When we think of the women in this country seeking abortions, we often call to mind the image of the young single woman–possibly college-aged or even a little younger–at too delicate a stage of life to take on the responsibilities of motherhood. Turns out that the majority of abortions in this country do not fit this image. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research agency for Planned Parenthood, 61% of women in 2008 who procured an abortion were already mothers. A recent article in Slate Magazine provides a glimpse into the hearts and minds of this demographic:
A few months ago, I was late. You know what I mean: My usual period day came and went without a spot, and suddenly every wave of exhaustion, every twinge of anxious nausea, became a harbinger of a very unintended pregnancy, a sign that my NuvaRing had failed me. I’m married, happily at that. And I’m a mother, happily as well. But our family feels “complete,” as demographers put it, at one child. And so my husband and I had to make a choice—or so we thought, for a very tense week before my body made the choice for me. As we lay awake at night whispering pros and cons for continuing the pregnancy, stopping only when our daughter padded in to snuggle under our covers in the predawn hours, I wondered if our mere deliberating might call into question my soundness as a mother. If I, already happily immersed in parenting, chose to terminate, wouldn’t I be unusual for doing so, maybe even stigmatized as a sort of prenatal Medea?
A qualitative study examining why mothers are having so many abortions found they are motivated primarily by the desire to be a good mother to the children they already have:
“The women believed that children were entitled to a stable and loving family, financial security, and a high level of care and attention. One fourth of the women had considered adoption but regarded it as being emotionally distressing. The findings demonstrate reasons why women have abortions throughout their reproductive life spans and that their decisions to terminate pregnancies are often influenced by the desire to be a good parent.”
This, the Slate article argues, is a hard demographic to demonize. And while we certainly shouldn’t demonize women who seek to abort, there is something deeply disturbing in the motivation of those who want to abort because their family feels complete and financially secure. These are by and large not women in danger of poverty or anything close to it. These are women who have created a life for themselves and for their families that they do not want disturbed.
The desire to provide a good life for your children is laudable indeed. It is perfectly reasonable to want your children to experience a certain level of parental attention, financial stability, comfort, and even luxury. No parent wants to tell a child that she can’t take piano lessons because they “can’t afford it” or that she can’t go on the church ski trip because it is “too expensive.” But how much of this reflects our desire to be good parents and how much reflects our own desire to live in relative comfort and stability?
Parenthood is a great gift and a vocation. But it also requires an awful lot of self-sacrifice and even more relinquishing of control. When one becomes a parent, one’s life (including life goals and desired standards of living) are no longer one’s own. The Slate article reflects a much broader assumption in our western middle-class culture that we are in control of our own lives, our own families, our own reproduction, and our own destinies. But this is the big lie. Families and children are reminders that as social creatures we are already everywhere in relationship, and whenever we act on our own desires, others, for good or for ill, are always impacted.
Lauren Sandler, the author of the Slate article, writes that she could have afforded another child if “only I moved to a less expensive ZIP code and got a job with a steadier paycheck.” But isn’t this exactly what she should do when faced with a surprise pregnancy? Shouldn’t she be willing to re-prioritize and scale back in order to welcome a new (surprise) child into her and her husband’s life? Should we heartily and sympathetically support her decision to abort because she likes her standard of living and doesn’t want to change?
Gilbert Meilaender puts it well in his Bioethics: A Primer for Christians:
We do not, ultimately, fashion the conditions of our life; rather, we live under God’s mysterious but providential governance. The unexpected–and even the unwanted–events of life are occasions and opportunities for hearing the call of God and responding faithfully. Sometimes, perhaps often, this will mean that we take up tasks and burdens we had not anticipated or desired, and they in turn may bring a certain measure of suffering. . .
To counsel the acceptance of the unwanted–acceptance even of the suffering it brings–is not to encourage mothers or fathers to be ‘victims.’ Rather, it is to call for the strength that virtuous action requires. One need not be a Christian to agree with Socrates that it is better to suffer evil than to do it, but certainly Christians should understand such a claim. If we seek to save ourselves by doing away with the child who is unwanted, we hand ourselves over to the destructive powers of the world in an attempt to avoid them, and we act as if those powers are ultimately worthy of our worship, as if they could save. . . That is not, I think, where finally we want to be (36-7).
When we read Lauren Sandler’s article, we should indeed conclude that if this is who we are, people who have come to see abortion as a matter of convenience and support for the middle-class way of life, this is indeed not who we finally want to be.
I think I would even go so far as to say that once a man and a woman get married, their lives are not their own anymore. They become “one flesh” and are thus called to constitute their lives as mutual acts of self-giving to each other and how that attitude of self-giving becomes reflective too in the procreation and rearing of children. This, as you note, concerns sacrifice. I am reminded of a passage from Familiaris consortio that I came across recently preparing for class: “Accordingly, the function of transmitting life must be integrated into the overall mission of Christian life as a whole, which without the Cross cannot reach the Resurrection. In such a context it is understandable that sacrifice cannot be removed from family life, but must in fact be wholeheartedly accepted if the love between husband and wife is to be deepened and become a source of intimate joy.”
In an age of self-fulfillment and consumerism, I am not surprised to find the absence of sacrifice; it is an antithetical notion in this culture unless it means some sort of quasi-personal self-fulfillment.
Beth, thanks for the links and for the careful reflection. While I can’t disagree with your conclusion, I’m less inclined to believe that the Lauren Sandlers of the world would be persuaded. If I am right about this, then we may be in need of a different discourse, one that is more concerned to address where we want to be than where we don’t want to be.
Toward that end, I think the temptation to lambast the “middle class culture” or “the age of self-fulfillment and consumerism” (James’ comment) ought to be resisted. Sure, trivial and misguided aspirations need to be identified for what they are, but the real business, it seems to me, is in illuminating the way of parental love and responsibility. In this vein, if we want to say that families should be ready move to “the less expensive zip code” (proverbially or literally), then we need to indicate how this may lead to a greater fulfillment of parental responsibility. In doing so, we can’t skirt the reality that, within that zip code, many of the social safety nets that are needed to protect and honor the dignity of children simply aren’t in place. If we do, we’re not helping parents to understand how such a move could ever be in the interests of their children or their marriage. And we’re not acknowledging, as we must, that welcoming and educating children is a responsibility that belongs to society as a whole, not simply parents.
My sense of things is that we have a long way to go to develop an authentic discourse about parenting within our theological and ecclesial cultures. At this point, I’m not even convinced that the ways that we tend to characterize contemporary parents (e.g., selfish, allergic to sacrifice) would even stick to the wall of reality.
Thanks for the thoughtful article, Beth. As one who (with his wife) is trained as a foster-to-adopt parent — just waiting on that phone call from the agency! — I was particularly concerned about the 1/4 who rejected adoption as “emotionally distressing.” Now, as a male, I cannot fully know what nine months of pregnancy does to a body, and as one without biological children, I cannot fully understand the difficulty of giving a child over to an adoptive family.
But that said, in adoption I think we have the possibilities to enact the kind of world that Steve is hinting at — a world that has more social safety nets, guided by a vision of God’s kingdom as one that welcomes *all* children. For the birth mother considering infant adoption, there are great chances to choose the adoptive parents. For the adoptive parents, there is the opportunity to provide the home that others might not be able to or want to (for *whatever* reason). And for friends and allies of both parties, there is the opportunity to bring God’s kingdom more fully by supporting the process in so many varied ways.
Incidentally, a book I’m currently reading (Adopted for Life, by Russell Moore) makes some wonderful connections between the theological doctrine of adoption and the social process of adopting children.
Very interesting…
I wondered while reading those quotations, and knowing that the study was done by PP’s own research institute, how much of this is just a promo for PP. They want it to look like they are primarily helping mothers to be better mothers for the children they already have.
And while we certainly shouldn’t demonize women who seek to abort . . . .
Why not? Or at least why not demonize them to the same extent others involved in the “abortion industry” are demonized? The pro-life movement seems to have its own brand of “political correctness,” and it requires that all women who choose to abort are to be apologized for and forgiven in advance. I can’t understand why, from the pro-life point of view, mothers who choose to abort so that they can be better mothers to their “post-born” children are not considered as voluntarily imposing on themselves a kind of “Sophie’s choice.” And from the pro-life point of view—for those who believe the moral worth of the unborn is no less than that of the “post-born”—why would it not be just as legitimate for a woman who is already a mother and is faced with an unplanned pregnancy to kill one of her living children to make a space for the child soon to be born?
What is it that pro-lifers don’t understand about their own claims that abortion is murder?
Two important reasons, David. First, not all killings of a person are first degree murder. Many things can affect the level of guilt: knowledge, coercion (especially as a result of power imbalance in various relationships), state of mind, etc. Generally, these concerns do not apply to the abortion provider, but very often apply to women who have abortions. Second, certain abortions are not direct killings and are better described as refusing to sustain a person with one’s body.
Also, why do you lump all pro-lifers together in that final question? Half the country describes themselves as pro-life, it is a wildly diverse group of people.
David,
I think if the author of this article chose to abort, it would be murder. And I still don’t think we should demonize her, any more than we should demonize any murderer. All people are children of God, and a comprehensive ethic of life demands that we see them as such. This is why “pro-life” Catholics should oppose the death penalty, in addition to abortion. There are other ways of opposing a woman’s actions who procures an abortion than turning her into a monster.
Beth– Thanks for posting this. I think Steve Miles is onto something very important here. First, of course I agree wholeheartedly that we live in a society where planning and technological control are valued in an excessive and often selfish way. On the other hands, even HV and the Catechism endorse the responsibility to regulate births in accord with justice (#2368). So the crucial question is: where does justice collapse into selfishness?
Here it becomes very difficult to avoid socio-economic questions. If we ignore the (very problematic!) emotivist claims about one’s family “feeling complete,” and instead focus on the claims that a child would necessitate a move and a job with a steadier paycheck, we run into immediate problems. Commitment to stable housing in our society often involves a hefty mortgage. ZIP codes are increasingly segregated by social conditions. If we presume that the author is free-lancing (and working from home?), a “steadier paycheck” may mean office work away from home. The very need for a steady paycheck indicates our inability to pay a primary wage-earner a just wage. Now, I’d be the first to say that one could examine every one of these assumptions for possible selfishness and excessive attachment to comfort. Could one simply get by on freelance work and sacrifice other goods? Is the need to move driven by incorrect assumptions of how large a house one actually needs? Yet at the same time, it is also not hard to imagine that these changes would be necessary… and potentially unjust.
Does any of this mean that an abortion is somehow justified? No, of course not. But it might lead us to reflect on “structures of sin” that impose unjust hardships on having children. The pursuit of middle-class luxury is not compatible with the Christian life. But the desire to send one’s children to Catholic schools (to use an obvious example) might be difficult to criticize as a luxury.
Thanks, David. I don’t want to judge the author’s particular circumstances since admittedly, I don’t know. I do think, however, that the middle-class lifestyle in general assumes that a certain standard of luxury is necessary as a prerequisite to having children (having the ability to give your child his or her own room, for example). I think home ownership in general is an assumption the middle-class takes for granted, and which becomes a sort of luxury. is renting really so bad? Do we really need a mortgage right now? And the middle-class lifestyle more often than not depends on two incomes, which means childcare for the children. I am wary of calling this is a structure of sin, however. I think social forces pressuring the middle-class to pursue few mortgages (and more rentals) or smaller homes or fewer cars or less “stuff” can possibly be a bad thing. It’s amazing how much of what we assume is part of a “normal middle-class lifestyle” we can actually do without. Moreover, it’s probably better overall for society for the gap between the middle-class and the poor to get a little narrower. The middle-class have been living richly, and I think we are beginning to see how unsustainable that way of life is.
As far as Catholic school being considered a luxury, I would love you to do a separate post on this, since it is a point I am personally conflicted about. My husband (who is not Catholic) feels very strongly that private school of any kind is a luxury, and encourages middle-class educated and highly involved parents to withdraw from the public school system, creating a sort of “white flight” in education. As a Catholic, my gut instinct is to want to send my kids to Catholic school (and to make Catholic schools more accessible for poorer families), though rationally, I find his arguments convincing. I also find it difficult to argue with his point that by not sending our kids to Catholic school, we can increase our overall charitable giving, which possibly does more to create a “Christian” way of life than having out kids get their primary school education in a Christian environment. As the expert on luxury, I turn to you for advice on how to discern.
The other point you made about regulating births is a good one and an important one. But to say that the church’s endorsement of general “birth regulation” supports creating a lifestyle which can only work if and only if one has no other future children seems a stretch to me. Shouldn’t young fertile couples create a lifestyle that is open to more children even if they are trying to regulate births? After all, a child is a gift and sometimes an unexpected one. Prudence seems to demand that married couples live in such a way that they are open to more children (meaning they are living within their means such that another child wouldn’t be an undue burden) even if they are trying to regulate births. The general attitude that “I am on birth control and so I can expect not to get pregnant” seems a dangerous one to me. This is precisely the contraceptive mentality that leads to abortion. It would be better to have the attitude “I am on birth control because we would prefer to not have more children right now, but we are open to whatever contingencies come our way, and we are still structuring our life in a way that is open to new life.”
First, not all killings of a person are first degree murder.
Charles,
It seems to me, according to the Catholic understanding, that somewhere around 99% of abortions performed in the United States are objectively murder. I am not raising the pointless question of whether women should be punished if abortion is criminalized. I am raising the question of moral culpability.
Many things can affect the level of guilt: knowledge, coercion (especially as a result of power imbalance in various relationships), state of mind, etc.
This is, of course, true of any wrongful act. It seems to me that for almost all seriously wrongful acts the consideration of subjective guilt is something that is discussed on a case-by-case basis after the act is performed. Mother Teresa said, “But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child—a direct killing of the innocent child—murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” But the message of the pro-life movement to the woman contemplating abortion is, “You are not responsible. If you have an abortion, it won’t be your fault. You will not be held accountable. You will be a victim, and we will be waiting with open arms to heal you!”
Second, certain abortions are not direct killings and are better described as refusing to sustain a person with one’s body.
Certainly you do not accept the “famous violinist” argument, do you?
Also, why do you lump all pro-lifers together in that final question?
I am talking about the “militant” pro-life movement—the people who argue that life (personhood) begins at conception and all abortions (including the “Phoenix abortion”) are the unjust taking of innocent human lives and who are working to make all (or almost all) abortions illegal.
But David, the Catholic tradition makes a huge point of distinguishing between objective claims about morality, and then subjective claims about moral guilt. One reason why we should not demonize women in the abstract over having abortions is similar to the reason we should not give all people who kill another person the same punishment: there are varying levels of moral responsibility for such acts.
Just like almost all pro-lifers, including the institutional Catholic Church, I accept that something like the Thomson argument applies in some cases of abortion. The Church, for instance, will allow indirect abortions (when a mother’s life is in danger) based on reasoning very similar to that of Thomson.
Can I respectfully suggest that you take care when you speak about ‘the’ pro-life movement? Few of the people who describe themselves as pro-life fall into the category you describe in your final point, and the point made at the end of your second response also lumps 10s of millions into a single viewpoint. Pro-lifers disagree about almost everything related to abortion: how to describe the moral status of the fetus/embryo, what a woman’s duty is to a fetus/embryo, which abortions are direct killing and which are not, what a woman’s or physician’s moral responsibility is with regard to various types of abortion, and, finally, about which parts of this could possibility be enacted in public policy. It is important to be careful to capture this complexity when you speak about ‘the’ pro-life movement.
But David, the Catholic tradition makes a huge point of distinguishing between objective claims about morality, and then subjective claims about moral guilt.
Charles,
While what you say is true of the Catholic tradition, it is not generally the case that when the official Catholic Church involves itself in “culture war” issues (euthanasia, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, human cloning), it emphasizes a possibly vast gap between objective actions and subjective guilt. And actually, I don’t think it is the official Catholic Church that does this in the case of abortion. It is certain very influential elements within the “pro-life” movement who want to make crystal clear that if abortion is criminalized, women will not be held legally accountable in any way. Anyone who raises the issue of possible punishment for women should abortion be criminalized is accused of engaging in “scare tactics” to try to discredit pro-lifers who want to criminalize abortion.
Can I respectfully suggest that you take care when you speak about ‘the’ pro-life movement?
I will try, but can you honestly point me to anyone claiming to speak for the pro-life movement—at least in its political manifestation—who does not emphasize the victimhood of women who procure abortions and who argues for criminal penalties for women should abortion be made illegal?
I was interested to see that when Arizona was debating their law to criminalize abortion for sex selection, some of the legislators thought there should be a penalty for a woman who procured an abortion because of the sex of her child. However, they failed to get any such provision in the bill. The bill does say the following: “A physician, physician’s assistant, nurse, sounselor or other medical or mental health professional who knowingly does not report known or suspected violations of this section to appropriate law enforcement authorities is guilty of a Class 6 Felony. However, the law also says, “A woman on whom a sex-selection or race-selection abortion is performed is not subject to criminal civil liability for any violation of this section or for a conspiracy to violate this section.”
Now, in other countries, there may very well be pressure on a woman to abort a female children and hope for boy children. But I don’t honestly think (to whatever extent their might be abortions for sex-selection in the United States) that a woman who procures an abortion for sex selection is so likely to be acting under pressure that she should automatically be exempt from consideration as possibly being culpable. And yet even in this case, all possibility of holding the woman legally responsible is explicitly ruled out. In abortion for sex selection, it is quite likely that the only person who even knows the motive for the abortion is the woman who procures it. Yet even in this situation, a majority of “pro-life” legislators could not bring themselves to send a message to a woman procuring an abortion for sex selection that she might be doing something wrong.
Let me add that I consider myself very fortunate to be able to discuss this issue with someone of your stature. I think sometimes I may come across as angry, which is not exactly the case. I am genuinely bewildered by what seems to me a very glaring contradiction in the stance of at least some in the pro-life movement on this issue. I would never suggest that a great many women who procure abortions are not in very difficult situations and—even if abortion is a form of murder—are far less subjectively culpable than objectively culpable. Most days, I personally don’t believe abortion is a type of murder, so of course I am looking at the issue quite differently from those pro-lifers who say that it is. However, I do think that abortion is a morally serious act and that abortion for mere sex selection (absent the pressures in other cultures) is deplorable. Also, I tend to feel much the same about abortion in the case of Down syndrome. And it bewilders me that if I—who am much more to the pro-choice end of the spectrum than the pro-life end—feel that some abortion decisions, freely made by pregnant women, are serious offenses against life, that those who are pro-life don’t ever want to put any burden of responsibility on women who choose abortion. And abortion is often chosen repeatedly. Close to half of all abortions in any give year are second, third, fourth, etc. abortions.