know who or what was free of what
or whom, and cried alone in voiceless dread.

A page or two later, the Male Chorus intones, in an echo of Dionysus's "rescue" by Zeus from the pride of his mother, who wanted to see the true divine face of Zeus:

And the brutal father tore half-formed flesh
from the new charred corpse of its foolish mother,
then stashed the thing inside.

(As, of course, the Male Chorus Leader could not choose to do.) This poem is poignant, but perhaps doomed to obscurity because of its unpopular representation of male opinion in the matter. (I would be naive if I suggested that I did not know that there are many cases in which male opinion in the matter facilitates--even forces--rather than prevents abortion. . . I have known of women whose partners or husbands tried to coerce them into committing the act, and I have also read my Adrienne Rich.) The poet in question would have been fully aware of the danger of representing male opinion as more valuable than female opinion in the matter, and yet he has done so. He further would have known of the danger of representing a female perspective on the subject, yet this he has done as well. . .

Female Chorus Leader:

I am innocent, yet wholly culpable,
and offer no apology or excuse
for self-denial that siphoned another life.
It was my legal right to purge myself.
The termination was not violent,
was not achieved by artificial means.
The thing began as passionate affection;
an assumption of good faith marshaled it
from that crowded zone of nothingness and bliss.
But tenderness recalled became a hell,
and I, alone yet not alone, contained
the literal essence of a bloody lie.

. . . . .

I feel sympathy for mothers who have actually experienced abortion, though I harbor no such emotions (or kind regard) for those individuals in any kind of authority--even the authority of a role model--who promote the process as necessary. I don't believe that anyone (myself included) who has not been in the situation and made and carried out the decision to abort a child can truly understand the mindset of the mother who has taken this action toward her child, any more than one can understand the thoughts of an individual who has just committed suicide. Either action represents a psychological revolt against the innate will to survive. I like the line in Gwendolyn Brooks' poem, "even in my deliberateness I was not deliberate." I can only imagine with difficulty the feelings of desperation that must accompany such an act--though I do not doubt that other feelings may be present also, and that other feelings must for some be present for the individual to cope with such an act. What saddens me, however, is the way that the act is seen as a legitimate "way out" of a difficult situation, and the way that even intelligent, rational women overlook the fact that while this action--the act of carrying and bearing a child, or the act of aborting that same child--impacts their bodies, it impacts the body of someone else as well. But I stand by my thought, above, that to commit the act is the very essence of despair--it is the failure to see hope. And in Catholic thought at least, despair--the failure to see hope--is a denial of God.

I also stand by my belief that where there is life, there is hope. Hence, I must promote life.