Your magnanimity to voices like Neeraja's is so unusual in our divided culture that it's almost exotic. Editions like this one are why I proudly subscribe to the Free Press.
After having adopted a severely disabled 7-year-old some 23 years ago, I have had the chance to immerse myself in a community of natural parents of other severely disabled human beings. Personally, my disabled daughter (who is totally blind, autistic, and developmentally delayed) has been the greatest blessing of my life, and most of the other parents I know who are in the same boat generally feel the same.
It baffles me that parents want to abort unborn children because of a severe illness diagnosed antepartum. When born, such children can do very little but love. They don’t hurt anyone or do any wrong; they are like angels in one’s life.
Some may say that the cost of caring for a disabled child or adult child can be an economic toll, but it’s been my personal experience that Divine Providence has provided for everything I’ve needed.
When I was 25, I was pro-choice. When I was 45, I became pro-life. At 55, we adopted six foster kids. When we moved the kids to a conservative, very pro-life Catholic school, I had to tell the kids, especially the younger two, what abortion is. I told them when a woman has a baby in her belly, she can decide not to have the baby and end its life. The kids shrieked "But why would she do that?" I almost cried at their instinctive reaction. Even though they were essentially abandoned by the women who gave them life, they couldn't fathom those women ending theirs. From the mouths of babes.
My mother, a very brilliant woman, became ill with dementia/Alzheimer's disease, which progressed through the last seven years of her life. There were many friends who did not see her any longer, even close relatives who treated her as if she were already passed. Her greatest symptom was aphasia, an inability to find words to express herself, a tragic change for extremely articulate woman who, in her 70s and a former teacher, volunteered teaching phonics to kids. But as I was in charge of her health-care, I found there was every bit of vital life in my mother. I could always make her laugh. I had her care-givers take her to weekly Bible Study in the company of old friends, and she who had never been particularly religious found the beauty in that literature. Her friends would tell me how moved they were when she would sigh at something that had truly touched her. And the beauty of nature filled her face with light as she looked at a scenic mountain, a grove of trees, a garden, a sunset. There is enormous life even with illness, and we cannot think of life purely in a cold materialist sense. It is so much more explosive and powerful than that, so much more creative, and will surprise us.
I think the opinion of your colleague was correct and succinct. The legal arguments were different. I don't know the proper answer for the mother of two. But I do know we should be framing all the choices we make as a society, a nation, a world, as "pro-life" in the fullest sense of what both"pro" and "life" means. Because life is not statistics alone but so much more, and we want life to thrive without overlooking and judging those whom we deem "less than," for any reason.
This is a start of what I hope is a good thoughtful discussion. I do not expect any resolution, but the discussion itself will benefit all who participate or lurk. I hope you can keep it going and civil.
I will listen to the podcast inserts but I can’t help thinking that if the far left had not pushed, and PUSHED the needle so far to the point of justifying abortion even up to birth this NEVER would have become the nightmare issue it has become.
All this debate is because of mankind’s determination to be “like God.” Before the discovery of the human genome and the ability to parse it, Kate would not have known about the genetic anomaly and would have carried her baby to term. I doubt she would have killed the baby then; she would have “mothered on.” This is why no manmade laws can address all the problems we will face in this life. I often recall Jesus’s words in John 16:33 AMP
“I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have [perfect] peace. In the 9 you have tribulation and distress and suffering, but be courageous [be confident, be undaunted, be filled with joy]; I have overcome the world.” [My conquest is accomplished, My victory abiding.]”
Personally, I find both points of view expressed (Neeraja and Bari's) convincing and correct. Thus I am very glad I do not need to make the choice. I think there is no "correct" choice. No one other than the Mother should (or be forced to) make this choice. I would agree with whatever she decided.
Having an abortion in not merely a matter of choosing a particular medical procedure; it is a moral choice with only one definite outcome for the unborn baby - certain death. Whereas the mother's risks are heightened, they are also limited. The risk to the baby is absolute, it will die, having never been given the chance to experience the gift of life, with all the sadness and sufferings, and love and joy that even the youngest of humanity can experience. The mother, who understandably does not want to see her child suffer, will also never know the child's touch, her smile or her potential for thriving. She will never know if her child was the one exception to the rule. By choosing abortion, whatever other good may come of it, her child's choice will be eliminated, and her voice will be silenced forever.
"...carrying her pregnancy to term would risk her health and her ability to have more children in the future."
Can someone explain to me why giving birth to this baby risks her health more than any other pregnancy? And why would giving birth rather than aborting affect her ability to have children in the future ?
*** If she is talking about the "physical life of the mother", i.e. mortality or morbidity, statistically that is almost a non-issue. The CDC reports show that mental health conditions (suicide) contributed to 28% of maternal deaths, and substance use disorder contributed to 25% of deaths. So 53% of maternal deaths have nothing medically to do with the pregnancy. A significant percentage of the remaining deaths are due to pre-existing medical conditions like obesity and heart disease. The statistically few pregnancies that might include severe medical consequences to the mother are indeed tragic. But the greatest tragedy is that the purpose of abortion is to cause the immediate death of 100% of the unborn babies.
***Bari knows this, as do the readers of TFP. So what Bari apparently means when she says "life of the mother" is not a physical threat to the mother but a threat or inconvenience to the lifestyle, financial situation, additional responsibility, change in living conditions, relationship issues, time of life, that may come from delivering the baby. So it's really about the inconvenience to the mother rather than any medical risk to the mother or the child, i.e. not the right time, can't afford it, too young, too old, husband doesn't want it, etc.
***What bothers me the most is that most pro-choice people would be appalled and horrified to learn that someone starved, burned or drowned baby puppies or kittens or would protest the execution of a criminal as inhumane. But purposely causing the deaths of 1 million unborn children a year is a matter of personal choice or "reproductive healthcare" of no real concern.
Thank you for this article, and more importantly, thank you for your sub stack. While I consider myself pro-life and wish that there were no more abortions in this county at all, I am also a citizen of this country, and I realize that not everyone shares my opinion on when life begins. I don't know whether or not 6 weeks is justified in terms of cutting off access to abortion, it seems that 12 weeks, or so, seems to be the consensus around the world. I only wish that people could take this issue more seriously. Pro-Lifer activists who want to try to put forward total bans and pro-abortion activists who want to celebrate having abortions are BOTH wrong. That clump of cells is going to become a human being, when this happens is up for debate in some circles, but nevertheless, this is a fact - after nine months or so, there will be a little human being coming into the world. If that child was the result of a horrific rape, why should that child be blamed? If that child is inflicted with some disease, is he or she less valuable or less of a person? Should that sick baby be killed because there will be some hardship brought into the parents lives because of the extra care that child will need? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think that it is important that we as a society talk about this and not just throw slogans at each other. My younger brother was born with Spina Bifida. He should not be here today, yet he will be celebrating his 50th birthday next month. He spent his first years in and out of the hospital and went through multiple surgeries. He and others like him became the ones who helped doctors learn more about this illness and develop treatments for it so that others would not have to go through what he went through. I can't imagine how my life would be different if I didn't have a younger brother, and I am always thankful that my mom and dad did not decide to kill my little brother.
Everyone has different life experiences and situations. I do not condemn a woman who has an abortion because I have no idea what was going on in her life that brought her to that decision, and so I don't feel that I can condemn her. I can condemn the action of the abortion, but I cannot condemn her, that is between her and her God, and I believe that God is merciful and loving and forgiving. That said, I know that other pro-life people would disagree with me, just as pro-abortion people will. This is why we need to talk about this and try to come to a compromise. But I think we need to agree to the premise that we ARE talking about a human being here. The slogan, "It is a child, not a choice" seems to be a good place to start, because when it come down to it, it is not just a conversation between a woman and her doctor, there is one more person involved here, and he/she WILL ne affected by the choice that is made. If we are going to make abortion safe, legal and rare, we should at least be able to acknowledge that one person, in particular, is more in danger than the other two.
Again, thanks for The Free Press, I may not agree with everything I read on here, but it is good to know that what I read is thoughtful and respects me, as a reader, even if we don't always agree on the perspective.
Very sad indeed. What seems to always get lost in the conversation is the simple fact that abortion is a violent and painful death of an innocent and defenseless baby.
I had a friend in mid ‘90s who found out her unborn child had trisomy 13 which is almost always fatal before birth. Despite her doctor and many friends telling her to abort (saying it would be easier on her) she couldn’t do it. She wanted to give life a chance. Baby died naturally a few hours after birth and my friend was consoled by knowing her baby knew her love before dying. She held, cuddled and sang to her daughter always telling her how loved she was and she passed gently and painlessly
With all the noise around a very delicate and painful situation- the life of a child too often gets lost
I think the Left really did itself--and the women on whose behalf it claims to speak--a real disservice trivializing abortion. It could even be argued that many extolled it, and celebrated it, even before the Satanists claimed it was an important religious rite for them. I have in mind a woman whose name I can't be bothered to remember who posted the whole thing to her social media.
Hysteria has consequences, and one of the consequences has been pushing for an end to ALL restrictions, making de facto infanticide legal. Full term babies killed, because of a momentary whim of the mother.
It's not hard to see how this has driven dogmatism in the other direction. To be sure, there are a lot of idiots among Fundamentalist Christians, but not all of them, and not always. But I think they look at all this, see evil--and I won't disagree with them with respect to the more extreme positions--and just adopt the equal and opposite position. Why not, if they have the votes? Democrats do whatever the hell they want, when they have the votes.
It's not unreasonable to suppose a story could have been shared about some woman who got pregnant on purpose, with a man she loved, who cheated on her in the 7th or 8th month, and who decided to dump his baby down the toilet, say in Oregon, where that would present no issues. That is bad too.
Personally, I am a moderate on all this. I think a three month no-fault window should be the rule everywhere. But extremes rarely support moderation, and speaking personally, again, I am TIRED of all the fucking shrieking on this issue by the Left. Grow up.
In this case, I agree that abortion was the best choice. But I don't agree abortion should be used as de facto birth control following irresponsible behavior. They didn't have the Pill in the 50's, and I doubt condoms were sold in every drug store. There were also a whole lot of sexual crimes that never were and in many cases could not be prosecuted. I don't think that is true any more.
My two cents. I doubt I added anything, but I probably share with many of you a desire sometimes just to say something. I indulged it here.
Thank you for sharing these two sides, side by side. It felt odd to read them together, almost difficult? But it also felt right. Thanks for thinking, feeling and expressing it so well.
Your magnanimity to voices like Neeraja's is so unusual in our divided culture that it's almost exotic. Editions like this one are why I proudly subscribe to the Free Press.
After having adopted a severely disabled 7-year-old some 23 years ago, I have had the chance to immerse myself in a community of natural parents of other severely disabled human beings. Personally, my disabled daughter (who is totally blind, autistic, and developmentally delayed) has been the greatest blessing of my life, and most of the other parents I know who are in the same boat generally feel the same.
It baffles me that parents want to abort unborn children because of a severe illness diagnosed antepartum. When born, such children can do very little but love. They don’t hurt anyone or do any wrong; they are like angels in one’s life.
Some may say that the cost of caring for a disabled child or adult child can be an economic toll, but it’s been my personal experience that Divine Providence has provided for everything I’ve needed.
When I was 25, I was pro-choice. When I was 45, I became pro-life. At 55, we adopted six foster kids. When we moved the kids to a conservative, very pro-life Catholic school, I had to tell the kids, especially the younger two, what abortion is. I told them when a woman has a baby in her belly, she can decide not to have the baby and end its life. The kids shrieked "But why would she do that?" I almost cried at their instinctive reaction. Even though they were essentially abandoned by the women who gave them life, they couldn't fathom those women ending theirs. From the mouths of babes.
My mother, a very brilliant woman, became ill with dementia/Alzheimer's disease, which progressed through the last seven years of her life. There were many friends who did not see her any longer, even close relatives who treated her as if she were already passed. Her greatest symptom was aphasia, an inability to find words to express herself, a tragic change for extremely articulate woman who, in her 70s and a former teacher, volunteered teaching phonics to kids. But as I was in charge of her health-care, I found there was every bit of vital life in my mother. I could always make her laugh. I had her care-givers take her to weekly Bible Study in the company of old friends, and she who had never been particularly religious found the beauty in that literature. Her friends would tell me how moved they were when she would sigh at something that had truly touched her. And the beauty of nature filled her face with light as she looked at a scenic mountain, a grove of trees, a garden, a sunset. There is enormous life even with illness, and we cannot think of life purely in a cold materialist sense. It is so much more explosive and powerful than that, so much more creative, and will surprise us.
I think the opinion of your colleague was correct and succinct. The legal arguments were different. I don't know the proper answer for the mother of two. But I do know we should be framing all the choices we make as a society, a nation, a world, as "pro-life" in the fullest sense of what both"pro" and "life" means. Because life is not statistics alone but so much more, and we want life to thrive without overlooking and judging those whom we deem "less than," for any reason.
This is a start of what I hope is a good thoughtful discussion. I do not expect any resolution, but the discussion itself will benefit all who participate or lurk. I hope you can keep it going and civil.
I will listen to the podcast inserts but I can’t help thinking that if the far left had not pushed, and PUSHED the needle so far to the point of justifying abortion even up to birth this NEVER would have become the nightmare issue it has become.
All this debate is because of mankind’s determination to be “like God.” Before the discovery of the human genome and the ability to parse it, Kate would not have known about the genetic anomaly and would have carried her baby to term. I doubt she would have killed the baby then; she would have “mothered on.” This is why no manmade laws can address all the problems we will face in this life. I often recall Jesus’s words in John 16:33 AMP
“I have told you these things, so that in Me you may have [perfect] peace. In the 9 you have tribulation and distress and suffering, but be courageous [be confident, be undaunted, be filled with joy]; I have overcome the world.” [My conquest is accomplished, My victory abiding.]”
Personally, I find both points of view expressed (Neeraja and Bari's) convincing and correct. Thus I am very glad I do not need to make the choice. I think there is no "correct" choice. No one other than the Mother should (or be forced to) make this choice. I would agree with whatever she decided.
Having an abortion in not merely a matter of choosing a particular medical procedure; it is a moral choice with only one definite outcome for the unborn baby - certain death. Whereas the mother's risks are heightened, they are also limited. The risk to the baby is absolute, it will die, having never been given the chance to experience the gift of life, with all the sadness and sufferings, and love and joy that even the youngest of humanity can experience. The mother, who understandably does not want to see her child suffer, will also never know the child's touch, her smile or her potential for thriving. She will never know if her child was the one exception to the rule. By choosing abortion, whatever other good may come of it, her child's choice will be eliminated, and her voice will be silenced forever.
"...carrying her pregnancy to term would risk her health and her ability to have more children in the future."
Can someone explain to me why giving birth to this baby risks her health more than any other pregnancy? And why would giving birth rather than aborting affect her ability to have children in the future ?
Bari said “𝙄’𝙢 𝙥𝙧𝙤-𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚. 𝙈𝙮 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙖𝙡. 𝙄𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙞𝙘. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙛𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙡𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚."
*** If she is talking about the "physical life of the mother", i.e. mortality or morbidity, statistically that is almost a non-issue. The CDC reports show that mental health conditions (suicide) contributed to 28% of maternal deaths, and substance use disorder contributed to 25% of deaths. So 53% of maternal deaths have nothing medically to do with the pregnancy. A significant percentage of the remaining deaths are due to pre-existing medical conditions like obesity and heart disease. The statistically few pregnancies that might include severe medical consequences to the mother are indeed tragic. But the greatest tragedy is that the purpose of abortion is to cause the immediate death of 100% of the unborn babies.
***Bari knows this, as do the readers of TFP. So what Bari apparently means when she says "life of the mother" is not a physical threat to the mother but a threat or inconvenience to the lifestyle, financial situation, additional responsibility, change in living conditions, relationship issues, time of life, that may come from delivering the baby. So it's really about the inconvenience to the mother rather than any medical risk to the mother or the child, i.e. not the right time, can't afford it, too young, too old, husband doesn't want it, etc.
***What bothers me the most is that most pro-choice people would be appalled and horrified to learn that someone starved, burned or drowned baby puppies or kittens or would protest the execution of a criminal as inhumane. But purposely causing the deaths of 1 million unborn children a year is a matter of personal choice or "reproductive healthcare" of no real concern.
All good. It all comes down to - at what point is the fetus a human life/being/soul.
For me, I am not a god of my own making.
So, I think when the fetus is successfully implanted - esp with a heartbeat, it is a human being.
Thank you for this article, and more importantly, thank you for your sub stack. While I consider myself pro-life and wish that there were no more abortions in this county at all, I am also a citizen of this country, and I realize that not everyone shares my opinion on when life begins. I don't know whether or not 6 weeks is justified in terms of cutting off access to abortion, it seems that 12 weeks, or so, seems to be the consensus around the world. I only wish that people could take this issue more seriously. Pro-Lifer activists who want to try to put forward total bans and pro-abortion activists who want to celebrate having abortions are BOTH wrong. That clump of cells is going to become a human being, when this happens is up for debate in some circles, but nevertheless, this is a fact - after nine months or so, there will be a little human being coming into the world. If that child was the result of a horrific rape, why should that child be blamed? If that child is inflicted with some disease, is he or she less valuable or less of a person? Should that sick baby be killed because there will be some hardship brought into the parents lives because of the extra care that child will need? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think that it is important that we as a society talk about this and not just throw slogans at each other. My younger brother was born with Spina Bifida. He should not be here today, yet he will be celebrating his 50th birthday next month. He spent his first years in and out of the hospital and went through multiple surgeries. He and others like him became the ones who helped doctors learn more about this illness and develop treatments for it so that others would not have to go through what he went through. I can't imagine how my life would be different if I didn't have a younger brother, and I am always thankful that my mom and dad did not decide to kill my little brother.
Everyone has different life experiences and situations. I do not condemn a woman who has an abortion because I have no idea what was going on in her life that brought her to that decision, and so I don't feel that I can condemn her. I can condemn the action of the abortion, but I cannot condemn her, that is between her and her God, and I believe that God is merciful and loving and forgiving. That said, I know that other pro-life people would disagree with me, just as pro-abortion people will. This is why we need to talk about this and try to come to a compromise. But I think we need to agree to the premise that we ARE talking about a human being here. The slogan, "It is a child, not a choice" seems to be a good place to start, because when it come down to it, it is not just a conversation between a woman and her doctor, there is one more person involved here, and he/she WILL ne affected by the choice that is made. If we are going to make abortion safe, legal and rare, we should at least be able to acknowledge that one person, in particular, is more in danger than the other two.
Again, thanks for The Free Press, I may not agree with everything I read on here, but it is good to know that what I read is thoughtful and respects me, as a reader, even if we don't always agree on the perspective.
Very sad indeed. What seems to always get lost in the conversation is the simple fact that abortion is a violent and painful death of an innocent and defenseless baby.
I had a friend in mid ‘90s who found out her unborn child had trisomy 13 which is almost always fatal before birth. Despite her doctor and many friends telling her to abort (saying it would be easier on her) she couldn’t do it. She wanted to give life a chance. Baby died naturally a few hours after birth and my friend was consoled by knowing her baby knew her love before dying. She held, cuddled and sang to her daughter always telling her how loved she was and she passed gently and painlessly
With all the noise around a very delicate and painful situation- the life of a child too often gets lost
I think the Left really did itself--and the women on whose behalf it claims to speak--a real disservice trivializing abortion. It could even be argued that many extolled it, and celebrated it, even before the Satanists claimed it was an important religious rite for them. I have in mind a woman whose name I can't be bothered to remember who posted the whole thing to her social media.
Hysteria has consequences, and one of the consequences has been pushing for an end to ALL restrictions, making de facto infanticide legal. Full term babies killed, because of a momentary whim of the mother.
It's not hard to see how this has driven dogmatism in the other direction. To be sure, there are a lot of idiots among Fundamentalist Christians, but not all of them, and not always. But I think they look at all this, see evil--and I won't disagree with them with respect to the more extreme positions--and just adopt the equal and opposite position. Why not, if they have the votes? Democrats do whatever the hell they want, when they have the votes.
It's not unreasonable to suppose a story could have been shared about some woman who got pregnant on purpose, with a man she loved, who cheated on her in the 7th or 8th month, and who decided to dump his baby down the toilet, say in Oregon, where that would present no issues. That is bad too.
Personally, I am a moderate on all this. I think a three month no-fault window should be the rule everywhere. But extremes rarely support moderation, and speaking personally, again, I am TIRED of all the fucking shrieking on this issue by the Left. Grow up.
In this case, I agree that abortion was the best choice. But I don't agree abortion should be used as de facto birth control following irresponsible behavior. They didn't have the Pill in the 50's, and I doubt condoms were sold in every drug store. There were also a whole lot of sexual crimes that never were and in many cases could not be prosecuted. I don't think that is true any more.
My two cents. I doubt I added anything, but I probably share with many of you a desire sometimes just to say something. I indulged it here.
Thank you for sharing these two sides, side by side. It felt odd to read them together, almost difficult? But it also felt right. Thanks for thinking, feeling and expressing it so well.