Embrace Those Who Suffer
by Natalie Hudson, Executive Director of Right-to-Life of Toronto
Although the right to have an abortion is upheld under "freedom of choice", most women have abortions precisely because they have no choice. They are in a binding predicament and they turn to abortion as the means of avoiding a life-altering situation that their pregnancy causes.
In the specific case of a pregnancy where the mother knows her child has a severe genetic disorder, this suffering can be acute. How will she care for her child? What kind of a life will her child live? The suffering of parents and their children causes untold anguish.
Part of the "human condition" is mankind's attempt to avoid suffering precisely because it causes pain, the antithesis of the universal and innate desire for happiness. Driven by a desire for happiness, mankind legitimately seeks to alleviate suffering, which often entails getting rid of the very thing that causes it.
But this is where abortion becomes a controversy. Can we, in our attempt to find happiness, "get rid" of those who cause us suffering, even if they are still developing within the womb of their mother? How do we balance the value of human life with the reality of human suffering? Can suffering be a legitimate reason to kill people? Can we consider life in the womb a person with the same claim to a right to life as that of the mother? The fundamental questions, then, that surround abortion as the means of avoiding severe genetic illnesses have to do with the value of human life and the meaning of human suffering.
What does it mean to be human? Definitions are important because they give us a working knowledge of the things we are talking about. A description of what something looks like is not always an adequate definition. It does not help us understand what a human being is since we all look different. Understanding the powers inherent in things is a better way of knowing what a thing is, because the powers are specific to the END for which the thing exists.
To illustrate this, take for example, an acorn. Describing its texture, colour, and shape would not adequately tell one "what it is". However if the definition included the fact that an acorn has the powers inherent in it that make it an oak tree, this would give us a better working knowledge of what an acorn is. So to apply the manner of knowing "what something is" to our own human nature, we need to look at what our END is, namely that for the sake of which we exist, and the powers that we have to attain that end.
The END of human existence, or that for the sake of which we exist, is happiness. All of our powers, intellectual, appetitive, and sentient are ordered towards happiness. I shower every day to stay clean and keep my friends, thus furthering my happiness. I study hard at school to achieve, which boosts both my self-esteem and my chances of a good job, which make me happy. I may do harmful things because I believe that they will further my happiness. For instance, I might take drugs believing that being "high" will contribute to my happiness. To be human then is to be a being that has the powers of attaining happiness.
But what is happiness? Throughout the centuries, philosophers, theologians, and more recently, psychologists and sociologists have found that happiness can be understood in four basic ways. The first kind of happiness is sensory pleasure caused by a physical stimulus. The second form comes from ego gratification or the sense of accomplishment, power or control that is felt by the exercise of our powers. Both of these forms are dependent on exterior things and last only as long as the external stimulus does. A third kind of happiness involves our will to do the good for others and society as a whole. A deep sense of happiness can be derived from self-abandonment in the service of others. Both Mother Teresa and Lady Diana serve as fitting examples of this kind of happiness; to be more willing to do the good for someone else than we are for ourselves.
But the fourth and ultimate level of happiness consists in the Transcendentals, those realities that transcend the material world, such as love, truth, beauty, goodness and justice. Human beings pursue the fulfillment of their powers unconditionally, perfectly and absolutely. We find a proportionate amount of happiness in perfect justice, as we feel discontent when things are not perfectly fair or equal. We feel anguish when we are only partially loved, when we are told half-truths, when we find things that are somewhat beautiful, and only fairly good. We rejoice in complete love, absolute truth, unconditional goodness and perfect beauty. The ultimate level of happiness can be understood as "the pursuit of the unconditional."
To be human then is to have the powers to seek, relate to and participate in perfect justice, goodness, beauty, truth and love. Is the unborn child a human being? Yes. Like the acorn, which biologists tell us already contains the powers of actualization, that is, it already IS an oak tree in the state of actualization, the powers to "pursue the unconditional" are present in our human nature from the moment of conception. At that moment, we not only have our genetic material but the powers of being a human being are already in motion; our humanness is there. The dignity that accompanies a being who can seek and participate in perfect goodness, justice, beauty, truth and love is unfathomable.
Genetic illnesses do not inhibit the participation of a human being in the highest forms of happiness, but ironically, can augment them. Perfect love, beauty, justice, goodness and truth are attainable by those who are infirm, disabled, elderly, or even dying. The sake for which we exist is not to avoid suffering, but to find meaning in the suffering that is unavoidable. Killing human beings can never be an answer to suffering, no matter how great that suffering may be.
Even if we doubt the personhood of the unborn child, or their ability to participate in what we might consider "quality of life", we cannot kill in the absence of certainty. We cannot risk taking away the intrinsic, inalienable rights of any person. It would be like saying, "We are not sure if there are people in that building over there, so we will just go ahead and blow it up anyway." Human life, no matter what its condition or level of development is sacred.
Plato said it is worse to do evil than to suffer it. To participate in the evil of taking an innocent human life does greater harm than involuntary suffering. Participation in an act that is intrinsically wrong destroys innocence and rains confusion and angst on the conscience of the individual who participates in it. A woman seeking to avoid the suffering of a child with a genetic illness may find that she incurs greater unhappiness through her participation in something that was so contrary to true human happiness.
Our society must learn to embrace those who are suffering and those who suffer with them. We have to look beyond an understanding of happiness that involves only the pleasures of bodies and minds that are strong and able to achieve. People who suffer from genetic illnesses have valuable lives to lead and valuable contributions to make. Those who assist them in their struggles have immeasurable lessons to learn.
Natalie Hudson is the Executive Director of Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area. Originally from South Africa, she spent much of her youth as a ballerina dancing in San Francisco and in Winnipeg with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. Her career was cut short in her early twenties due to an injury, but she soon found solace in studying the Great Books at Thomas Aquinas College, a Liberal Arts college in Southern California. She graduated in 1995 and worked on her Master's Degree in Theological Studies at Notre Dame Graduate School in Virginia. She was a high school teacher in Vancouver for four years and has recently completed a Graduate Business program at Capilano College in Vancouver. She has been speaking on Life Issues for the last three years and has addressed students of all ages. She is also on the Canadian Planning Committee for the Colebrook Society.
