(To any woman reading this who's had an abortion, all that I want for you is healing. Please consider going to Rachel's Vineyard if you are in need of healing.)
I was thinking about the common objection to abortion limits: "there should at least be an exception in the case of rape or incest".
I believe this is well-intentioned fuzzy thinking. It starts from the heart (good!) and ends in the wrong place (bad!).
Rape is evil. We can all agree on this. Or if you do not prefer the term evil, rape is always wrong.
Incest is evil (or always wrong).
A baby is good. You might object that a baby is not a baby until it is bigger or out of the womb - I'll address that later. For now I hope we can agree that a baby is fundamentally good. Every baby, every person has dignity and should be respected.
So what we have in our scenario is a woman or girl who is raped, possibly by a relative, and this is evil. But from this evil comes a good, a baby.
Now I firmly believe, with the Catholic Church, that the ends never justify the means. So a good end of a baby can never justify the evil of rape or incest.
But we can't turn back the clock. The evil has happened. What we are left with is a choice: what to do about the baby.
The choices are:
• Keep the baby and no doubt in many ways suffer mightily in undue shame and embarrassment, perhaps in poverty, and certainly in a loss of the ideal of a wide open horizon of possibilities.
• Bear the baby to term and place it for adoption, also to suffer undue shame and embarrassment as well as the pain of giving one's own child into another's arms forever.
• Abort the baby and most likely suffer from nightmares, guilt and regret.
In choice number one there is the addition of a good (self sacrifice) to protect a second good (the baby) resulting from an evil (rape or incest) - and because of this choice there is suffering, which is undeserved and painful but can be redemptive because it brings us closer to Jesus and allows to see our need for him as well as how much he loves us. In other words, good + good after evil, with suffering.
In choice number two we find the same "moral math." A good (self sacrifice to place the baby in a loving family) is added to a second good (the baby) resulting from an evil (rape or incest) - and because of this choice there is suffering, which is undeserved and painful but can be redemptive because it brings us closer to Jesus and allows to see our need for him as well as how much he loves us. In other words, good + good after evil, with suffering.
In choice number three an evil (the ending of the baby's life) is added to a good (the conception of the baby) which was brought about by an evil (rape or incest). And this choice also will bring suffering. In other words, evil + good after evil, with suffering.
Are these choices equal? Are we free to choose any one of them? Only inasmuch as we are free to choose any evil. License is the freedom to do anything. True freedom is the freedom to choose between goods. Clearly the first two choices represent more good and less evil than does the third choice. Thus while license would have us choose among all three, true freedom means choosing between numbers one and two.
So why advocate for the third, abortion? Because it is "easier", quicker and looks like the least emotionally painful option. But in the long run it will be the most enduring pain and suffering.
Still, shouldn't women have the choice? Shouldn't they decide for themselves what is right for them?
We can say the same for the baby: shouldn't the baby have a choice? Shouldn't the baby decide for itself what is best for it? It can't, not yet. It has no voice. It is small and weak. But not for long.
But is it actually a baby when it's small, just a "clump of cells"? Ask this of any person who's survived a botched abortion. They too were a clump of cells once. And so were we. No other clump of cells in the universe miraculously turns into a human baby one day. That's because an embryo, even a zygote, is not just a clump of cells. It's a baby's clump of cells. These are very special cells. They will never commit suicide. They will only stop on the path to babyhood if forced to give up on life.
Shouldn't a mother's womb be the safest place on earth for a baby? Even when it's a sacrifice for the mother? Even when she must suffer mightily for her children? Even in the wake of a great evil? Otherwise, isn't the evil compounded? Otherwise, doesn't evil win?
It does not have to be this way. Good can triumph. Heroic good brings light and life to all.
