|
Out of the Mouths of
Babes -- Part One of
Two
Editor's note. With the exception of the first item discussed,
Part Two was
scheduled to go out last Friday. However computer snafus short-circuited my
best efforts. Let me know what you think of both Parts One and Two by
writing to
daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
An absolutely fascinating item--in a dismal sort of way--ran across my
computer screen late last week. I will get to "Explaining Abortion to My
Daughter" in just a second, but before I do I want at least to mention the
latest out of Great Britain.
The Brits
are in the throes of seriously debating abortion for the first time in
nearly twenty years. True to their core convictions, pro-abortionists want
to use the occasion to increase the number of abortions which have already
jumped in England and Wales from 175,000 in 2002 to more than 200,000 in
2007.
While
hardly the preferred pro-life position, many are trying at the very least to
lower the upper limit for abortions currently at 24 weeks. (Of course, there
are plenty of loopholes that allow killing much older babies.)
Conservative Party Leader David Cameron is said to have decided he will
support reducing the upper limit to 20 or 21 weeks. "I
would like to see a reduction in the current limit, as it is clear that, due
to medical advancements, many babies are surviving at 24 weeks," he said,
according to the Daily Mail. "If there is an opportunity in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I will be voting to bring this limit down
from 24 weeks."
A
spokesman for Primer Minister Gordon Brown
said that Brown does not support a change in the abortion law, on the basis
of "medical advice." Both the British Medical Association and the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have given pro-abortionists
cover by not calling for a lowering of the upper limit.
Back to "Explaining Abortion to My Daughter." The New Jersey
Star-Ledger runs a feature called the "Parental Guidance Blog." Last week a
mother offered her opinion on how best to tamp down emerging enthusiastic
pro-life sentiment from her children.
We learn that her daughter came from her religious education class
shouting, "Mom, I want to go to
Washington; they're killing babies!" We're also told her five-year sister
chimed in with similar sentiments and, "Dread flooded my stomach and chest;
the abortion debate had reached my doorstop."
I am not Catholic so I am surely not about to get into the
debate about "cafeteria Catholics"--picking and choosing which portions of church doctrine someone
agrees with--which a lot of people who responded to the posting did.
Suffice it to say that her 4th grade daughter learned in CCD
(Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) that abortion is killing, a position
with which (along with other significant doctrinal positions) the parents
disagreed.
In explaining why
"We're not going to Washington" and their opposition to the Catholic
Church's position, the mother later explained to the older daughter why "We
believe that sometimes, there are good reasons to have an abortion."
And, of course, she
led from strength: abortion in instances of rape, incest, threats to the
mother's life, and in instances where "sometimes the baby will die right
after it's born," which seems clear in context to be code for sweeping in
babies with such fetal anomalies as Down Syndrome.
We learn that a few
days later the parents sat down with the daughter and her science book. The
implication was that in talking about "cells and cell division" science said
one thing about when life begins and the Catholic Church another. Then they
"talked some more about what this means in terms of an abortion."
As the father of four
I am not about to tell any other parent what to say to their children.
However, I would ask the author of this piece a couple of questions.
Just for
clarification, does she believe that babies with anomalies such as Down
syndrome really are prime candidates to be aborted?
Does she believe that
a discussion of abortion that uses rare cases as illustrations
of the "need" for
abortion is intellectually (or emotionally) honest?
Does she believe that
pitting her church's position on abortion--which is intellectually and
theological elegant yet eminently understandable--against science is either
fair or accurate?
Does "science" really
say that human life does not begin at conception or is the "science" she
prefers evading the biologically self-evident by talking about other
"qualities," such as self-awareness?
Finally, does she believe
that by continuing to stack the deck ("She'll be back and we'll continue the
discussion adding more of the missing pieces as she grows old enough to hear
them"), later her daughter's opinion will really be "her choice"?
I'd really appreciate
your thoughts, especially, but not exclusively, from you who are parents.
Please send your thoughts
to Daveandrusko@hotmail.com.
Part Two |
