The question has arisen: Is it not right to abort a child who would otherwise be born into a life of hardship and suffering?
There are many ways to answer this, but the Internet only has 2,500,000,000,000,000ish bytes of storage capacity, and I'd use it all and more were I to jump into a fully expounded treatise on the errors of that argument.
Plus I'd bore people, and probably crash Blogger. So I'll cram this sliver of truth into a smallish nutshell.
Let me start by saying that I acknowledge abortion is rarely - if ever - an easy decision. It's an unpleasant experience, no matter how like a cosmetic procedure Planned Parenthood tries to present it. Usually bad circumstances lead women to believe there are no other options. I sympathize with every woman in that position, and offer the following statements in tender, if blunt, charity:
- There is no guarantee that a life, however unfortunate its origins, will be one of suffering.
- There is no guarantee that a life, however fortunate its origins, will be one of pleasure.
- There is no need for the birth mother to keep custody of the child, if she feels the child's development would be harmed by the mother's lifestyle.
- There is no need for the birth mother to keep custody of the child, if she feels the child will interfere with her own lifestyle.
- Generally speaking, abortion is a symptom of a larger, more substantial societal problem: sexual immorality.
- Generally speaking, the chain of events that lead to an abortion are not reduced to a single choice; several bad choices are made along the way.
- Margaret Sanger, the foundress of Planned Parenthood, intended primarily to reduce the population of non-whites. Her association with eugenicists and racists is well known.
- Margaret Sanger, one of eleven children, "associated poverty, toil, unemployment, drunkenness, cruelty, quarreling, fighting, debts, [and] jails with large families." [ibid]
- She was wrong. Those things happen to almost everybody.
- Human life begins at some point. Call it a fertilized ovum, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus: it is still a human. It is not a coyote, not a penguin, not a stegosaurus.
- If you don't define the beginning of human life as at conception, there is no other logical point at which to define it.
- If human life begins at conception, then it must be valued and defended as the life of any extra-uteral human. [I thought I just invented that word, but I see I didn't.]
- If an extra-uteral human has his or her bodily functions brought to a halt by the direct actions of another human, it's called killing.
- Killing another human is justified in some circumstances, such as self-defense or the defense of another.
- Saint Gianna Molla (the only Saint I've ever seen a colour photo of) died in 1962 after discovering she had uterine cancer - while pregnant - and refused to abort her child to save herself. Spend some time on that site - verrrrrrrrry cool stuff.
- If killing is done directly and intentionally, it's called murder.
- Everything from a fertilized ovum and up is human. Intentionally and directly killing an intra-uteral human is murder.
- "One may not do evil so that good may result from it."
- All sins, including murder, can be forgiven.
- Jesus wants you to be freed from your sins, but that involves being made aware of them first.
Again, let me state I'm not judging anyone; I'm not in a position to do so, and daren't presume that I could judge well if I were. What I am stating is the belief of the Church: Truth revealed through Christ.
If you refuse to believe the Truth, well, OK. Go nuts. But I invite you to sample the real freedom and peace that come through Christ, through living his Truth. There's nothing like it.
You'll never go back.