Civilization's Helpless Members

Image Source: Peter Hagyo-Kovacs from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arab_market-1.JPG

Author Pearl S. Buck once wrote, "The test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members."

That came to mind when I re-read a reflection a student shared with me several years ago.  After being equipped to engage the culture on abortion, he participated in a pro-life display at the University of Minnesota.  Of the many students he encountered, I was particularly struck by one in particular, whose story he shared as follows: 

"A 19-year-old freshman Muslim woman recounted a riveting story after I called her over to the barricade so we could discuss her thoughts on abortion.  She told me about how her twin sister had become pregnant unintentionally in the recent past.  While abortion was contrary to Islamic teachings, her parents were more concerned with avoiding the disgrace of an unwed and pregnant daughter.  Therefore, they were forcing her to have an abortion against her will.  However, the woman I talked to described how she had helped her sister escape their parents and live in hiding until she gave birth secretly to save the child.  Thankfully, since the birth of the child, their parents have become supportive of the new baby."

This parental abandonment of a pregnant child is unfortunately not an isolated incident, as I wrote about another such case last year.  But what is so strikingly beautiful about both stories is that the pregnant children didn't make a pattern: They refused to abandon their pre-born children the way their own parents abandoned them.  They took a stand; they passed the test of a civil society by protecting and caring for its helpless members.

And by their courageous example, they challenged their parents to do the same.  That is the power of doing the right thing—it inspires others to follow, even if they are initially slow to respond.  Indeed, as author Matthew Kelly has pointed out,

“Virtue inspires me.  Virtue in other people challenges me.  Virtue raises me up.  Virtue allows me to catch a glimpse of what is possible.  Virtue gives me hope for the future of humanity.”

Three Men and a Coffee Shop, by Stephanie Gray

I didn’t go to a coffee shop today intending to give my Bible away to one patron, debate abortion with another patron, and talk with a third patron about the conversation with the second, but as it should happen, instead of my intended plan of studying Christopher Kaczor’s book The Ethics of Abortion, I found myself engaging three strangers.

It’s funny how life unfolds.  The first man, Phil, placed the coffee shop’s newspaper in front of himself at the long table I too was sitting at.  When he turned around to get his coffee, another patron grabbed the unmanned newspaper so that when Phil returned, “the case of the missing paper” became an opening for small talk.  Phil was on a break and the chatty type.  I decided that I shouldn’t be so attached to my plans that I couldn’t be flexible and spare a few moments to speak with a stranger.

“Day off?” he asked me.

“No,” I said.  “I work from home when I’m not travelling and decided to make my office a coffee shop today.  You?”

“I’m on a break from where I work at the hospital.  What work do you do?” he asked.

“Public speaking,” I said.

Public speaker isn’t the most common job around, and he was intrigued how it could be my job and what audiences I spoke to.  When I mentioned speaking at churches he said, “So, you go to church then?”

“Yes,” I said and asked back, “Do you?”

He didn’t.   So I took on the persona of Socrates and began asking questions about this, learning that although he had been sent by his parents to Sunday school as a child, that didn’t last long.  For a brief period he sent his own children to a preschool that had Christian foundations and was struck when he told his daughter, “Goodnight; I love you” to hear her respond, “And Jesus loves you, Daddy.”  But he didn’t identify as a Christian or a church-goer.  He simply believed in God in the abstract sense, and in trying to be good.  I asked him if he ever read up on different religions and explored the reasons behind the claims made; that, for example, there’s good evidence for Jesus being the God He claimed to be, and not merely a “nice guy” who roamed the earth.  We talked for about 10 minutes and by the time his work break wrapped up and he had to leave, I remembered my red, palm-sized New Testament, Psalms, & Proverbs Bible in my laptop bag.  The Holy Spirit nudged me and I said to Phil, “Hey, um, I have a Bible with me, why don’t you take it.” 

He smiled, received it, and said, “Now I have something to read tonight.”

“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”-Psalm 119:105

With that, he left.  No sooner had I gotten back into work that another patron, a self-proclaimed “Hippie,” saw my spread of a book, highlighter, pen, and notepad and said, “Are you a student?”

“No,” I said.

“You look like one, with the highlighter,” John responded.

“Well,” I said, “I’m like a teacher you could say.  I give talks and I’m preparing for a presentation.”

“What do you speak on?” he asked.

“Abortion,” I said, purposefully leaving out my position in order to let him ask.  And he did.

“Do you speak in favor of it or against?”

“Against,” I said, which was taken as an invitation for him to go on a loud diatribe against pro-life.

We debated for about 10 minutes, with him making the usual arguments in favor of abortion: “I believe in a woman’s right to control her body,” he said.  “One thing I’ve learned,” he declared, “is you don’t tell a woman what to do.”

So I asked, “Would you tell a woman what to do after birth?”

“What do you mean?” he said to my intentionally vague question designed to get the wheels turning in his mind, to get him to think and process his rhetoric.

“Well,” I explained, “If a woman wanted to kill her child after birth, such as drowning her child in the bathtub like we’ve heard on the news, would you say you can’t tell a woman what to do then?”

“That’s different,” he boomed to what seemed to be the whole café.  Although he started the conversation, he showed no interest in a rational, two-sided exchange.  So I mostly asked questions to be faced with him cutting me off.

When he justified his position on the grounds that the “law says so,” I asked, “Didn’t the law once say that I as a woman couldn’t vote?”   

“Yeah,” he said.  So I responded, “Isn’t that proof the law can be wrong?”  Boom, he went off on another tangent.

And when he spoke of his son and daughter being the most important people to him, I asked him, “Since they are so important to you, when did their lives begin?  Wasn’t it their bodies in their mom’s body?  So if they’re important to you now, wouldn’t they be important to you before birth?”  Off on another tangent he went.

“We get wise by asking questions, and even if these are not answered, we get wise, for a well-packed question carries its answer on its back as a snail carries its shell.” -James Stephens

As it should happen, out of the corner of my eye another patron, down at the end of the table, was listening in.  When John and I exchanged names, shook hands, and John left, this third man, Kevin, said,

"I just have to say you were remarkably patient with that man.”  Kevin had listened with much fascination to our whole exchange.  He was tempted to jump in and point out in the third trimester the baby has brain activity, which gave me an opportunity to enlighten this kinder, more “open” man, that at six weeks, in the first trimester, brain waves have been detected in the pre-born child.  “Thanks for telling me that,” Kevin said, “I did not know that.”

“Your big opportunity may be right where you are now.” -Napoleon Hill

So wherever you are, and whatever comes up, my experience today has taught me to welcome interruptions, for you never know what opportunities lie in wait to share truth, goodness, justice, virtue, and Christ.

The Christmas Story Teaches Us to Celebrate New Life, by Stephanie Gray

In a recent conversation with a friend of mine who is an accountant, she lamented how this time of year is her busiest season.  In contrast, my job of being a pro-life educator means year end is my slow season: people generally don’t want to hear about a negative topic like abortion during the positive season of Christmas.  And yet, the topic of abortion and the story of Christmas have their connection.

The Christmas story involves a young, unmarried girl faced with an unplanned pregnancy.  She wonders “How can this be?”  (Luke 1:34)  Her not-yet-husband considers putting “her away secretly” (Matthew 1:19).

How many in our culture find themselves in a similar situation of an unexpected pregnancy?  How many find themselves bewildered?  But not all choose to respond as Joseph and Mary did; some choose abortion.  Which brings to mind the power of choice, which Holocaust-survivor Viktor Frankl once spoke about as follows: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

Our Heavenly Father, Mary and Joseph teach us to choose well when we “choose one’s attitude…choose one’s own way” in the set of circumstances we find ourselves in: 

God reminds us to choose the right attitude: Even in crisis and the unknown, we are to, as His messenger declared, “not be afraid” (Matthew 1:20, Luke 1:30).

Mary reminds us to choose to trustingly surrender to our Creator who is much wiser than His creatures: “Let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).

Joseph reminds us to choose to protect the vulnerable: “‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’ ...When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him” (Matthew 1:21, 24).

And because of these choices, we have the conception and birth of the Christ child to celebrate.  And what a celebration it is: the Scriptures show through at least seven people/gatherings that an encounter with “the little Lord Jesus” is cause for praise:

Mary: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.  For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name” (Luke 1:47-49).

Pre-born John the Baptist: “…the babe leapt in her womb…” (Luke 1:41)

Elizabeth: “…Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’” (Luke 1:41-43).

An angel and the Heavenly host: “‘Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!’” (Luke 2:13-14)

Shepherds: “…the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen” (Luke 2:20).

Simeon: “…when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, he took him up in his arms and blessed God” (Luke 2:27-28).

Anna: “…coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38).

The Christmas story teaches us to celebrate new life.  Although a pregnant woman today does not nurture Christ in her womb like Mary did, each pregnant woman does nurture an unrepeatable and irreplaceable soul stamped with the image of the Almighty.  Regardless of the circumstances, the presence of God’s creation, which is “very good” (Genesis 1:31), should prompt us to choose as Mary and Joseph did: choose the right attitude, choose to trustingly surrender to God, and choose to protect the vulnerable.  

This was originally posted at the Dynamic Women of Faith blog.

Miracle Channel Interview

On December 14, 2015, Paul Arthur, host of the Miracle Channel's Insight, interviewed Stephanie about her ministry and her new book Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth.  

You can watch the full interview online here.

Pre-Orders of Stephanie's book "Love Unleashes Life" are Now Available

Life Cycle Books is now taking pre-orders for Stephanie Gray's book, Love Unleashes Life: Abortion and the Art of Communicating Truth.  The book will ship late January 2016.

Canadians can order online here.

Americans can order online here.

If you are ordering outside of North America, you can submit your order via e-mail to orders@lifecyclebooks.com.

So Your Child Has Down Syndrome, by Stephanie Gray

A couple years ago, a friend of mine contacted me about someone he knew who was considering abortion because their pre-born child was diagnosed with Down Syndrome.  He consulted me about what to say to his friend (who was related to the expectant couple) to try to change their minds.  Recently, another friend of mine contacted me about a friend of hers in a similar situation.  What are pro-life people to do and say in these situations?  Here was my advice:

Further to our text exchange, I am praying for your friends as they face this unexpected and difficult situation of knowing their pre-born child has Down Syndrome.  Indeed you are correct that we must pray, for it is God’s wisdom that we must rely on here, not our own.  It’s important to remember that our prayers should naturally flow to action, for just as a canoe will go in circles if only one oar is used on one side, but it will glide forward with an oar on each side, so too must prayer guide action, and action flow from prayer.

As I reflect on your friendship with your friend who is the brother of the pregnant woman, I am reminded of Esther in the Bible.  As you well know, she was placed where she was “for such a time as this.”  Her uncle could not make the appeal to the King, but Esther could.  She prayed and fasted in preparation for the verbal appeal she was to make to the king.

Since I am more removed from this situation than you, I will do my best to equip you with perspectives and insights to help you make an appeal to your friend, an appeal asking him to make a similar appeal to his sister.  I’m certainly happy to chat further to this e-mail, so let me know.

As I mentioned in our text, time is on the side of life.  It is important that she not be rushed into a decision, which is something proponents of abortion in this case may do.  There is no need to rush, and rushing only leads to making decisions based on emotion and fear, thus leading to choices that can then lead to heartache and regret.

Empathy

So, how can you help your friend help his sister?  Start with the prayer of St. Francis: “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be understood as to understand.”  Your friend’s sister is devastated. Empathy is so important here.  Seeking to understand her and her concerns and fears is very important.  Those who have not faced a poor prenatal diagnosis can’t know what it’s like, so while it isn’t accurate to say “I know what you’re going through,” when we don’t, it is accurate to say, “I can’t even imagine how difficult this must be for you.” 

From what you’ve told me, it sounds like this couple joyfully embraced the news of their pre-born child so many weeks ago.  That news heralded the news of their other child being an older sibling.  It filled them all with joy and anticipation—new life meant new adventures for this little, growing family.  One plus one equaled three, and now one plus one equals four—their love is multiplying in ways that defy math.  And all that seemed dashed with news that their beloved, youngest child is disabled and sick.  It is very possible that a negative and depressing picture of the future has now been painted for them.  Discouragement, disappointment, and despair are very real emotions they may be experiencing.  Let them express that.  Then, it’s important for you, and your friend, to be a voice of hope, seeing a future they may not be able to see yet.  It’s your job to paint for them how life is beautiful (not easy—but beautiful), even when life brings with it suffering.  More on that in a bit.

Questions

Asking questions is important.  This woman and her husband need to be heard, and they need to feel heard.  It’s hard to find the right help when the problem isn’t clearly identified.  So what, specifically, do they fear most?  That their child will suffer?  That they themselves will?  Financial costs?  No support?  What does she fear?  Only when fears are verbalized can we seek to alleviate them.

Support

Often in these situations, people can feel very lonely.  Over 90% of children who have Down Syndrome are killed by abortion, so there doesn’t seem to be many people around who have what their child has.  And yet, 10% do make it out alive, and often the families of these children are beautiful witnesses to the gift of life, even—and especially—a life that is less than “perfect.”  I have a friend, Leticia, who has a daughter who has Down Syndrome; in fact, I just visited her in Connecticut.  She is interested in speaking with your friend’s sister.  She can address concerns they have, such as finances or suffering, as these are real situations she herself has lived.  Further, she has written a book on embracing children with special needs, and I can give that to you for your friends as well.

I can also connect this couple with a pro-life doctor in their area if they are open to that, so please let me know.  A pro-life doctor would have a more hopeful picture of the future, and provide life-affirming ways to help this family.

Further, I certainly am more than willing to meet with them, or the brother or parents if they are open to it.  When I went to Romania I looked after a little boy, Cristi-Daniel, who has Down Syndrome.  His little life, accomplishments, and joy were a gift to me and I’d be happy to share my experience.  I am back on Tuesday so please let me know if anyone in the family is open to meeting.  You mentioned the grandparents are practicing Catholics.  Perhaps they’d be willing to get together with me to pray and discuss things?  I think they’d appreciate what my friend Leticia received in prayer when holding in her arms her child with Down Syndrome; she thought about Jesus' mom mothering Him, and reflected on her own mothering of her daughter, and meditated on the commonalities between Jesus and children with special needs; she writes,

 “Mary bore a Child like no other; A child who did not conform to society's expectations; He was different from the others; He gazed upon Heaven when the rest could only see clouds. He reminded them of their failings, their lack of charity, their shallowness, their impatience, and their rush to judgment. His government tried to kill Him, and eventually succeeded. He had to endure constant misunderstanding of what He was trying to communicate, and bore the frustration of those who misunderstood Him. He was mocked and rejected, and at times, it seemed only His mother still stood by Him. She felt the loneliness of seeing her Son rejected because He was different, yet she bore the pain patiently because she knew that it was for us, the ‘least of these’ that He suffered and died.”

Perspective

You mentioned that their pre-born child has heart problems.  And in the face of this (a common ailment for those with Down Syndrome) they are thinking of ending that child’s life. A good question for them to consider is what would they do if their born child was diagnosed with a heart condition?  Why treat this younger child any differently?

Related to that, another good question to put things into perspective is to consider what we do when those we love are not well—do we eliminate the sufferer or alleviate the suffering?  Hospitals and the medical community exist to fulfill the latter.  This little child’s difficulties can be alleviated without the child being eliminated.  And there are people who will rally around this family and help ensure the latter; I know the people and I guarantee we will help.

I’m not sure if the child’s heart condition is so severe that the doctors are saying she or he will not live long after birth, but if that is the case, a good question to consider is this: When we love someone, and don’t have much time left with that person, do we maximize or minimize the short time we have left?  Imagine someone you love was told they had only 4 weeks left to live—would you wait until the end of the 3rd week to visit, or go right away?  So it is if their child will have a shorter life—if they don’t have as much time with the child, why cut that limited time short with abortion?  If they would embrace every month, week, day, minute, and second with a loved one who is born and given a poor diagnosis, why not embrace every moment with this child who is pre-born and given a poor diagnosis?

Often people fear that because of the grief they will experience when the child naturally dies.  And that grief is very real.  A good question to consider though, is whether they’d experience grief at abortion.  You mentioned they wanted this child so that means if they have an abortion they will assumedly experience the sadness of losing the child.  There is, however, an important difference between these two kinds of grief—with an abortion they will grieve the death of a child they killed; if the child dies after birth due to illness/disability, they will grieve the death of a child who died naturally.

I have been very moved by this video called “Choosing Thomas.”  I cannot recommend this enough.  It is a beautiful story (under 10 minutes) of a couple who were given a poor prenatal diagnosis (their child had Trisomy 13) and they were offered an abortion.  They opted against it and embraced every moment of Thomas’ short life, from his last months in-utero to his 5 days after birth. One of the compelling quotes in the documentary is this: “The only thing Thomas will ever know in this world is love.”  How beautiful, and how true.  But tragically the same cannot be said for a child aborted—for the only thing those children will know in this world is rejection, abandonment, and killing.  Thomas’ mother also says,

“I’m afraid to say goodbye.  But I can’t imagine what it would have been like to not have had this opportunity to go through this with him and to get to know him and to love him.  It really has been amazing as opposed to just shoving it down and forgetting about it and pretending that his life didn’t happen and that it didn’t matter.”

Finally, perhaps most poignant, is what his mother says at the end: “We knew it would be a hard road but I think sometimes when you make the toughest decisions you can get the greatest joy out of those.  We didn’t not terminate because we were hanging on to some sort of hope there was a medical mistake or there was going to be some sort of medical miracle.  We didn’t terminate because he’s our son.”

Suffering

And so that brings me to another point I wanted to address, which is suffering.  We humans naturally recoil at suffering, for it is painful and hard.  And yet, suffering is a part of life.  Nick Vujicic, a motivational speaker, suffered greatly in his early life, having been born without arms and legs.  In the face of suffering he thought about killing (in this case, himself) and then realized that his suffering put him in a unique position to reach out to the world, to offer a message of hope and inspiration to people in a way someone with arms and legs could not.  The same can be said for other ailments, whether genetic disabilities or sickness—while painful, these can be opportunities to love and be loved in beautifully unique ways.  If we think about inspiring people, what sets them apart from those who do not inspire is not that they face suffering (the uninspiring person faces suffering too) but rather how they respond to their suffering (the inspiring person doesn’t give up on life, but does the right thing even when it’s hard).  These stories feature this point:

Dad and Daughter with Down Syndrome

Nick Vujicic’s Story: Part 1 & Part 2

https://positiveexposure.org/

Iamviable

Finally, it’s important to point out that not only does abortion deprive someone of the opportunity to live the life they were conceived to live, but it directly destroys the body of a precious baby who cannot defend herself. Now, more than ever, this little one needs her parents to be her advocate, not her destroyer.

Does Birth Control Prevent Abortion?

This article by Stephanie Gray first appeared in the September issue of LifeCanada's Reflections Magazine.

In the Spring of 2004, I went to the University of Manitoba to help its pro-life student club display an abortion exhibit.  A Buddhist student approached me and said she was “pro-choice” and was concerned that there was no one at the display expressing the opposite perspective to ours.  After a brief discussion she left, but returned an hour later with a friend.  I was struck by their response: They did not hold signs with “pro-choice” slogans, saying our anti-abortion message was wrong; instead, they distributed condoms to passersby.  More protestors came throughout the day and handed out literature about various forms of birth control.

If you were to ask these students why they were protesting an anti-abortion message with a pro-birth control message instead of a pro-abortion message, they would say something like this: “We don’t like abortion.  We think the best way to avoid abortion is to avoid the need for it.  If people don’t have unwanted pregnancies, they won’t have abortions.  Birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, so birth control prevents abortion.”

But does it?

While birth control is considered to prevent pregnancy, some methods may actually work after pregnancy has begun—thus being capable of ending the life of a tiny human being.  Take the birth control pill: most assume it is a contraceptive (i.e., works contra, against, conception); however, when asked about how birth control pills work, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state in part, “The lining of the uterus thins, making it less likely that a fertilized egg can attach to it.”[1]  The “fertilized egg” is actually an embryonic human and if that child cannot attach to her mother’s uterus, that child will bleed out in an early, and undetected, abortion. 

So while the birth control pill may prevent some “unwanted” pregnancies (by suppressing ovulation), it may actually end others (by the mechanism described above).  But even if the birth control pill never had the mechanism to affect the pre-born child’s ability to implant, even if it was truly contraceptive, does it prevent abortion overall?

Decades of birth control pill and abortion usage gives us a clear answer: No.  All the while birth control has been on the rise for decades, abortion has been too.  This actually shouldn’t be surprising because birth control was created to divorce babies from sex and abortion does the same.  So while the means of the two can be different (prevent a baby from existing versus ending the life of a baby who exists), the end result is the same (sex without babies).

The connection between birth control and abortion can even be seen in the timelines of their entrance into modern culture: In 1960 in the United States, the birth control pill was approved for contraceptive use.[2]  Nine years later in Canada the Trudeau government made it legal to disseminate, sell and advertise birth control products.[3]  That same year in Canada, legal abortion made its way into the country, and just three years later the same happened in America.  With there being over 1 million abortions annually in the US[4] and approximately 100,000 abortions annually in Canada[5], all alongside widespread birth control usage, it is simply wrong to conclude birth control prevents abortion.

If anything, birth control actually creates an environment for abortion.  Indeed, even the pro-abortion organization Guttmacher Institute admits, “Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant…”[6]

That statistic is backed up in the mentality of many who think birth control usage actually gives people license for abortion access.  Consider a pro-abortion pre-law student who said the following to me at a pro-life exhibit:

“If someone used several methods of contraception then they shouldn't be forced to keep a child in their uterus.  If my body is like a house, use of contraception is like locking your doors.  And if someone breaks into your house when your doors are locked, it's not your fault and you can kick them out.  Maybe if someone didn't use contraception abortion would not be reasonable (analogous to keeping your doors open and inviting someone in, a degree of negligence in a way), but with the presence of contraception, I'm putting up a 'keep off my property' sign.”

One could actually use this student’s own illustration to rebut her point, saying that because no birth control is 100% effective, using birth control is like putting up a “keep off my property” sign a certain percentage of the time, but for the other percentage (i.e., failure rate), it is like putting up a “come on in” welcome sign. 

More fundamentally, though, her point shows that birth control usage and abortion are fruits from the same tree: they are connected in that both attack the bond between sex and new life.  In the minds of many in our culture, when birth control fails to adequately keep life separated from sex, abortion is a reasonable follow up.  That is why birth control will not prevent abortion.

[1] “Frequently Asked Questions: Contraception,” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, http://www.acog.org/-/media/For-Patients/faq021.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20150730T1600096966 Accessed July 30, 2015.

[2] “A brief history of the birth control pill,” Alexandra Nikolchev, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/a-brief-history-of-the-birth-control-pill/480/ Accessed July 30, 2015.

[3] “Triumph of the Pill: The Pill Turns 50,” John Allemang, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/the-pill-turns-50/article572652/?page=3 Accessed July 30, 2015.

[4] “Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States,” https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Accessed July 30, 2015.

[5] “Annual Abortion Rates,” http://abortionincanada.ca/stats/annual-abortion-rates/ Accessed July 30, 2015.

[6] “Fact Sheet: Induced Abortion in the United States.”  This particular fact sources the following: Jones RK, Frohwirth L and Moore AM, More than poverty: disruptive events among women having abortions in the USA, Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 2012, 39(1):36–43.

Berkeley & Bodily Rights, by Stephanie Gray

I recently wrote here about my participation in an abortion forum against Dr. Malcolm Potts (above) at the University of California, Berkeley.  In that post I quoted from a student who e-mailed me a question and followed that with my response.  That same student replied to that message with more questions, and my reply is below, addressing the topics of the beginnings of life, anencephaly, and bodily rights:

Dear [student's name],

Great to hear your follow up reflections and questions--thank you for continuing to engage this discussion.  I think it's a good one!

You wrote, "I guess I see human beings as needing a brain in order to truly live."

I'd like to propose the idea that it's not about what "I see" or "you see."  It's about what is, and about us conforming to that reality.  Leo Tolstoy once said that "Truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off from it everything that isn’t gold.”

So when we wash away conveniences, interests, etc., and look at the science of embryology there is no denying the scientific fact that the youngest human beings amongst us do not need a brain in order to truly live.  This isn't about whether one is aware of her life or enjoying her life, this is about whether one is a separate being, an organism, who is not dead.  

Again, you make it about your views, not about science, when you write, "To me, this unique, 'fascinating' quality of an embryo developing with no brain to guide it effectively disqualifies it from being human."  On what scientific basis?  If the embryo's parents are human, wouldn't it logically follow that the embryo must be human too?  If, as time goes on and the embryo grows up into a fetus, infant, toddler, and teen, all of whom are alive, then wouldn't it logically follow that the embryo they grew from couldn't have been dead, since living things come from other living things?

You write, "I suppose you and I may differ on our definitions of 'alive,' which again comes back to where in human development we choose to assign human rights."  If we assign human rights based on development, then we don't believe in human rights, and that's a problem (as problematic as assigning human rights based on ethnicity).   As a refresher, one of the points I made in my presentation was that women get women's rights and children get children's rights.  The necessary criteria for each is not doing something, it's being something (in these cases, being women or being children).  Likewise, with human rights, it's not about doing it's about being; namely, being human. That's it.

You wrote, "I can't help but think of Dr. Potts' story about the newborn he delivered that was born without a brain; he killed it because it was essentially a shell of a baby with no nervous system to grant it human capacity."  If the newborn wasn't alive, why would Dr. Potts have killed her?  His very act of killing her is proof that she was very much alive.  So is his own language: He said, "I wanted that to die as quickly as possible."  His very word choice is an admission that she wasn't dead yet.  Plus, his claim that no child with anencephaly lives longer than 12 hours is simply false: this child Faith who had anencephaly lived for several months after birth.  Furthermore, a child with this condition isn't brain dead--she's brain damaged, and there's a significant difference.

Now, I don't deny that most children born with anencephaly do not live long after birth; something to consider about that is this: Do those of us who will live longer have a right to kill those who will live shorter?  

Your final point you asked about was this: "There is a concept called body autonomy. It's generally considered a human right. Bodily autonomy means a person has control over who or what uses their body, for what, and for how long. It's why you can’t be forced to donate blood, tissue, or organs. Even if you are dead. Even if you’d save or improve 20 lives. It’s why someone can’t touch you, have sex with you, or use your body in any way without your continuous consent.  A fetus is using someone’s body parts. Therefore under bodily autonomy, it is there by permission, not by right. It needs a person's continuous consent. If they deny and withdraw their consent, the pregnant person has the right to remove them from that moment. A fetus is equal in this regard because if I need someone else’s body parts to live, they can also legally deny me their use."

Great question, and it's one I answer in my book to be released next month.  Briefly, however, I will respond for you to consider the following:

Consider all you said above in light of an infant.  That born child requires her caregiver's body, whether breastmilk in the case of the mother, or the hands and arms that will prepare formula and bottle-feed the baby.  What if a caregiver decides they no longer wish to use their breasts, hands, or arms to meet the basic needs of an infant--that, in particular, they believe their right to bodily autonomy absolves them of further responsibility for this child?  What if they cease to hold, feed, clothe, change, and shelter the child?  They abandon her and she dies.  Would we say the caregiver should be at fault for neglect and homicide?  

From this thought experiment we can deduce this principle: parents have a responsibility to their offspring they don't have to strangers, and that responsibility involves meeting a child's basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter--and meeting those needs involves the parents using their bodies in some way.

Moreover, if you read this reflection I wrote for my previous ministry, I point out that the uterus is unlike someone's blood, tissue, or other organs, in that while my blood and body parts exist in my body for my body, my uterus is unique from the others in that it exists in my body, but more for someone else's body.  Proof of that is that my uterus, every month, is getting ready for the body of my offspring.  I can exist without my uterus, but my offspring cannot.  Therefore, a child can claim a right to be housed in the uterus the way an infant can claim a right to be nurtured: Just as an infant needs to be bottle or breast fed, and the caregiver has a moral duty to use her body to meet the child's needs (but does not have a moral duty to do so if the child is an independent adult), so too, just as an embryo or fetus needs to be fed by the umbilical cord, the mom has a moral duty to use her body to meet the child's needs.

I hope you find this helpful insight!

All the best, 
Stephanie

Berkeley & Brains, by Stephanie Gray

That's me with some of the Students for Life at Berkeley before the big event.

On November 23, I gave a pro-life presentation alongside Dr. Malcolm Potts, the first medical director for International Planned Parenthood who gave a pro-abortion presentation; together, we spoke to over 400 students in a Public Health 116 class at the University of California, Berkeley.  Although the Q & A which followed our presentations allowed for a small opportunity to rebut each other's views, unfortunately the format of the evening didn't give time for a formal rebuttal of each other's lengthy presentations themselves.  

As it should happen, one of his students e-mailed me a question that came from a point Dr. Potts made, giving me a chance to provide a rebuttal.  Here is the student's e-mail and my response as a teaching tool:

Question from a Berkeley Student:

I am a second-year student at UC Berkeley, and I just returned home after listening to yours and Dr. Potts' presentations tonight. First of all, I would like to thank you for coming and starting the conversation here; Berkeley is a tough place to bring up pro-life arguments but you were incredibly interesting to listen to. 

I am very curious to hear your thoughts regarding the issue of life support. If you consider an embryo to have human rights no matter the status of its brain development, what do you think about the ethics of taking someone off life support after they become brain dead? An embryo with no brain development is fundamentally in the same state as a human that is brain dead, so do you think it is ethical to keep someone who is essentially a shell of a human "alive" on life support? 

In other words, where do you draw the line between when it is humane to "pull the plug" on an embryo versus a brain dead patient? If they have the same mental capacities (none), then why would one be okay to kill over another?

Hope my question(s) makes sense. Again, thanks so much for bringing this discussion up. It was the most engaging lecture I have experienced in this class all semester. My friends and I were discussing it the entire walk home, and I must applaud you on your bravery when faced with an auditorium full of liberal Berkeley students!

My reply:

Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful e-mail.  Although the topic is a sensitive and touchy one, you and your classmates were respectful and welcoming and I appreciate that--thank you!

I think you've asked a fantastic question!  There is an article called "Life: Defining the Beginning by the End" that I'd like to recommend to you here and would love your feedback on.  That article is authored by the same professor of neurobiology, Dr. Maureen Condic, whose paper, "When Does Human Life Begin?" I mentioned in my presentation last night.  What makes the first link so insightful as regards to your question, is that Dr. Condic points out that brain death criteria is what should cause us to conclude that we should protect the pre-born, rather than not protect them. She writes, 

"Embryos are in full possession of the very characteristic that distinguishes a living human being from a dead one: the ability of all cells in the body to function together as an organism, with all parts acting in an integrated manner for the continued life and health of the body as a whole."

Dr. Condic further explains the nature of the living embryo, as follows:

"Organisms are living beings composed of parts that have separate but mutually dependent functions. While organisms are made of living cells, living cells themselves do not necessarily constitute an organism. The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner. We can take living organs and cells from dead people for transplant to patients without a breach of ethics precisely because corpses are no longer living human beings. Human life is defined by the ability to function as an integrated whole”not by the mere presence of living human cells. 

"What does the nature of death tell us about the beginning of human life? From the earliest stages of development, human embryos clearly function as organisms. Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances."

What I like to point out to people is this: A brain dead person is dead because they have complete and total, irreversible cessation of the entire brain.  In short, we could say their brains are "no more."  In contrast with the early embryo, their brains are "not yet."  Consider this simple analogy: A green banana will become a yellow one, but a brown banana will never become a yellow one.  The brain dead person will never again have a functioning brain, whereas the early embryo will, in fact, develop a functioning brain.   In a sense, this means embryos are more impressive than you and me; here's what I mean by that: You and I have developed to the point that we need our brains, so that if our brains are "no more" we ourselves are no more too (hence, "irreversible" cessation).  You and I cannot live without our brains.  The early embryo, however, has an incredible ability you and I do not have: the early embryo can in fact live without her brain (otherwise, if the early embryo, without a brain, were actually dead then the embryo would never develop into the fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, and adult like she does).  She can move through some stages of human development without the very thing you and I need to continue moving through our stages of human development.  Fascinating, eh?! [And the Canadian in me slips out ;)].

One final point I'd make is this: In the case of a truly brain dead person, there is no ethical dilemma about "unplugging" them because they are dead.  There may be other cases, however, where someone's brain is not dead, but rather is damaged, which raises questions about how we determine what medical interventions to use or not use on such individuals.  I've developed an FAQ here, which gives perspective on end-of-life matters.

I hope that was helpful.  Thank you again for your thoughtful message, and please know that I'd be happy to hear from you again should you have more questions or feedback. 

All the best, and happy American thanksgiving!
Stephanie :)

Suffering Unleashes Love

On September 12, 2015, I gave a presentation (called "Love Unleashes Life") at Calgary's 40 Days for Life formation afternoon.  In that presentation, I quoted from St. John Paul II's "Salvifici Doloris" (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering).  He wrote,

"We could say that suffering . . . is present in order to unleash love in the human person, that unselfish gift of one’s 'I' on behalf of other people, especially those who suffer. The world of human suffering unceasingly calls for, so to speak, another world: the world of human love; and in a certain sense man owes to suffering that unselfish love that stirs in his heart and actions."

The wonderful Victor Panlilio kindly recorded my presentation, and this (above) is a one and a half minute clip he put together.