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
