I am not what you'd call an admirer of Edward Cardinal Egan, the Catholic archbishop of New York. But His Eminence writes beautifully here about the sanctity of life -- the photo you see in this blog item is the same image he references in his column, which starts like this:
Have you any doubt that it is a human being?If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?
If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?
If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest--even insist--that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot--must not--be tolerated.
But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a "human being" is, what a "person" is, what it means to be "living," and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us "Roe v. Wade" address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining "human being," "person," "living," and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who "chooses" to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.
Read the whole thing. More importantly, look at that photo, and tell me what you see.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Erin, I'm trying to say this respectfully, and not in a spirit of "gotcha." It is to your credit that you don't want to persecute women who have had abortions. But it seems to me that you are undermining your own argument. If you really believe that abortion is the murder of a child, how can you issue a blanket amnesty to the women who have committed murder? The reason you give is that they must not have been in their right minds, or they could not have committed such a crime. Not guilty by reason of insanity is a plea that is made in other murder cases too, but each of those cases must be tried to test the validity of the plea. In no other kind of murder would you ever excuse all the murderers from punishment. Your eagerness to let child murderers off the hook in this case and this case only seems clear evidence to me that even you don't think of it as murder in the way that you would some other type of killing.
There are other problems with your scenario, too. I doubt very much that the courts would uphold the practice of defining an act as murder, yet assigning no penalty to the commissioning of a felony. Especially if you intend to prosecute the doctors for murder. They would argue that it was unjust for them to be punished while the person who instigated their criminal action got off scot free. And I think the courts would probably agree.
Another problem is already happening in South and Central American countries where doctors go to jail for performing abortions. Women are finding it harder to get medical treatment for pregnancy, miscarriage and problems that arise after a clandestine abortion. Doctors shun them because they fear being blamed and prosecuted. So if a woman has an abortion and is injured or infected in the process, you're sentencing her to death, because doctors will not treat her for fear of being accused of being an abortionist. Even a woman who miscarried naturally or is in danger of doing so can have trouble finding medical care.
A small vignette from the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.
The doctor had told the parents to call the priest. There was nothing he could do. The priest anointed the daughter though he knew she had already died. The doctor and priest left together and spoke outside the house of the dead girl.
"I told them to call you, but I didn't tell them she was already dead," said the doctor.
"That's good that you did. What happened?" asked the priest.
"The mother said she had had stomach cramps and suddenly started bleeding profusely from the vagina. The girl had had an abortion in the morning. Some quack in an apartment in town. I've seen enough of them to know."
"I've seen a few of them myself," said the priest.
"You can still anoint even though you know they are dead?" asked the doctor.
"We don't really know when the soul leaves the body. Perhaps her soul was waiting for a final absolution. Girls like that we try to help. Get them to keep the baby. Or have the diocesan adoption agency talk to them. Even then some are desperate enough to risk their life with a back-alley abortion. Or a self-induced abortion."
"The most gruesome kind," said the doctor.
"Fr. O'Leary over at St. Brendan's had a case last week of a mother of six who had tried to abort herself. She bled to death in the bathroom. Her husband found her when he came home from work. She evidently could not face having another child."
"He gave her the last rites?" asked the doctor.
"Yes."
"Maybe the Church should soften its position on abortion," said the doctor.
"It wouldn't change anything. It's still illegal. The charlatans will go right on butchering. Besides, the Church teaches that life begins at conception when the soul and body are united."
"The Church knows when the soul enters the body but not when it leaves it?" asked the doctor with a wry smile.
"We always err on the side of caution," said the priest with a knowing look.
Postscript. This story took place in 1972. The diocesan adoption agency no longer exists. It was closed by the bishop when the state courts mandated that it place orphaned children with homosexuals. The priest is retired. His parish was canonically suppressed (closed) and sold to pay for the homosexual pederast lawsuits. The rectory, convent, school and church have been converted to condominiums and a community center in the now fashionable upscale gay district. Extreme Unction has been relabeled the Anointing of the Sick. It has not been used for a woman dying from a botched abortion in recent memory.
I read that post by Mark D. last night berfore I went to bed...must have been before it was deleted. I didn't agree with it but I can tell you he did not call anyone a fascist or a name. I don't like censorship on the left or the right.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18–19)
I agree that His Eminence writes beautifully... Thank you for the post. I found more of his writing on the Archdiocese of New York's website. As a matter of fact I fell into his writing... his work is captivating, like eyours... thanks again.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.