Abortion and Poverty

During a recent discussion about abortion, a thoughtful young man brought up this hypothetical (and perhaps not so hypothetical) situation. "Mr. Poglitsh, what if there is a girl who is pregnant; she has no job, no husband, no resources. Wouldn't abortion be better in this situation?" Wouldn't it be more compassionate, this young man was saying, to both the girl and the child with no future to have an abortion?

The first answer to the question of abortion in such a circumstance is "No", because it is always wrong to kill an innocent person. The child is not responsible for the hard circumstances; thus, an unborn child should not be put to death because of them.

A second answer comes by way of an anecdote. Consider this true situation. A husband and wife already have four children. The man has syphilis, the woman has tuberculosis. One child is blind, another deaf and unable to speak, another has tuberculosis, and the other has a deformity. The wife is now pregnant with a fifth child. Should she abort? Wouldn't it be better, for both the family and the child in the womb, for that child not to be born?

The mother did choose life for her son; he was Ludwig Van Beethoven, one of Europe's most celebrated composers. So the second answer to the question of aborting a child because of the hard circumstances is "No", because no one knows what good a child might do. Mother Theresa, the famous nun who worked among the poor of India, is credited with saying "The scientist who would have solved the AIDS problem has already been aborted."

Beneath the surface of the "abort because the child will have no future" argument lurks a threat to all of us. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it would be okay to kill the child in the womb because the mother's circumstances were bleak and the future looked equally bad. Well, if killing someone due to poverty is now "okay", then why should it be the baby who dies? After all, lots of other people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and older have had their opportunities to enjoy food, clothing, and shelter; why not kill one of them and give the resources (job, home, car, etc.) to the expectant mother and her unborn child? Surely this is more "fair", as the previous owner has enjoyed these possessions for many years, and the life of the baby has just begun.

Of course this argument is morally reprehensible, but the logic leading from "abort due to poverty" to "kill the 40-somethings and share the wealth" is sound. Tragically, this logic is already working itself out in some nations like the Netherlands where, according to Dr. John Willke, "130,000 people die each year in Holland and over 20,000 are killed, directly or indirectly, by doctors. As many as half did not ask to be killed." Dr. Willke continues: "Hospitalized seniors are routinely visited by an organization that offers to oversee their case to prevent their doctor from killing them."

We must defend life from conception to natural death. Declaring some humans expendable to alleviate poverty puts everyone at risk. For the sake of our own lives and the lives of others-no to abortion, yes to life.



Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com

The Good Samaritan

Abortion damages women and kills children. We can take courage, however, from Jesus' parable of The Good Samaritan. Father Frank Pavone of the group Priests for Life illustrates the parable in this way. "On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a man fell in with robbers. A priest and a Levite came by, but did not stop to help. Despite their knowledge of the Law and Prophets, they walked right by. Why?

One of the reasons may be that they were afraid. The road from Jerusalem to Jericho is a steep and dangerous road. At the time of Jesus, it had come to be known as the 'Bloody Pass'. Because of its numerous curves, it lends itself to attacks by robbers who can easily hide not too far from their victims. Perhaps the priest and Levite who passed by that man said to themselves, 'If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me? Maybe the robbers who attacked him are still here. Maybe they're hiding just around the bend. This is a dangerous road. I better keep going.'

And then the Good Samaritan came along, and he reversed the question. He didn't ask, 'If I help this man, what will happen to me?' The Good Samaritan asked, 'If I do not help this man, what will happen to him?' And that's the question for us. If I do not address this evil, what will happen to the unborn? If I do not get involved, what will happen to those who are vulnerable, to those who are marginalized in our society, those who are oppressed, those who have no one to speak for them?"

Father Pavone's illustration applies to both the unborn and their mothers, because both are powerfully damaged by abortion. May we be like the Good Samaritan and ask ourselves "What will happen to this mother and child if I do not help them?" May we answer our own question by giving life-affirming support to women and children. No to abortion; yes to life.

Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com