IS ABORTION A TRAGEDY OR NOT?

The U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT on April 1st carried a blog by Bonnie Erbe that was quite revealing as to the thinking of those who promote abortion as a good option for women and for our society as a whole. In her blog she was taking issue with Media reports that viewed as a tragedy the increasing number of abortions caused by the current recession. Bonnie Erbe proposes "a counter view. It is not" a tragedy.

Her blog is a comment on a recent case reported by the Associated Press on March 25th. A woman in California, who could not afford a bus ticket, walked for an hour to the clinic where she requested an abortion. She reported that the pregnancy was planned and desired, but that since she became pregnant, her family's situation had changed. Her boyfriend had lost his job, and they barely had enough money to feed the three children at home, much less another child.

Erbe believes that all of us should agree that "In the long run...an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy". "It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well."

"It's no tragedy; it's a good decision. The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources...to raise their children."

This article is so revealing. Its argument should serve as a warning to those who want to hand over health care to the government. More about this after reviewing her argument.

I want to consider her argument under three headings:

1. She says that the woman made a FACT BASED decision. Did she? Exactly what facts did she consider? Well, she considered her financial state. She considered her three children who have already been born. However, what about the fact that in her womb is another child. She considers how life will be better for the born, but does she consider the expense of a life to make the "better" possible?

2. The author says her decision was RATIONAL. I'm sure the decision made sense to her, but there is more than rationality that goes into a good decision. Hitler was rational, but his rationality resulted in the murder of six million Jews.

3. My major problem is with the MORALITY expressed in the author's argument in defense of this decision as good rather than a tragedy. If you will re-read the quotes from her article, you will see the constant references to "In the long run" , "in the end", and "better". All of these terms indicate that her ethic is utilitarian pragmatism. Her argument is that the end justifies the means. What end does she envision? The family will prosper and life will be better for the children she currently has. What about the "end" of the child in the womb? The author never defines the entity that is aborted. Clearly she would be unwilling to call the life in the womb a child, but she never mentions the child by any term. I obviously believe that the occupant of the womb is a child. I conclude such not just because I'm a Christian, but because I believe that Science cannot find another moment than conception when human life begins.

Her utilitarian pragmatism extends not just to the well being of the family, but also to the well being of society. "In the end" the abortion will benefit "society as well". Society is benefitted by the fact that an abortion is less expensive than support of another child. By such reasoning, one could argue that the death of one of her existing children would be beneficial to society.

When one's life is determined by the cost to society, many of us become vulnerable, and not just the unborn. One of the problems with a Government run Medical program is that the individual will no longer be the only consideration of the health provider, but also society who helps foot the bill by their taxes. Some individuals will cost more than they provide society. The same argument used by Erbe for abortion is being used in Europe and even in America for the validity and value of suicide and government assisted suicide.

When human life no longer has intrinsic value then it is no longer only the unborn who are endangered, but all of us. Our lives will be weighed in the balance and if cost benefits outweigh the value of our life, then only God can help us. Those who think Government supplied health care sounds good should consider the fact that in countries where such care is now available, certain medicines and procedures are not available to certain constituencies of society because they are not cost effective. The cost to society must trump the individual's well being. It appears clear that the author of this article is sympathetic to that type of reasoning, at least as it extends to the unborn.

Morality demands that we are responsible for our debts. However, the government is selective in requiring citizens to keep their contracts are suffer the consequences. The recent recession in the housing market and the business world has revealed how some contracts are binding and some not. Some are bailed out and some have to face the consequences of their decisions. A consistent morality or legality is hard to find.

The mother in Oakland admitted that the pregnancy was planned and by choice. That's a fact that seem to have been ignored when she opted for an abortion. The child in the womb did not make that choice, but she and her boyfriend. Instead of the parents fulfilling their commitment to the unborn, they escape by taking the life of the child in the womb.

I don't think Bonnie Erbe has demonstrated that the increase in abortions are good and not a tragedy. Instead I believe that her argument demonstrates that if her thinking wins the day, an even greater tragedy is just around the corner. By her reasoning, the disabled, the young and the elderly are especially vulnerable. I wouldn't even want to be on food stamps and need health care, the cost to society might be too great.

Think about it. We really are in a battle for the future of life in America and the future of our children.