The Deserving and Undeserving Poor vs. the Worthy and Unworthy of Life: How Both Major Political Parties Pick and Choose Who They Help and Whom They Kill
by Jacqueline H. Abernathy, Ph.D., M.S.S.W
Catholic social activist Dorothy Day once said, “The Gospel takes away our right, forever, to discriminate between the deserving and undeserving poor.” As I look at the current political landscape, I can see how this quote is far more dynamic than I once thought. The two parties that dominate our government are both guilty of discrimination in that they decide who “deserves” what. Not only do they debate who deserves food stamps or other welfare, the debate also includes who deserves to live.
Just as entire groups of human beings are labeled as “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” in order to justify denying charity to those who “deserve” their poverty, both the American Left and Right have likewise labeled entire groups of human beings as “deserving of life” and “undeserving of life,” in order to justify killing those who “deserve” to die, either for their crimes or for their cost.
Those undeserving of life according to the Left are primarily unborn children disposed of via abortion, as well as those with terminal illnesses who wish to end their own lives rather than die from their diagnoses. The Left also champions unethical research on human beings in their earliest stages, insisting this is a noble thing because the death of these unworthy embryos could yield life-saving treatments for those they believe deserve to live.
Conversely, the Right condemns the Left’s positions on bioethics as evil, yet many of them enthusiastically support capital punishment for those they think should die for their crimes. Likewise, many on the Right insist that certain actions justify immediate deadly force, arguing that unarmed civilians killed by police had it coming if they resisted arrest or were simply judged to look suspicious or threatening. Or they may consider non-citizens who are deported to probable death in their home countries also “deserving” to die for being in our nation illegally.
These are just some examples of how the duopoly is pro-violence: neither Democrats nor Republicans in their party platforms care about all human lives, just those lives they think have value. Unsurprisingly, those deciding who is worthy to live and who isn’t almost always deem themselves worthy. Even when this isn’t so and people support violence for themselves (like physician-assisted suicide), this worldview that some lives are less sacred than others creates second-class citizens in our midst. There can be no equality as long as some people don’t have the right to even exist.
When trying to determine how the duopoly chooses what violence to protest and what violence to promote, it appears that Democrats and Republicans are operating from two distinct criteria.
Ableism and ageism (forms of discrimination that remain broadly accepted) often determine which humans are “undeserving of life” according to the Left. On the Right, it is often the concept of innocence, narrowly defined.
Ableism is a pervasive argument for both abortion and euthanasia, the suggestion being that life isn’t deserving of existence if it involves disabilities or chronic illnesses. Citing an unborn child’s inability to survive outside of the womb on their own before 5 months or so is simply ableism repackaged. It’s also ageism, as common arguments in favor of abortion and euthanasia include that the elderly have supposedly lived their lives, while an unborn child is so young and unaware that nothing is lost by killing them before they gain self-awareness.
The Left has cited the economic benefits of killing these populations. Letting those who want to die early do so saves valuable health resources for others, and abortion prevents children from being born into poverty. Once children are born, they become “deserving” of better lives. While they remain unborn, anyone who is unwelcoming of her child has every right to determine that she doesn’t wish to remain pregnant, even though this means taking her child’s life. Because to the Left, mothers not only deserve to live, but deserve to live the kind of life they want, even if their child must die for this to happen. Since unborn children don’t inherently deserve to live in their opinion, especially not at the expense of someone who does, abortion is an acceptable choice for any reason or no reason at all. The lives of the unborn don’t matter, just like those who are no longer healthy and prefer (or are pressured to choose) death rather than living with a terminal illness or disability.
There are those who oppose abortion and euthanasia and reject these qualifiers for whose life is deserving, but have their own criterion: innocence. Innocent human life is deserving of protection, while those guilty of a capital crime are no longer deserving of life. Donald Trump extended the guilt criterion to the families of terrorists, suggesting they should be “taken out.” This is a war crime, but sadly, mere geographic proximity to the guilty seems to be enough to be undeserving of life as well, since children killed by drones are dismissed as “collateral damage” without much uproar.
While the Left protested police killings, the Right counter-protested with guns, ready to shoot anyone they felt was out of line. In Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people but was heralded as a patriot for volunteering to patrol the streets. The second victim was just trying to apprehend Rittenhouse, who was fleeing on foot after his first lethal shot, but Rittenhouse is a folk hero on the Right who was merely defending himself and the public from “thugs.” To bolster this point, they were sure to bring up that the victims had criminal records—so killing them was justified because they weren’t “innocent” enough.
Actual guilt isn’t necessary, just the killer’s perception. Ahmaud Arbery was jogging on a public street when he was stalked and gunned down by a father and son who claimed they thought he was a burglar. He was innocent, but the defenders of his murder insist that assuming he was a thief justified chasing him down with a gun and that Arbery’s choice to try to escape his assailants meant they were just exercising self-defense. Unless someone is perfectly innocent by the Right’s inconsistent standards, their lives don’t matter.
The rationale used by each side is viewed as arbitrary and hypocritical by the other. This is abundantly clear regarding abortion and the death penalty. The Right mocks the Left for protesting the execution of a serial killer while protecting the execution of millions of innocent unborn children. The Left mocks the Right for zealously protecting unborn children on the grounds that “human life is precious,” while supporting the execution of a condemned criminal who is clearly just as human.
Both major political parties condemn the other as hypocrites for supporting one form of violence while opposing the other. Neither catches the irony that both accusations are true. Both ends of the political spectrum attempt to claim the moral high ground with what lives they decide are worthy of protection, yet both are morally defunct.
The Democrat and Republican parties alike support violence against human life. Their platforms explicitly champion the right to kill entire groups of human beings they deem undeserving of protection, while strongly condemning violence towards those whose lives they value. The justifications employed by each to kill human beings are all arbitrary and self-serving.
Killing is easier than caring, and typically less expensive. Violence is an easy way to rid ourselves of those who cost our time and money because they require care: healthcare, childcare, nursing home care, and incarceration. It’s an easy way to cleanse society of the worst of humanity by executing heinous criminals instead of paying to keep them in prison, and many say that the extra costs associated with death row are worth it if it means they won’t be seeing their tax-dollars used to feed, clothe and guard a murderer they insist needs to die for their offenses. The satisfaction of revenge comes only with executing the condemned.
Advocates of abortion claim that women benefit from violence rather than a non-violent alternative. Abortion relieves someone of parenting and the costs associated with it. Although adoption does the same by finding a home for the child and covering pregnancy-related expenses, it lacks the additional appeal of sparing a woman the physical burdens of childbearing and any social costs that come from being unable to do what she otherwise would. Abortion allows her to avoid the judgment she might receive from her family, friends, potential partners, and/or employers. Some assume that seeing a child grow up with an adoptive family would be emotionally harder on the birthmother than terminating the pregnancy.
We kill embryonic children for the not-yet-realized benefits of scientific research, or because they’re no longer wanted and it costs too much to keep them in storage. While releasing embryos for implantation by infertile couples could be free like traditional adoption is, this is commonly rejected for the same reasons: the biological parents would be uncomfortable knowing they may have a child out there in the world that they’ll never know, so it’s easier that their children die. They have no use for them anymore.
We kill the criminal for revenge and to eliminate someone we no longer want in society. We kill the unborn because we don’t want to incur the costs of letting them live. No matter who the victim is, it’s all about killing those who are more valuable to us dead than alive.
Both parties kill. They just don’t agree on who to kill.
graphic from our member group Rehumanize International
A more subtle form of determining who deserves to live is determining who deserves to eat when they can’t afford to feed themselves (and the taxpayer is footing the bill). It’ss depraved that we should insist people be deemed deserving of help before we’re willing to assist with basic human needs. The concept of innocence plays into that in many ways as well. Children and the elderly, for some, deserve help because they have a limited ability to help themselves, but an able-bodied adult deserves to go hungry if they don’t work hard enough to earn a living wage. If they are in need because of alcoholism or addiction, this is also their fault. They’re guilty and undeserving of assistance.
Segregating human beings into the “deserving poor” and “undeserving poor” serves a selfish purpose: it allows people to rationalize their unwillingness to share their good fortune by insisting that many people in need are unworthy of their help. Segregating human beings into those “deserving of life” and “undeserving of life” is the other side of the same coin: it rationalizes for survivors the choice to kill and reap the benefits they only get if certain people die. Both major parties do it. Neither one stands consistently for equality and non-violence.
It’s time to stop pretending to value human life only when it suits us. For this reason, the only moral course of action for those who revere human life is to reject both the Left and the Right and stand consistently for non-violence.
===================================================
For posts on similar topics, see:
The Death Penalty and Abortion: The Conservative/Liberal Straitjacket
Elections 2020: Three Consistent-Life Approaches
Pro-life Voting Strategy: A Problem without an Answer
My Difficulty in Voting: Identifying the Problem (about the American Solidarity Party)
How Consistent-life Advocacy Would Benefit from Ranked-Choice Voting
See also our website which keeps track of Peace & Life Referendums
Common Sense Is Not So Common
by Josephine Garnem
As Matthew quotes Jesus, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You…have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. [But] these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel!” (Matthew 23: 23-24, New American Bible)
How do I explain something as fundamental as 1 + 1 = 2? How is it that, despite our evolved consciousness and knowledge, we still struggle to recognize and uphold the inherent dignity and value of every human being from conception to old age and beyond? Why do we continue to overlook the interconnectedness of life issues in shaping our society? We cannot speak of being pro-life if we neglect the effects of unmet social needs, poverty, forced migration due to conflict, both man-made and natural disasters, resource disparities favoring the privileged few, and the need for comprehensive systems, policies, and services that reduce the demand for abortions. We must prioritize dialogue, peace, quality end-of-life care, second chances, rehabilitation, and alternatives to the death penalty. We must confront systemic racism, violence, injustice, nuclear weapons building, environmental injustice, political corruption, and polarization, all of which are often fueled by religious institutions, self-righteous politicians, and religious leaders.
Far too often, we find ourselves trapped in a vicious cycle of ignoring the root causes of the issues we claim to be concerned about. Instead of addressing these causes, we resort to punitive responses that stigmatize, dehumanize, punish, and marginalize individuals. We must question what we truly understand as the meaning of human life.
When I first moved to the United States and found a community in a nearby Catholic church, I was filled with joy and admiration for the immense effort and resources put into planning the first March for Life event I attended. The sight of nearly the entire student body from the Catholic schools my children attended, the strong encouragement and support from school and church leadership, and the participation of people from diverse backgrounds—Catholics and Christians of all colors, genders, denominations, and ages—made me believe that I was surrounded by individuals willing to march for a cause that promotes the dignity of life.
However, a few incidents shook me to the core and continue to trouble me. When advocacy groups organized marches against various forms of violence—urging for sensible and ethical gun reform legislation, particularly after tragic events like the Virginia Tech shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Sutherland Springs church shooting, and many others—I never received a letter, email, or heard a sermon or any encouragement from our priests or schools to participate.
Gun violence in America claimed the lives of over 45,000 people in 2020. Approximately 117,000 people are shot annually and 19,000 children and teens are shot and killed or wounded each year. Gun violence is undeniably a pro-life issue. Yet, the familiar crowds from the March for Life events were conspicuously absent. Fewer Catholic and Christian leaders showed up, and even fewer politicians who claimed to support the pro-life cause were present.
Josephine Garnem
When the dignity of human life is at risk and we are called to account for our actions, such as in the face of systemic racism, disproportionate incarceration of young black and brown men, inequities in services, and police brutality, the pro-life crowd thins even further. The consistency of the pro-life stance appears to become biased and selective. It seems as though the message being conveyed is “not all lives matter” in the same way.
I pause to wonder why I don’t see the same pro-life crowds at events like the Poor People’s Campaign march to Washington. These marches address issues that speak to the inherent dignity of every human being. We must interweave the fabric of pro-life values with issues such as raising the minimum wage, ensuring fair wages for a better quality of life, breaking the cycle of poverty, providing access to healthcare, housing, and food, enabling individuals to bear and care for their children, and meeting other basic life necessities.
We often fail to recognize the importance of consistent life ethics when we proclaim the sacredness of life and the unquestionable perfection of God, but then fail to love and accept those who identify with different genders or no gender at all. We use religion and politics to deny others their rights to thrive, make choices, and experience love. We close our hearts and doors to those who bear the image and spark of the beloved.
I have developed a deep love for the United States, and I am proud and honored to call it my home. It has given me so much! However, I can’t help but question how we have forgotten the holy family’s journey as immigrants and Jesus’ teachings about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and sheltering the homeless. We have chosen to reconstruct the truth and manipulate religion, politics, and power to decide which lives are sacred and which are not, which migrants to welcome and which to shut out, which wars are just and which are unjust, which form of nuclear armament is justified, and what race is considered supreme. We determine who remains enslaved and who goes free.
Unfortunately, common sense is not so common. We are losing sight of the true meaning of life ethics and our moral obligation to recognize and uphold the dignity of every human being in all their forms. We fail to see the divine in others as we should.
Joan Chittister raises an important point when she states, “I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.” She further expresses her perplexity at how the church fails to address women’s health issues or abortion with the same nuance as other life issues.
Pope Francis also warns against falsely prioritizing certain social concerns as if some lives were inherently more important than others. He cautions against allowing a particular focus, such as abortion or migrant issues, to distort our valuing of human life in other areas.
John Dear emphasizes Jesus’ instruction to passionately pursue social, economic, and racial justice. We are called to resist systemic injustice with every fiber of our being, to seek justice as if it were vital for our very sustenance.
As we strive for a consistent and dignified pro-life approach, Fr. Richard Rohr suggests that Christianity will regain its moral authority when it equally emphasizes social sin alongside individual sin, weaving both into a seamless garment of love and truth.
Bob Cooke & Josephine Garnem
In his sermon to mark the 50th anniversary of Pax Christi USA, Bishop John Stowe of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, reminded us of Jesus’ call to be vigilant, to never become complacent. He mentions how Pax Christi has vigilantly monitored the nuclear arms race, advocated for justice worldwide, challenged their own nation’s contributions to injustice, confronted climate change’s impact on vulnerable populations, and stood in solidarity with migrants and refugees. He stresses the need for vigilance against violence that can exist within our own hearts and urges us to build a treasury of peace through prayer, study, action, and calling each other to greater integrity as people of peace.
Ultimately, all life possesses immeasurable value. The weakest, most vulnerable, sick, old, unborn, and poor are masterpieces of God’s creation, made in His own image, destined to live forever, and deserving the utmost reverence and respect.
To heal our world, we must be willing to change our lifestyles for the sake of others’ lives. We must strive to create a society that values and protects every human being, ensuring access to food, education, work, healthcare, and freedom from violence. This comprehensive approach embodies the true essence of being pro-life.
======================================================
For posts on a similar topic, see:
Open Letter to Governor Stitt: the Pro-life Case against the Death Penalty
Social Programs to Help the Poor are Pro-life
What History Shows: The Consistent Life Ethic Works for Pro-life Referendums
War Hysteria and Post-Dobbs Reactions
by Rachel MacNair
The backlash to the overturn of Roe was predictable. I wrote a piece on the psychology behind Explaining Belligerency awhile back, and that’s a major way of explaining it on this issue and many others. That helps account for not just what we’re going through now, but the bits of belligerency we’ve had all along.
But what we’re going through now is more intense. Besides, the human mind is such that there are likely to be several explanations for how it works.
Here I want to add another concept from peace psychology: the normal mode of thinking, and the mythic mode/cartoon mentality/fairy-tale view that goes with what’s commonly called war hysteria.
Good vs. Evil, No Dissent Allowed
Lawrence LeShan, in his book The Psychology of War: Comprehending Its Mystique and Its Madness, preposes we have different modes of perceiving reality at different times. We move between these modes easily and automatically.
In his example, a businessman at his business thinks about things in a way that goes by his senses. LeShan calls this the sensory mode. The rules go with a realistic understanding of how the world operates. But at home, the businessman hears his child crying out in fear. As he dashes upstairs, he says a prayer that the child be all right. It would never occur to him to pray that way at work. That’s not how work works. Seeing the child is fine, he holds her and assures her everything’s all right and safe. He wouldn’t say this at work either – it’s inaccurate. But he isn’t lying to his child. The rules of comforting a frightened child are different. How he sees reality is different. The businessman shifts naturally between these different perceptions of reality with their different rules.
For war, LeShan proposes there’s often a shift to a mythic mode. The rules for understanding what’s going on change dramatically. Reasons that make so much sense in the sensory mode become quickly forgotten.
A prime example is the escalation to World War I. International travel in Europe was way up, so dehumanized views of the enemy weren’t caused by lack of exposure to other peoples. Many pacifist groups existed, and the international socialist movement was fairly strong. Once war broke out, the socialist groups shifted to belonging to their own nations and enthusiastically supported it. All the work on explaining what was wrong with war went down the tubes, remarkably quickly. LeShan suggests this is because people were no longer in a sensory mode that takes reasoning into account. Large numbers of people shifted to the mythic mode. The war was on.
Below is a chart, paraphrased from LeShan’s book, which explains the difference between normal peace-time thinking and what has come to commonly be called war hysteria.
Different Perceptions
Literary Example: The Wizard of Oz
Kansas, in black and white, is the real world. Dorothy travels to the mythic land of Oz. In this full-color world, rules change.
She kills two women. When the first woman is accidentally killed by the falling house, the people immediately sing and dance and throw a party. When the second woman is killed, her guards give Dorothy a cheer. Dorothy stays a heroine because both women are witches. They represent Evil. They can’t be reasoned with. They aren’t real people.
Back in Kansas, the same actress who played the Wicked Witch of the West plays Miss Gulch. Miss Gulch threatens Dorothy’s dog Toto. Yet the worst that befalls her is that she gets told off by Auntie Em and her plot to destroy Toto is foiled when Toto runs away. Both fates fit her offenses. The audience can cheer.
How would the audience feel if Dorothy had killed Miss Gulch?
Even accidentally, this would be sinister. Though the audience is against Miss Gulch, that doesn’t mean a killing could possibly be justified. Kansas is the real world. People may be mean, but they aren’t Evil Incarnate. Dorothy would no longer be an innocent person.
Shift to the Fairy Tale View
The point at which the mobilization to war becomes strongest is when enough of the population has made this shift that those people who remain in sensory mode are in danger. Questioning the rightness of the cause becomes treason. Many such people therefore keep quiet or join the shift.
The beginning of “The War Prayer,” by Mark Twain describes this shift especially well. The excitement generated by the war, the withdrawal of those who questioned its rightness, and the minister praying for victory are all signs of the shift to a mythic perception of reality. A stranger comes and explains to people what it was they had actually prayed for. The stranger was still in sensory mode, grounded in factual reality. That people were in mythic mode instead is shown by the punch line: “It was believed this man was a lunatic, since there was no sense in what he said.”
This is not to say all wars are fought with most of the population in mythic mode. The World Wars were, but for example the American war in Vietnam wasn’t. The population never mobilized for it. There were no popular war songs. When factual data from Vietnam came through on television sets, people were still in sensory mode. And so they were appalled.
Post-Dobbs
I’ll leave it to the reader to notice how the above concept might apply to many areas of post-Dobbs backlash. It’s especially obvious with groups like Jane’s Revenge, but it can also be seen in much of mainstream media and pronouncements of certain politicians.
Of course, it’s not a mobilization of the entire society, and major portions of society are only influenced by it rather than having fully shifted out of normal-reality mode. But those of us who are active on abortion can feel it keenly. I personally find the sting of that backlash in my own friends with a level of hostility badly out of bounds.
I’ve said for a long time that one of my major motivations for being active on the consistent life ethic is that the peace movement can’t be successful in achieving peace if it doesn’t act like a peace movement.
We may be able better to figure out how to counter this if we know when a mythic mode of thinking is there. It’s frustrating that simply explaining things well doesn’t work, but people have to be in the frame of mind that goes with caring about explanations.
But the good news is that this is by its nature temporary. War hysteria doesn’t maintain itself well. While the bits of belligerency will last awhile, there will come a point when the negative energy will soften. Our job is to help make that sooner rather than later.
===========================================
For more of our posts on similar topics, see:
Post-Roe Stats: the Natural Experiment
The Mind’s Drive for Consistency
The Creativity of the Fore-closed Option
Almost No One? How Survey Polls Work
Bigotry against Babies with Down Syndrome
by Sarah Terzo
Worldwide, most babies diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome are aborted. US statistics vary, but one study put the overall number at 67%.
People Who Want to Abort Babies with Down Syndrome Give Their Reasons
Rayna Rapp, who aborted a baby with Down syndrome herself, interviewed parents who were waiting for the results of Down syndrome screenings. These parents all intended to abort their babies if they tested positive. Here are some of their comments:
- I would have a very hard time dealing with a retarded child… I would feel grief, not having what I consider a normal family.1
- I have an image of how I want to interact with my child, and that’s not the kind of interaction I want, not the kind I could maintain.2
- I’m something of a perfectionist. I want the best for my child. I’ve worked hard, I went to Cornell University, I’d want that for my child… I’m sorry I can’t be more accepting, but I’m clear I wouldn’t want to continue the pregnancy.3
- The bottom line is when my neighbor said to me: “Having a ‘tard, that’s a bummer for life.”4
- I just couldn’t do it, couldn’t be that kind of mother who accepts everything, loves her kid no matter what. What about me? Maybe it’s selfish, I don’t know. But I just didn’t want all those problems in my life.
- If he can’t grow up to have a shot at becoming the president, we don’t want him.6
- It’s devastating, it’s a waste, all the love that goes into kids like that. 7
- I think it’s kind of like triage, or like euthanasia… We’d have to move, to focus our whole family on getting a handicapped kid a better deal… Why spend $50,000 to save one child?8
Aborting babies with Down syndrome is often seen as compassionate. Ob-gyn Katherine McHugh wrote in the Washington Post:
Research suggests that women terminate between 60 and 90 percent of pregnancies diagnosed with Down syndrome. These decisions are made out of love and compassion, a seemingly obvious concept but one that bears emphasizing.
Abortionist Says Aborting Down Syndrome Babies is Like Prescribing Antibiotics
There is an organization devoted to placing children with Down syndrome with adoptive parents, and they present stories of families that have welcomed a Down syndrome child into their lives.
Nevertheless, many still believe hurtful and ablest stereotypes.
Abortionist Malcolm Potts described abortion as a valid way to eliminate children with Down syndrome:
Abortion is a way in which nature — Darwinian evolution — deals with abnormalities… If a woman asks me to do what nature failed to do and she wishes it, I will, with great comfort, abort a Down syndrome when it’s been diagnosed in a pregnant woman if she wants it. I see abortion as a necessary healing process.
Potts refers to the child as “a Down syndrome,” reducing him or her to a medical diagnosis and dehumanizing them. He compares aborting these children to prescribing antibiotics:
As a doctor, if someone has pneumonia and their immune system is not keeping up with it, I will prescribe an antibiotic. If they have an abnormal baby and they wish to have an abortion, I will give them a medical abortion. To me, it is the same basic ethic that all, I think, physicians have.
Teaching “Counselors” to Recommend Abortion
A textbook meant to teach medical professionals how to “counsel” women considering abortion discourages “non-directive” counseling when a child is disabled. Instead, it encouraged “counselors” to directly advise abortion:
When counselling, the aim of the health professional involved would normally be to support a decision-making process but not to influence it. There has recently been lively debate whether a non-directive approach is possible or even ideal when fetal abnormality has been discovered…
By receiving non-directive counselling, the couple are urged to make their own impossible decision at a time when they are grief stricken and in emotional turmoil. Couples in this kind of situation are often desperate to be advised what to do, and being able to say “the doctor advised us to have a termination” can sometimes be a blessed relief.9
There is evidence that doctors are taking this advice to heart.
Painting a Negative Picture of Life with Down Syndrome
Jo-Ann described herself as “fearful and anxious” when she learned there was a one in 93 chance her preborn child would have Down syndrome. She says:
We were given a handout that itemized all the health issues related to Down syndrome. It painted a very negative picture of this condition. I do not recall receiving any information about support groups.
The “counselor” pressured her to have an amniocentesis, with its risk of miscarriage, to diagnose her baby. She was repeatedly told, again and again, that this would give her the opportunity to abort. Jo-Ann recalls, “The last thing I remember her saying to us was, ‘You do not need to have this child.’”
Her son James was born with Down syndrome. Jo-Ann says she has a “wonderful family” that was “made more complete” by her son.
Cynthia Yunke recalls telling the doctor she wouldn’t abort her baby with Down syndrome.
According to her, the doctor “mutter[ed] something about getting back to me in a few days because, ‘I don’t think it is registering with you what I have just told you.’”10
Another doctor, after detecting a possible problem via ultrasound, “shook her head with great displeasure”11 when the child’s mother told her she hadn’t had a screening to detect anomalies. The doctor arranged an amniocentesis for the next morning at 9 AM. According to the mother, Robin Roach, “she never even gave us a choice.”
The perinatologist doing the test assured Robin that she would still have time to abort if it came out positive. Robin recalls thinking, “Why did she keep saying that? No one asked me if I even wanted to.”12
Several days later, the doctor told her her child had Down syndrome and said, “I understand from the perinatologist that you would like to terminate.” Robin objected, saying she hadn’t decided what to do.
She describes herself as being “confused, sick, and hurt” and “angry that the perinatologist had been so aggressive and intrusive in my private affairs, especially at a time when I was so vulnerable to the power of suggestion.”13
She had her son over the objections of her doctors.
Secular Pro-Life highlighted another case where a woman was told her child was at risk for Down syndrome. Before the diagnosis was even confirmed, “The doctor gave me a long list of negative health conditions involved with Down syndrome… He emphasized it shouldn’t be hard for me to get immediately pregnant after an abortion if I wanted to ‘try again for a normal baby.’”
When the amniocentesis came back positive, the doctor again mentioned abortion. Fortunately, she and her husband found another doctor who was supportive. She named her daughter Kaylen and later adopted another little girl with Down syndrome.
In a study of 3,000 parents of children with Down syndrome, the majority reported that their doctors painted a dismal picture of life with Down, mentioning only the negative aspects.
Dehumanizing Babies with Disabilities
When an amniocentesis found that Jessica Capitani’s preborn son had Down syndrome, the doctor went ahead and scheduled an abortion for her. When she didn’t keep the appointment, she says, he was “very surprised.”
Capitani says that the doctor began calling her 21-week-old son “it” and “a fetus” instead of “baby” as soon as he discovered the disability, “[a]s if I had a horrible cyst growing inside of me they couldn’t wait to eradicate. There was that subtle pressure to have the abortion.”
Another woman was told her baby “would be more like a fish than a human and would only be as smart as a baboon.”
One doctor that if she had her baby with Down syndrome, her child would “just be hanging off of you, drooling.” The doctor “contort[ed] her face into a saggy, expressionless imitation” of what she thought a disabled child would look like.
Pressured, Scorned and Harassed
Pregnant at only 16, Danielle Urie was told her child had a heart defect and would require major surgery. While she was still “in deep shock,” her doctors advised abortion.
She says, “They gave me half an hour to decide… I told them there and then there was no possibility I was going to abort. They told me Steven wouldn’t be able to have a good quality of life.”
Although problems with the baby’s heart were found not to be as serious as originally believed, doctors later told her her son had Down syndrome. She calls Steven the “most amazing, beautiful, kindhearted little boy in the whole world.”
Kristina Artuković describes the reaction of doctors when she and her husband refused to abort their baby with Down syndrome:
[M]y husband and I were repeatedly harassed and generally scorned by the medical community. They tried to set us on the right track: screen, diagnose, abort. They made clear that as obstetricians, they were deeply aware of things, and, as mere parents, we were ignorant and irresponsible for wanting our child.
Footnotes
1. Rayna Rapp Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America (New York: Routledge, 1999) 133
2. Ibid., 133-134
3. Ibid., 91
4. Ibid., 138
5. Ibid., 92
6. Ibid., 134
7. Ibid., 146
8. Ibid.
9. Joanna Brien, Ida Fairbairn Pregnancy and Abortion Counseling (London: Routledge, 1996) 130-131
10. Cynthia Yunke “Surprise!” in Kathryn Lynard Soper Gifts: Mothers Reflect on How Children with Down Syndrome Enrich Their Lives (Bethesda, Maryland: Woodbine House, 2007) 115
11. Robin Roach “Oh, Yeah?” Kathryn Lynard Soper Gifts…, 26-27
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid., 28
================================
For more of our posts on this topic, see:
A Lawyer’s Turnaround on Baby Doe with Her Own Down Syndrome Baby
Abortion and People with Disabilities
How Euthanasia and Poverty Threaten the Disabled
Presenting about Abortion: Sharing Experiences
by Fr. Jim Hewes
In the early 1970’s, I was on the speakers’ bureau of the Rochester Right to Life Committee, giving talks to many groups in our area. ;where I began the presentation by showing slides/photos of the developing pre-born child. Today, with not only the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but the deep polarization and intense inflammation in society, I am not sure if that same approach will still work.
If roughly 1 in 4 women (according to the Guttmacher Institute) will have had an abortion by the time they are 45, there will be a significant number of people hearing the presentation who either had an abortion or in some way interacted with a woman who has had an abortion. It is more of a problem this way than the death penalty or immigration or some other issue about which one might more easily change one’s view. For this reason, changing one’s position on abortion after hearing a presentation may have far-reaching consequences for people, including changing one’s way of life. Any person hearing a presentation on the evil or immorality of abortion may translate it to herself by saying that “I am bad,” or “I am no good,” or “I am irredeemable.” So, I have come to the conclusion that a modified presentation might be the best way to approach the abortion issue at the present time.
First, I would ask the people present: “How did I come to my position on abortion? What experiences in my life have brought me to my present stance on abortion?” I would give them enough time to reflect on this question, then I would share what has influenced me, because if we are going to persuade others that the pre-born are human, then we are going to have to come across as human as well, and this sharing is an opportunity to show this.
After asking those present to also reflect on this question, I would give them time and ask them to reflect on three other questions:
- If there is such a thing as truth, is there more than just my truth or your truth? Or is there an absolute, universal, objective and unchanging truth?
- What does equality really mean?
- What is the pre-born child? What is an abortion?
I would answer the first question by holding up the front cover of Newsweek for March 3, 1975. In addition, I might also hold up the picture of Samuel Armas, as well as the photo of Sarah Marie Switzer from the December 1999 issue of Life).
I am convinced that these pictures are a powerful instrument in the abortion debate because these magazines are not from pro-life or religious resources but are from secular publications; it brings the discussion from an abstract concept to the actual reality of who the pre-born are.
Second, I would share one of the most powerful experiences of my life, one I will never forget, despite this happening over 35 years ago.
I received a call one day from a couple whom I had married over a year before. They asked me to come to the hospital to baptize their son Jose, who had been born prematurely. I met them in the waiting room and then we went into the neo-natal unit.
My jaw dropped when I saw Jose because he was born at only 22 weeks gestation. Even though I had been involved with the pro-life movement for many years and had seen all the pictures of the pre-born child at various stages of development, this was the tiniest human being outside the womb I had ever seen.
He was so small that I could literally hold him completely in my hand. At the time it made me think of the passage in Isaiah that says that God will hold us in the palm of His hand. The nurse brought me an eye dropper and I baptized this incredible gift of life.
After this experience, I went outside and the cool air hit me. It struck me that in another part of this hospital, the life of a pre-born child at the exact same gestational age could be ended through an abortion and the only difference between the two identical lives was that one was wanted and the other was unwanted.
Third, I would share about being director of Project Rachel, a post-abortion ministry, for 18 years. One woman described her abortion as if her leg was caught in a bear trap and she gnawed part of her leg off to get out. Another woman described her abortion as someone crawling through a field of sharp broken glass and trying to get to the other side.
I saw first-hand the devastation that abortion does to women (and men). I would talk about having the fortune to witness the incredible transformation of many women (and men) from brokenness and despair to healing and peace. I have not been able to find the words to adequately describe this amazing transformation of grace that I have seen in the Project Rachel process. Project Rachel was probably one of the most transforming experiences of grace that I have witnessed.
If I had the time, I might share one particular experience in Project Rachel. A woman came to see me because her sister had recently had a baby. This experience brought to the surface the abortion she had gone through ten years earlier in college with her boyfriend (who had become her husband).
This woman told me that she and her husband had gone through every fertility option that was known of, for all their married years, and yet she had been unable to become pregnant. She said that she felt she was being punished through the abortion, because she had thrown away the gift God had first given her.
This type of situation is not something that can be quickly fixed with words. So, I took her through the loving, non-judgmental, and amazing experience of Project Rachel. We finished this wonderful healing process in early December.
Ordinarily I never hear from these women again because they have brought a deep closure to that part of their life. Yet in late January this same woman called me with such excitement to tell me she was pregnant. Then seven months later I received another call from her. She said that she had to call me first to tell me that she was holding her son, and she found it almost unbelievable that God had given her this second chance. I might end this section by reading one or two of the actual letters written by mothers to their pre-born children.
The fourth reason for my position on abortion would be a personal one. I grew up in a home where the disease of alcoholism was present. After many years in Adult Children-Al anon, I realized that I (along with others in the program) had the experience of being an unwanted child. The priority in the family wasn’t us as children but drinking alcohol and coping with that disease. We felt secondary to the side effects of the disease. In the same way, 97% of abortions are done because the pre-born child, for one reason or another, is unwanted.
That is why Project Rachel would be an important part of any presentation on abortion. But an equally important point is this: with 2,500 pre-born children killed every day, as Bishop Fulton Sheen has stated, “The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision. It is a silent acquiescence.”
=========================================================
For more of our posts on dialog and persuasion, see:
Two Practical Dialogue Tips for Changing More Minds about Abortion
Dialog on Life Issues: Avoiding Some Obstacles to Communication
The Logic of Escalation: Nuclear Threats in Belarus and South Korea
by John Whitehead
Twice this year, within the span of roughly a month, two powerful nations issued threats based on their nuclear weapons arsenals. The first was Russia, which is stationing nuclear weapons in neighboring Belarus and training Belarusians in how to use them. The second was the United States, which is sending a nuclear-armed submarine to South Korea and apparently plans to give South Korean authorities a greater role in US nuclear planning. Both policies are intended to intimidate other nations and both worsen the nuclear threat to humanity.
Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus on March 25. (Tactical nuclear weapons have an explosive power that is relatively low, although still catastrophically destructive.) In mid-April, the Russian Defense Ministry said that members of the Belarusian air force had been trained to use the weapons.
Later in April, US President Joe Biden and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol announcement an arrangement in which South Korea would play a role in planning for any possible use of nuclear weapons against North Korea. As the new policy, known as the Washington Declaration, runs, “The United States commits to make every effort to consult with [South Korea] on any possible nuclear weapons employment on the Korean Peninsula.” As a further sign of US willingness to use nuclear weapons in Korea, Biden ordered a submarine armed with nuclear missiles to make a stop in South Korea. The Declaration and comments by administration officials suggest further visits by nuclear-armed US forces may follow.
The governments involved in both these recent decisions have justified their actions by pointing to other nations’ actions. Although Putin presumably is calculating that moving Russian nuclear weapons closer to Ukraine will give him at least a psychological advantage in his war on that country, he also has criticized American nuclear policies.
“The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies,” Putin commented, referring to the American practice of stationing tactical nuclear weapons in countries such as Germany and Italy. US nuclear weapons in other countries have been a target of Russian criticism in the past. The recent Russian decision can thus be seen as following an American precedent.
More broadly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was influenced by fears about potential western threats to Russia. Policies to gain an advantage in the Ukraine war can thus be understood as a further response to this perceived threat. In this vein, Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko invoked nuclear weapons as protection against “the scoundrels abroad, who today are trying to blow us up from inside and outside.”
Meanwhile, the US-South Korean Washington Declaration is aimed at countering a potential threat from North Korea, which also possesses nuclear weapons and tested a new long-range missile earlier in April.
Yoon commented that “Our two countries have agreed to immediate bilateral presidential consultations in the event of North Korea’s nuclear attack and promised to respond swiftly, overwhelmingly, and decisively using the full force of the alliance, including the United States’ nuclear weapons.” Biden was even blunter, saying “a nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States, its allies or…partners — is unacceptable and will result in the end of whatever regime were to take such an action.”
Granted, both the Russian/Belarusian and US/Korean decisions arguably make only a modest difference on a practical military level. Nuclear weapons are massively dangerous regardless of precisely where they are stationed. Neither Russia nor the United States is sharing actual control of their nuclear weapons with other countries. In those respects, the decisions don’t represent a significant change from the status quo.
However, on a subtler, political level both decisions are significant. The nations involved in these decisions are both following a logic of escalation: facing ongoing conflicts or other circumstances they find threatening, they are responding with nuclear threats.
Such escalation to nuclear saber-rattling has two notable consequences:
First, it increases international tensions and risks prompting some retaliatory response. Will the next step be for western nations or North Korea to respond with new threats and provocations of their own?
Second, it sends the message that nuclear weapons are acceptable tools for achieving a political goal. This message runs contrary to efforts to stigmatize nuclear weapons and build a global consensus that such weapons should never be used. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, for example, reflects such an understanding that nuclear weapons are devices humanity needs to leave behind. The recent round of nuclear threats run in precisely the opposite direction.
We need to de-escalate tensions among nuclear-armed nations. We should denounce and oppose the nuclear threats that policymakers in many nations sadly continue to rely on.
To protest the threats posed by nuclear weapons, please join the Consistent Life Network in our quarterly peace vigils outside the White House. The next Vigil to End the Nuclear Danger will be Saturday, May 13th.
======================================
For more of our posts on nuclear weapons, see:
Nukes and the Pro-Life Christian: A Conservative Takes a Second Look at the Morality of Nuclear Weapons
The Reynolds Family, the Nuclear Age and a Brave Wooden Boat
To Save Humanity: What I Learned at the “Two Minutes to Midnight” Conference
Nuclear Disarmament as a Social Justice Issue
Catastrophe by Mistake: The Button and the Danger of Accidental Nuclear War
A Global Effort to Protect Life: The UN Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons
Better Living (for men) Through Surgery (for women)
This was first published in Sisterlife, the newsletter of Feminists for Life of America, Fall 1989. It was reprinted in the book ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today.
by Leslie Keech (1954-1989)
We are all used to it by now: the media establishment portraying prolifers as insensitive, sexist clods, while the noble knights of the proabortion position are the champions of women’s rights. But occasionally the hand slips, and even the mass media reveals that the central right abortion grants is the right to be exploited. Two articles that came my attention recently should cause any thinking person to reexamine legal abortion’s legacy really is.
In the July issue of Glamour magazine an article by Eric Goodman appeared, entitled “Men and Abortion.” It is an account of several men’s experiences with their partners’ abortions. The thread running throughout the article in nearly every instance was that the abortion was his idea—and the woman agreed to follow his lead.
For instance, “Walt’s” account: Instead of advising her to do what she thought best for her own life, Walt allowed his lover to be guided by her strong desire to “save their relationship.” “I said, ‘What do you want to do?’ She suggested abortion, thinking this would make it possible for me to continue to paint, that that in turn would prolong our relationship . . . She’s my age, thirty-five, and it may have been her last chance to have a child. I believe she would be much happier if she’d had it—but I would be unhappy having a child I never saw and didn’t live with. I guess I sound like a real cad. Maybe I was.” Gee, Walt, I had a stronger word in mind . . .
Or how about “Christopher” who got the money for the abortion from his mother, then accompanied his girlfriend to a clinic that he likened to an “abortion factory” (front-alley variety). As he waited for the abortion to be completed, he pondered his predicament. “I think I felt more concerned about her than I really was, because I was there with her?” Kind of amazing what a little trip to the abortion clinic will do for one’s conscience, isn’t it?
“Jack’s” lover had an abortion while he was in law school. They considered themselves too young to have a child, and they were both in the middle of pursuing careers. They broke up some time after the abortion, and he married a woman who was unable to bear a child. He said, “So it turns out my one chance for a biological child was that aborted pregnancy in law school.” The article goes on to admit, “If Jack’s wife had been able to have children, it’s unlikely he would have given much thought to what happened in law school.”
“Jeff” has been involved in two abortions, but it took the second one to make him regret his behavior during the first. “I was afraid of getting snarled up in two kids and a house, so I took the refuge of asking, ‘What do you want to do?’ She was waiting for me to mention marriage, so she opted for abortion.”
The selfish, sexist, irresponsible behavior shown by these and many other men is heightened and encouraged by abortion’s easy way out. Our society expects that fathers should pay child support for their children, but at the same time we make it very easy for a man to simply use the woman for his pleasure, and then buy his way out of the deal for a couple hundred dollars! Why should a man pay child support for eighteen years if he can “get rid of the problem” so neatly?
“Alex” shared his experience: “From the moment she told me, I wanted her to have an abortion. She knew I would. I’m still paying child support for the first three kids, and I don’t make that much. The way things fell out, there’s been a kid under four in my life for the past ten years. I’m tired of waking up in the middle of the night.” Poor “Alex.” It is important to get your rest—no matter what the cost.
Finally, an interview appeared in Penthouse magazine with George Brett, first baseman for the Kansas City Royals baseball team. The interview is extremely enlightening concerning male attitudes towards abortion—and towards women.
George admits to paying for two women to have abortions, and feels that those decisions were the right ones, since he wasn’t ready to get married. (Keep in mind that this is a man who could easily afford to raise a child, marriage or no.) George was rather pleased about one aspect of the abortions, however. It “proved” that he was indeed the stud he purports to be. He candidly states, “I know I’m fertile. I’ve got the checkbook to prove it. But getting a couple of girls pregnant gave me a sense that there’s no sweat. I can have kids anytime I want. I’ve had the security of knowing I’m a proven performer.”
What a wonderful service to humanity those two women have contributed; by subjecting themselves to surgery, they have assured us that George Brett is not infertile. That’s just swell. Did two children really have to die to prove it?
I wonder if the “prochoice” movement really understands how antiwoman abortion really is? It has certainly not brought us forward in establishing equality with men. We need callous, exploitative men to step up to our level, not drag us down to theirs.
================================
For more of our posts on similar themes, see:
Isolating Women and Encouraging Jerks
Abortion Facilitates Sex Abuse: Documentation
How Abortion is Useful for Rape Culture
Abortion and Violence Against Pregnant Women
“Shut Up and Enjoy it!”: Abortion Promoters who Sexually Pressure Women
Insights from Mennonites
From Article 22 of the Mennonite Confession of Faith:
“Led by the Spirit, and beginning in the church, we witness to all people that violence is not the will of God. We witness against all forms of violence, including war among nations, hostility among races and classes, abuse of children and women, violence between men and women, abortion, and capital punishment.”
Mennonite Official Statement on Abortion:
The 2003 Official Statement on Abortion has commentary on these and addition points, plus an extensive list of suggested reading:
I. We believe
- Human life is a gift from God to be valued and protected. We oppose abortion because it runs counter to biblical principles.
- The fetus in its earliest stages (and even if imperfect by human standards) shares humanity with those who conceived it.
- There are times when deeply held values, such as saving the life of the mother and saving the life of the fetus, come in conflict with each other.
- The faith community should be a place for discernment about difficult issues like abortion.
- Abortion should not be used to interrupt unwanted pregnancies.
- Christians must provide viable alternatives to abortion that provide care and support for mothers and infants.
- The church should witness to society regarding the value of all human life.
- Professionals whose ministry involves dealing with the moral dilemmas of abortion and reproductive technologies need our support.
III. We confess
- We have failed to offer a clear voice affirming life as an alternative to our society’s frequent reliance upon abortion as the solution to problem pregnancies.
- We have failed to show compassion for those who are suffering the consequences of abortion.
- We have failed to work for a just health care system that would assist poor families in caring for their children.
Mennonite Quotations
Beyond the potential physical and psychological harm, our society’s open abortion policies contribute to a social ethos that is not good for women. For example, many women, perhaps even the majority of women, have an abortion in part because someone is pressuring them to do so. The pressure can be relatively subtle, such as withholding emotional support or expressions of love until the woman agrees to have the abortion. Shockingly often, however, the pressure comes in the form of threats, such as threats that the male partner will leave the relationship or that the family will kick the woman out of the house unless she gets an abortion. This pressure, both in more subtle and in explicit forms, comes from parents, boyfriends, friends, employers and even health clinic workers.
When women face this type of pressure, at a time when they are often quite vulnerable, it is unclear what type of “choice” they are making. It certainly is not the empowering, autonomous choice implied by the pro-choice movement. Moreover, while women undoubtedly faced similar pressures in an earlier age, our society’s permissive view of abortion as a “solution” to an unintended, untimely pregnancy lends itself to this type of pressure. After all, those exerting pressure can see themselves as encouraging a socially approved fix to a problem, even viewing the pregnant woman who refuses abortion as acting irresponsibly.
— Joseph J. Kotva Jr., “The Question of Abortion: Christian Virtue and Government Legislation,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review (October, 2005), pp. 490-491
We do not, and should not, view the woman in the image of her attacker [from a rape] or through the lens of the crime against her. Instead, she is to be viewed in the image of God her maker. She is originally a child of God, irreducible to an object of violence, and thus to be cared for as precious rather than cast out as disgraced. Likewise, we do not, and should not, view the attacker primarily in the image of his crime; instead, he also is to be viewed in the image of God. He, too, is seen in light of the redemption and reconciliation possible in Christ. Why, then should we suppose that the unborn child, though conceived in violence, is to be viewed in the image of the attack, and thereby effectively reduced to that act of violence? The unborn child, despite the circumstances of conception, nonetheless presents most originally an embodiment of the face of God.
— Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, “Toward a Consistent Ethic of Life in the Peace Tradition Perspective: A Critical-Constructive Response to the MC USA Statement on Abortion,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review (October, 2005), p. 455
================================
For more of our posts on religion and the Consistent Life Ethic, see:
Why the Interfaith Approach is Important
The Consistent Life Consensus in Ancient Christianity
Fratelli Tutti – Consistent-Life Excerpts
Abortion and War are the Karma for Killing Animals (Hinduism)
Displaced and Brought Together by War: The Tale of Giovanni’s Island
by John Whitehead
The many ways war and its aftermath can devastate people’s lives, but also the bonds that can form among those enduring such hardships, is the subject of Giovanni’s Island, an animated movie produced by Japanese studio Production I.G.
Although originally released in 2014, the movie became available in North America for the first time earlier this year. Consistent life ethic activists and others concerned with protecting human life, as well as those interested in powerful human stories, may want to take the opportunity to see Giovanni’s Island (which is in Japanese and Russian, with subtitles).
Set in the late 1940s, the movie covers a dimension of World War II that is little known to western audiences. The story follows adolescent boy Junpei and his younger brother Kanta. The two boys live with their widowed father and extended family on Shikotan, a small island in the Kurils, in Japan’s far north, The island is too remote to be directly affected by the war, but after the war ends the inhabitants must deal with foreign occupation: in this case, by the Soviet Union.
Junpei and Kanta soon find their house repossessed by the Soviet commander and his family, while they must relocate to a stable. Their schoolhouse is divided between the native inhabitants and the children of the Soviet soldiers. Food and other goods become scarcer.
Yet daily life continues even under foreign military occupation, and the two brothers, who don’t fully understand what the occupation means, find ways to enjoy themselves. Despite language barriers, they start playing with their new Russian classmates.
Most important, they befriend Tanya, the daughter of the Soviet commander who now lives in their old house. Reasoning, as Junpei notes, that she won’t understand their Japanese names anyway, they introduce themselves to her as “Giovanni” and “Campanella.” These names are taken from their favorite book, the fairy-tale-like Night on the Galactic Railroad (this book’s significance for the characters gradually becomes clear as the story unfolds).
Giovanni’s Island skillfully handles its complicated subject matter. The serious conflicts between the island’s adult residents and the Soviet occupiers are present on screen but are kept in the background. The focus is how the situation affects the young protagonists, sometimes in unexpected ways.
An early scene where Soviet soldiers burst into the boys’ classroom is frightening but ends on a darkly humorous note. Later, the school’s Japanese and Russian students sing in their respective languages in a way that starts out competitive but then takes a different turn. The Soviets initially appear to our protagonists as grotesque giants but Tanya and her family later change their perceptions.
While recognizing the situation’s complexity, though, Giovanni’s Island doesn’t obscure the fundamental injustice or cruelty of the occupation. This reality becomes especially clear in the movie’s intense second half, when the characters’ situation dramatically changes and they must desperately search for freedom and safety.
Although Giovanni’s Island is about a specific historical episode, its story has broader applicability. The movie reminds us of how people suffer for political reasons: from war and its consequences but also from other types of oppression and indifference. For example, aspects of Junpei and Kanta’s plight parallel those of the untold numbers of people forced from their homes by one upheaval or another who must then deal with all the dangers and indignities inflicted on refugees. The movie also reminds us of how families and communities can support each other in desperate times and how people we might stereotype as the “enemy” or the “other” can show unexpected kindness or humanity.
Viewers should be aware that while the movie contains little explicit violence it does deal with emotionally weighty material, including a shattering tragedy that occurs late in the story. The movie would not be appropriate for younger audiences, although teenagers and older viewers could appreciate it.
Despite the inevitably grim nature of this tale, Giovanni’s Island ends on a hopeful note. The movie’s epilogue provides a poignant vision of both homecoming and reconciliation among former enemies. May all wars and upheavals end in similar ways.
==================================
For more of our movie reviews, see:
The Violence That Didn’t Happen (Stranger at the Gate)
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”
The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
Hollywood Movie Insights (The Giver, The Whistleblower, and The Ides of March)
Hollywood Movie Insights II (Never Look Away, The Report, and Dark Waters)
Medicine’s Movement towards Abandonment
by Jim Hewes
We trust ourselves to a doctor because we suppose he/she knows his/her profession. We judge they would not act as they do unless the remedy were necessary, and we must rely on their knowledge and skill. Yet both the medical community and the larger society are moving towards a place of abandonment towards those in their care, instead of providing what is best for them.
We saw this troubling indication happen when Covid hit the United States, before the development of the vaccines. Many doctors did not treat those who came into their office with Covid. They sent them home without much care, and in that sense “abandoned” them and told them to go to the emergency room if they got worse.
Specifically, today’s expanded use of abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) abandons women who are alone, fearful, pressured, and overwhelmed. They are left to go back to their place of residence alone, while taking the chemical abortion pills in the absence of a medical professional. Some women are receiving prescriptions for abortion pills from doctors, without even a medical examination or ever actually seeing a physician, despite the evidence that there can be many serious health risks to women using the abortion pills (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache, ectopic pregnancies, hospitalizations, blood transfusions, infections and even death).
In addition, it will not be the abortionist taking the life of the patient’s pre-born son or daughter; it will now be a mother actually ending the life of her pre-born child by taking the abortion pills herself. These women, abandoned by the medical personnel, will then have to see the remains of their aborted children (who have been starved or suffocated and who have begun to shrivel).
After witnessing the dead or dying corpse expelled from her, the mother alone will have to dispose of the remains of her aborted child because she took the abortion pills by herself at home. Recall that organs, tissues, and other forms of biological waste must go through medical incineration. Improperly disposing of biological waste can harm the environment. This practice will change her home or dorm room from a place of safety to an abortion facility. It will also cause many women to see something they weren’t prepared to see – their baby, small, yet fully formed and fully human.
Many people who support abortion will be at public protests holding up signs with the drawing of a coat hanger. They are trying to evoke an image of days when an untold number of women were by themselves, using a dangerous instrument such as a coat hanger, to commit a self-induced abortion (taking the life of their pre-born son or daughter), or using other various methods of self-induced abortion, which often resulted in health problems. Currently there is a modern version of the “coat hanger,” a return to a new “back alley,” namely by taking risky and deadly chemical abortion pills by themselves.
The Food and Drug Administration’s summary report of adverse events states that the total number of abortion pill-related adverse events from 2000 to 2022 was 28 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 3,113 hospitalizations, 604 blood transfusions, and 414 infections (including 71 severe infections), with a total of 4,213 adverse events reported; additionally, the abortion pills do not work for 2-7% of the women who take them. Now in the U.S. just over 50% of abortions are done by the abortion pills. A large Finnish study found that chemical abortions produced “adverse events” in 20% of cases, so one in five women might experience a complication, four times higher than the complication rate for surgical abortions. Chemical abortions take a longer time than surgical ones. This means in 2020 just over 100,000 women in the U.S. may have experienced some type of complication from a chemical abortion.
Also, the inadequacies of U.S. reporting requirements mean that some complications may go unreported. There is the additional problem of rural women who take abortion pills, who live a great distance from the help they would need when serious complications develop.
What is not included in these reports is that many women who take the abortion pills, as with surgical abortions, often experience emotional and psychological harm such as depression, anxiety, risky behaviors, alcoholism, substance abuse and even thoughts of suicide.
Use of abortion pills will also make it much harder to detect and address any pressure and coercion upon women who use them. Many other circumstances complicate a simple dispensing of abortion pills: a pregnancy test may give a false reading and doesn’t determine how far along the pregnancy is; there’s no one to report a statutory rape situation in the case that the mother is under 18 and the father is older; a victim of sex trafficking may have no one to help get her to a safe place away from her abuser and notify authorities; the woman taking the pills may know absolutely nothing about the deaths and severe side effects that have occurred from these drugs (including from tubal pregnancies).
The abandonment is not just by the medical community. A large portion of abortions wouldn’t happen if the father had wanted the child. The mother often first feels unwanted and abandoned by the significant people around her and, sadly, passes this along to her pre-born child. As the saying goes, “Pain that is not transformed is transmitted.”
Chemical abortions don’t take into account what is pressuring women to have an abortion, whether it is unhealthy relationships; feeling unable to raise a child, especially as a single parent; lack of a job; lack of decent affordable housing; transportation needs; the false belief that a baby would interfere with school, work or the ability to care for dependents; mental health problems; living in poverty; or even low self-esteem. Of those seeking abortion, 75% are poor or low-income, so abortion advocates are primarily targeting marginalized women and girls with the abortion pill. So nothing changes for women after a chemical abortion, because society has abandoned them as well.
In addition, abortion providers offer abortion pills as late as 11 weeks’ gestation. The pre-born child already has a heartbeat, detectable brain waves, fingers and toes clearly defined, as well as major body systems that have formed. A window to the child in the womb by ultrasound shows a recognizably human form as each of us once was. So chemical abortions are certainly not safe for the thousands of babies who are destroyed by these deadly drugs.
Medication treats or prevents disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, so chemical abortion is not actually medication, any more than administering drugs to end someone’s life with the death penalty is. It doesn’t restore health or save a life. On the contrary, its sole purpose is to deliberately impair normal healthy functioning in order to end a life.
It also puts many pharmacists in an untenable position toward those who come to them for abortion pills. This policy changes pharmacies from dispensers of health to dispensers of health risks and death, as an extension of an abortion facility.
Pope Francis talks about the importance of accompaniment, especially accompanying those in difficult situations. Prescribing abortion pills for a “quick fix” is the farthest from that, abandoning these vulnerable pregnant women by conveying that they aren’t worth the time and effort to help them navigate their challenging situation. It does not provide a woman a chance of seeing her baby’s ultrasound, or hearing about available help, or learning that there are couples who are ready and eager to adopt, so that she may have a true choice to be able to choose life, not only for her pre-born daughter or son, but for herself as well.
==================================
For more of our posts from Jim Hewes, see:
Consistent Life History: Being Across the Board
Reflections from My Decades of Consistent Life Experience
Abortion and Other Issues of Life: Connecting the Dots
Death Penalty and other Killing: The Destructive Effect on Us