An unborn child should not be aborted “out of love for the unborn child”

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women should not have made the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality through late-term abortion, even if they claim that they had an abortion “out of love for the unborn baby” or to “spare the unborn child of pain or suffering,” because the choice to abort an unborn child “out of love” or “to spare the unborn child of pain or suffering” still involves the choice to intentionally cause the death of the unborn child and as such violates the right to life of the unborn children that they have chosen to abort. In addition to causing the death of their unborn child, these women have put their own health at risk by choosing to undergo an abortion “out of love of the unborn child,” even if they are lucky to have escaped major complications of their decision to have an abortion. Furthermore, the government has legitimate reasons to prohibit late-term abortion, even under the circumstances under which Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and similarly situated women sought a late-term abortion.

One of the biggest problems with the decision to abort an unborn child who was diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, even when it is claimed to have been done “out of love” for the unborn child who is being aborted, is that it is not loving to intentionally choose to end the life of an unborn child through an abortion, even if the unborn child would naturally die from a congenital defect if he or she is born alive. The choice to intentionally end the life of a child through abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, or murder is not truly loving because a mother who truly loves her child would respect her child’s right to life while her child is still alive and would not make choices that violate her child’s right to life. Besides not being truly loving, the choice to undergo an late-term abortion would still be morally wrong when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality because late-term abortion is inherently ordered towards causing the death of an unborn baby.

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women have probably been misguided and might not have even sought a late-term abortion if they were not misguided. These women have likely been influenced into having a late-term abortion by the availability of legal late-term abortion and by the influences of pro-abortion physicians, pro-abortion politicians, pro-abortion professional counselors, abortion providers, and abortion rights organizations. Furthermore, they might not even be fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion because late-term abortions often involve either poisoning the unborn child or dismembering the unborn child and because late-term abortion might be very painful for the unborn child who is being aborted. If these women were actually fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion, they might have chosen life instead of late-term abortion for their children, even after their children were diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality.

Christy Zink had claimed that she chose to abort her son who was diagnosed with “agenesis of the corpus callosum” in order “to spare [her] son’s pain and suffering” and that her son “would have experienced near-constant pain” if the son that she aborted were born alive, and that her abortion is “basic medical care.” However, her unborn son’s death through a late-term abortion might actually have been more painful than if he were born alive and died naturally. Additionally, Christy Zink’s son who was aborted could have been given strong painkillers to relieve the “near-constant pain” if he were born alive. Moreover, her abortion was not “basic medical care” because her abortion was sought primarily for the purposes of ending the life of her unborn son. Furthermore, Christy Zink could have sought counseling from a pro-life professional counselor, prenatal medical care from a pro-life physician, and palliative care for her son through a perinatal hospice instead of choosing to end the life of her son through a late-term abortion.

Although Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other women want late-term abortion to remain legal, late-term abortion should become illegal, even in cases where the unborn child has been diagnosed with a serious fetal abnormality, for several reasons. First, the unborn child always has an universal right to life under the natural moral law, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and whether or not the unborn child is wanted by his or her mother. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of the unborn child since the moment of conception, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother and even when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. Third, there is the risk that the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality of an unborn child is wrong, and there is also the risk that a healthy unborn child who had been wrongfully diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality would be killed if a late-term abortion is performed. Finally, there are options other than late-term abortion for pregnant women who are faced with the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality, including pro-life professional counseling, prenatal medical care from pro-life physicians, perinatal hospice, and palliative care.

Advertisements

Pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic should not be supporting abortion

There are some pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic in the United States, including the current Vice President, a few of the state governors, some U.S. Congressmen, and some politicians in the state legislatures. All of those pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic are supporting a position that is contrary to divine law, natural law, and Catholic Church teaching. Those politicians who claim to be Catholic should not even be supporting abortion rights in the first place because the Catholic Church has taught the following:

  • Direct abortion is an intrinsically evil act which is always seriously offensive to God.
  • Direct abortion always offends against the sanctity of human life.
  • Direct abortion always constitutes the direct killing of an innocent human being.
  • Direct abortion is never morally justifiable in any circumstance, even when the mother is in danger of death.
  • Human life, including that of unborn human beings, must be protected and respected from the moment of conception.
  • Unborn human beings have an absolutely inviolable right to life under natural law and divine law.
  • Unborn human beings must be entitled to the rights afforded to a person since the moment of conception.
  • Engaging in sexual intercourse while using any form of abortifacient birth control is always intrinsically evil and always seriously offensive to God because such uses of abortifacient birth control are inherently ordered towards two different evil ends, frustrating the sexual act in its natural power to create new human life and causing the death of an unborn child that might be conceived through the abortifacient effects of abortifacient birth control.
  • The Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be morally wrong since the first century, and will always continue to teach that abortion is always morally wrong.

Those politicians and candidates for political office who claim to be Catholic and who support a woman’s right to an abortion are sending the wrong message to voters and to the people that they represent. They are sending the message that it is okay to support legal abortion as a Catholic, even though abortion is always considered to be morally wrong by the Catholic Church. In addition, these politicians and candidates for political office are also sending the message that it is okay to support actions that violate rights that unborn children always have under natural law and that should never be violated in any circumstance. Furthermore, some of the Catholic voters, Catholic candidates for political office, and Catholic politicians have been misled into thinking that it is okay to support abortion rights by pro-abortion Catholic politicians, by pro-abortion organizations that claim to be Catholic, by theologians who support abortion rights in contradiction to Catholic Church teaching, by non-Catholics who support abortion rights, by the influences of other reproductive rights organizations, and by secular influences in society.

Besides sending the wrong message to Catholics and to women who are in crisis pregnancies, supporting abortion rights offends God because abortion violates the God-given rights that unborn children have under divine law and natural law, because the support for abortion by politicians and abortion rights organizations leads some women who are in crisis pregnancies into choosing to have abortions instead of choosing life, and because the performance of abortions always offend God. Those individuals who have supported abortion rights and knew better will have to answer to God for their decision to support abortion rights when they die. Moreover, those individuals who choose to support abortion rights with the knowledge that doing so seriously offends God put their own salvation in jeopardy because they face the danger of eternal punishment in Hell if they die unrepentant of any serious sin.

If all of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the United States stopped supporting a woman’s right to an abortion, then a few positive things would likely happen in American politics and American society. First, Catholic voters, Catholic politicians, and Catholic candidates for political office would not receive the wrong message that it is okay to support abortion rights in contradiction of Catholic Church teaching. Second, the abortion rights groups and abortion providers would lose the backing of Catholic politicians if they stopped supporting abortion because these organizations are only willing to back politicians that support keeping abortion legal. Third, more pro-life politicians would likely be elected if Catholic politicians stopped supporting abortion because the attitudes of some voters would change, because some of the pro-life politicians who previously supported abortion rights might get re-elected, and because some of the pro-life candidates for political office who are running against candidates that previously supported abortion rights would get elected. Finally, Catholic politicians would likely support solutions to the problems faced by women who are in crisis pregnancies that do not involve abortion and that respect the right to life of unborn children if they stopped supporting abortion.