My Daily Domestic Diigolet 09/15/2008

Pius XII returned to the sophism that the Church prefers the life of the child
over that of the mother. That is not true. “Never and in no case has the Church
taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It
is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the
child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of
the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case
as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save
the lives of both, of the mother and the child.” [16]
John XXIII carried forward the same principles, with special insistence on
the evil effects of legalized abortion on the whole of society, once its leaders
approve the slaying of the unborn. “Human life,” he wrote, “is sacred; from
its very inception the creative action of God is directly operative. By violating
his laws, the divine majesty is offended, the individuals themselves and humanity
are degraded, and the bonds by which members of society are united are enervated.” [17]
When the Second Vatican Council, in its Constitution regarding today’s world,
declared that “Life from its very conception must be guarded with the greatest
care,” and that “Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes,” it rested
its case on almost two millennia of Catholic faith and doctrine. Paul VI confirmed
this teaching with a special declaration in the clearest possible terms. “Respect
for human life,” he wrote, “is called for from the time that the process of
generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun
which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life
of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it
were not human already.” Consequently, “Divine law and natural reason exclude
all right to the direct killing of an innocent human being.” [18]

but to first ask ourselves how we might respond rightly in a similar situation.

n talking to my wife Janet, (the actual baby carrier in this family), she points out the following:
First, ultrasounds have been wrong.
Second, miracles happen sometimes.
Third, and most salient here: every baby she has had is dying.  The question is simply, when?  Most of them, God willing, will die in 50 to 70 years.  But they could die in five minutes.

When we put it that way, we suddenly realize: Knowing that the baby is going to die sooner rather than later is no reason to kill the baby.  It is, says Janet, a reason to love the baby for as long as you can while it’s here.  That’s very painful, but that is the risk we take every time we choose to love because everything we love in this world is mortal.  It may be objected that an anencephalic baby cannot appreciate our love.  I would reply that a healthy baby does not appreciate our love either, because a healthy baby has no more mind than a baby born without a brain.  The whole point of parenthood, especially in its earliest stages, is radical self-giving (like Christ) to a being who is wholly incapable of giving anything back besides a sucking reflex.  It’s an analogy of the grace of God, the great wake-up call, enfleshed, that It’s Not about Me and What I Get from It.  A short course in the life of the Blessed Trinity.

In contrast, the unspoken contract, it seems to me, of much of our culture is that the baby is there for the sake of the parents and if the baby is not Perfect, then the parents have the right to break the deal.  Speaking of playing God….
Finally, as a Catholic I would note that, if aborted, a baby has no access to the sacrament of Baptism.  We can, of course, still entrust unbaptized babies to the mercy and love of God, but I would not be able to look God in the eye and tell him I denied my baby the sacrament because my feelings were more important than his eternal welfare.
These are all things I would say to myself if I were weighing the matter.  They