Over the last several decades the abortion debate has raged largely as a rhetorical battle over rights: the reproductive rights of the woman versus the human rights of the unborn child. As the most ardent defender of human rights in the world, the Catholic Church has especially emphasized the great injustice the judicially created right to abortion has wrought on the human rights of the unborn.

___

While the Catholic Church affirms the human person’s right to life as fundamental to all other human rights, including a women’s right to self-determination, the Church has traditionally understood all such rights as philosophically grounded in prior duties. That is, government does not endow human beings with human rights (though civil rights, such as the right to vote, are of government creation). Human rights, such as the right to life, as well as the right to be free to labor, to worship, to associate (to marry and have children), are all rights that exist prior to government. They are rights that governments, in both the American and Catholic understandings, are created to secure.

The Church has a modern tendency to refer to human rights without mention of prior duties. However, philosophically, the Church (but not necessarily the American founding) understands such prepolitical rights exist because human beings have prior duties, first to their Creator, and then to other human beings. I have the right to worship because I have a duty to do so. I have the right to labor because I have the duty to do so. I have the right to life, because I have the duty to care for the life that God gave me.

Because God created human beings to live in society, with the family as its fundamental unit, my duties to my Creator extend beyond care for myself. After myself, my greatest duty is to my immediate family (my spouse and children, should I have them). Although I have duties to all human beings (the Catholic principle of solidarity), my duties lessen as they flow outward (the Catholic principle of subsidiarity). My rights are not only limited by the rights of others (as Enlightenment thinkers would have it); my rights are also limited by my own duties to God and, secondarily, to others.

[See generally Human Rights, Virtue, and the Common Good: Ernest L. Fortin Collected Essays, Volume 3, ed. J. Brian Benestad (Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield, 1996), 191~212; see also, Mary Ann Glendon, Rights Talk (New York: Free Press, 1991).]

[F]rom the Catholic perspective, the debate over abortion is not, in a philosophically rigorous sense, a contest between the rights of an unborn child and the rights of a woman. Neither set of rights exists in isolation from one another or independent of the duties that ground them. A mother not only lacks the right to take her child’s life, but as his caretaker, she has a sacred duty to secure, protect, and nurture it. The Catholic Church is so passionately pro-life not because she is anti-woman, but because she understands the depth of the bond between mother and child, a depth the woman who aborts may not even understand herself.(92) In every abortion, the Church mourns not only the life of the child and the well-being of the mother, but the sacred bond broken by a tragic act of betrayal.(93)

The overt claim in favor of abortion is that a woman has a right to self-determination, to do “what I want with my body.” Apart from the medical fact that the pregnant woman carries another body in her very body, consider the underlying philosophical claim in abortion. Whether it is unacknowledged or simply not understood, the claim is that a woman has the right to be free from the duties that come with her unborn child’s dependence upon her. But in denying her responsibility to her child, she begins to eat away at that which, in the Catholic view, makes us most human: the solidarity we have with other human beings. This solidarity springs, in part, from our obligations to one another. In imagining herself autonomous, free from the bonds that bind human beings to one another, that bind us especially to those put in our care, the mother who aborts acts to eviscerate her bond to the human community. The right to abortion manifests a cultural mindset that Pope John Paul II said “exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.”(94) It’s no wonder that the act of abortion causes such psychic suffering for so many women.(95)

___

92. See, e.g., Alice von Hildebrand, The Privilege of Being a Woman (Ypsilanti, MI: Ave Maria, Sapientia Press, 2004), 86; see also Evangelium Vitae, no. 99.

93. See Richard Stith, “Abortion as Betrayal of Natural Dependents,” presented at The Family: Searching for Fairest Love Conference, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture, November 8, 2008.

94. Evangelium Vitae, no. 19.

95. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee founded Project Rachel in 1984 as a resource for both women and men seeking to resolve abortion loss. Now present in 144 dioceses in the United States and in several other English-speaking countries, Project Rachel is on the Web at http://www.hopeafterabortion.com/index.cfm. 

Motherhood is perhaps the most charitable act in the world, and when unexpected, even unwanted, the opportunity for virtue grows. Motherhood, comparable only perhaps to the heroism of a soldier who makes the ultimate sacrifice, transforms because of the total sacrifice of body, mind, and heart it requires. It is a great call to love in spite of ourselves, our plans, and our own ideas of self-fulfillment. It embodies the total gift of self for which the human heart was made.

A woman becomes a mother not when she labors to bring her child out into the world, but also when God has labored to create another eternal soul in her very womb. The sacred duty of a mother to care for her child exists as soon as the child does. The task is given first to mothers, and then to fathers, who share in it equally, if only as chivalrous observers for the first nine months. The task is also given to those mothers (and fathers) who, in their own discerning charity and outright heroism, recognize that an adoptive family would better care for their child after his birth.

The responsibility to nurture and protect another human person, whether expected or not, has the power to transform us. It can pull us away from our ingrained way of thinking and call us to something more human in life. It makes us dig deeper. Such transforming potential is true of every difficult Church teaching, not just the Church’s teaching on abortion. Indeed, it seems as though in the Church, God has given us a great coach whose dictates we may balk at initially, but whom we eventually recognize as a wise sage once we shore up the grit to follow her. But following her has become even more difficult in an age when we are expected to rely on our own strength alone, on our own determination to succeed. Each of the Church’s teachings, difficult as it can be, requires us to go to God for the strength and the will to accomplish the plans he has set before us.

Selflessly embracing our child, who perhaps was unwanted, who is yet unknown to us, is always possible with God’s grace. Whatever our situation, when we ask for grace and strength from God, we will receive it. 

Abortion is a great challenge for the women of the world. Will we abandon ourselves to a culture that seeks to eradicate all that is feminine, the vulnerability of pregnancy that demands care and concern for others, the dependence of the unborn that inspires awe and sacrifice, the call to love most especially the weak, the needy, the oppressed? Or will we reject the falsehood with which our culture entices us, that freedom requires us to flee from those who depend on us, and embrace instead the truth that brings authentic joy: we truly find ourselves by giving of ourselves to others in love.

Rape is undoubtedly the most grievous crime a man can commit against a woman. Owing to its heinous cruelty, many pro-life lawmakers make exceptions to their antiabortion stance in the cases of rape and incest. Since less than 1 percent of abortions are performed on women who have been raped, abortion access in the case of rape has become, politically speaking, a point of potential compromise.(82)

However, as a matter of principle, abortion, even in the case of rape, is terribly tragic and objectively wrong. Aborting an unborn child conceived through rape makes the child, rather than the rapist, ultimately responsible for the grievous violence perpetrated on the woman. Further, the often grisly procedure of abortion has been experienced by many rape victims as a second violent act perpetrated on them. Some rape victims report reliving its trauma during the abortion.(83)

Though it may be easy to sympathize with victims of rape who in their agony seek out abortion in an attempt to destroy the physical result of the tragic event, one study found that the majority of rape victims who become pregnant do not in fact choose abortion.(84) Perhaps it is because they realize that they can find greater healing and interior freedom by choosing a path diametrically opposed to the hatred and suffering they have endured.(85) By courageously embracing their unborn children through generous, self-sacrificing love, they permit a greater good to come out of great evil.

___

82. Prudence dictates that pro-life advocates work incrementally to achieve a culture of life. Advocates and lawmakers alike must seek to protect those unborn lives they can, even if, at a particular time, the political landscape does not allow for full protection of the unborn. It would be far better to pass a law prohibiting (or restricting) some abortions than to pass no law at all. See generally Clarke D. Forsythe, Politics for the Greatest Good: The Case for Prudence in the Public Square (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009).

83. Sandra Mahkom, “Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. D. Mall and W. F. Watts (Washington, DC: University Publications of America, 1979), 53–72 (finding that victims of rape who aborted their children feel victimized twice and angry about the abortion).

84. Ibid. (finding that 75 to 85 percent of rape victims chose against abortion).

85. See John Paul II, Letter to Women, 5. 

Approximately 80 percent of parents abort their unborn children when prenatal screening reveals the probability of some sort of fetal abnormality.(87) The termination of potentially “abnormal” children ought to give all people great pause, but especially feminist- and liberal-minded people. We are a people who claim to value difference, and who make myriad efforts to assist those with disabilities. Yet many in our day are aghast when they hear of a mother who knowingly brings to term a child with genetic abnormalities.(88)

Women carrying a child expected to die in utero or soon after birth are often encouraged to abort in order to “get it over with.” Yet mothers and fathers who allow the process of sickness and death to run its natural course avoid culpability in their sick child’s death. Knowing that they did not cause their child’s death will make it easier for them to grieve the loss of their unborn or infant child.(89) As in the case of euthanasia of the elderly, caregivers deprive themselves of the opportunity to grow in love and compassion when they accelerate the dying process of a loved one. They also deny the inherent dignity and value of their “imperfect” child (or ailing parent). Thus they would perpetuate the current cultural myth that a person’s worth is found not in her status as a human being but in her ability to produce and consume.

Mothers and fathers whose unborn child will likely survive her disabilities are called to a grand, though exceptionally difficult, task of heroic love. They may discern that, even with the grace of God, they have neither the emotional nor financial resources to care for a disabled child. In such a case, scores of loving adoptive parents wait for the opportunity to nurture such children, if only birth parents would give them that chance.(90)

Ironically, aborting children with genetic abnormalities fails to help mothers and fathers to “get it over with.” Research indicates that the psychological stress that genetic abortion causes both mothers and fathers is usually more severe than abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.(91) The pressure to produce a perfect child, acceptable to many doctors, insurers, and society at large, is just too difficult to bear.

___

87. Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, and Theresa M. Marteau, “Termination Rates After Prenatal Diagnosis of Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter Syndromes: A Systematic Literature Review,” Prenatal Diagnosis 19, no. 9 (September 1999): 808–12.

88. See Elizabeth Schiltz, “Living in the Shadow of Mönchberg: Prenatal Testing and Genetic Abortion” in The Cost of “Choice,” 39–49; see also Melinda Tankard Reist, Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (North Melbourne, Vic.: Spinifex Press, 2006).

89. See B. Calhoun et al., “Perinatal Hospice: Comprehensive Care for the Family of the Fetus with a Lethal Condition,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 48, no. 5 (May 2003): 343–48; N. Hoeldtke and B. Calhoun, “Perinatal Hospice,” American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 185, no. 3 (September 2001): 525–29.

90. Michael Alison Chandler, “Leap of Love: Adoptions of Children with Down Syndrome Are on the Increase,” Washington Post, November 9, 2008, C01 (reporting that 200 families are on a waiting list to adopt a child with Down syndrome in the United States).

91. Blumberg, B.D. et al., "The Psychological Sequelae of Abortion Performed for Genetic Indication," American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 122, no. 7 (August 1, 1975): 799-808 (reporting that depression after genetic abortion was much higher than depression after elective abortion).