Now that we are caught up, I am inclined to discuss the topic at hand. Contradiction has come to mind lately in regard to the abortion issue. Yes, those of us who are Pro-Life often see the contradiction of the Pro-Choice arguments. On one hand, they state that a woman has every right to make the "choice" herself and yet, when it is suggested that she be provided ALL of the information available in order to make an educated "choice," they run the other direction. Or, the argument that it is not a "baby" unless the mother wants it - how is this scientifically sound as an argument, by the way? Another point made is that the "baby" cannot feel nor be impacted by abortion negatively and is a non-entity until out of the womb…yet…these same persons are appalled when seeing a pregnant woman smoking or drinking.
In my master's program, our professors talk a great deal about the impact of trauma upon children as well as adults. They inform us about the long-term and far-reaching effects of any kind of trauma that is experienced early in life. Interestingly, two of my professors recently brought up the impact of trauma on children that is experienced IN THE WOMB!
Yes, unborn persons (who, by definition of Pro-Choice persons, are not really persons) experience the trauma and stress felt by the mother while in the womb…a pre-born "non-entity." I found this interesting considering the widely held opinions of most of my professors that highlight the right of a woman to choose her "reproductive health" options. So, I wonder, if the baby is able to feel trauma while in the womb…and the baby can be negatively impacted by smoking, drugs, alcohol while in the womb…and the baby can come into the world already at a deficit because of things that occurred inside the womb…then what, exactly, is "choice" really about??? Are we now saying it is ok to kill simply because we want to kill? If that is the case, then where does this "right to kill" begin and end? Truly…where? Who says? How is it justified? What is the evidence behind making that decision? Hmmmmm...
- How can we support abortion when it causes pain and suffering to the baby on a permanent level as well as trauma to the mother and others involved (i.e., baby's father, parents, etc.)?
- If we recognize the baby's ability to experience things inside the womb, then how can we then justify extinguishing what is obviously a living human being based solely upon a twisted view of choice?
- How do we ignore the suffering inside and out of the womb?
- How can we ethically walk away from actions that impact so permanently?
It is sad that so many are totally blind to the contradictions all around them. It saddens my heart that while we recognize the lasting impact of trauma upon multiple lives that we continue to perpetuate that trauma in spite of this knowledge. Society pays lip service to the idea of "do no harm" and yet, remains complacent in its repeated offenses. As a social worker, as a human being, as a Catholic, I am bound to help those who suffer and to find ways for people to heal. I am called to protect those who cannot protect themselves…I am called to social justice wherever I see harm perpetuated on one or more persons…and yet, some would have me turn away from this group of traumatized and suffering persons.
How can I ignore the suffering? How can I look past the hurt and pain, and simply do nothing? How can I serve those in need if I ignore the blatant contradiction of this type of thinking? I do not believe I can…no...I do not believe I can...