Choose Life

Following is the text of the message prepared by Cardinal O'Connor for Respect Life Sunday, Oct. 7. The cardinal is chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on pro-life activities.

      Moses put it very simply. He was close to death. He called all the people together and said to them: "Today I am giving you a choice between good and evil, between life and death...between God's blessing and God's curse, and I call heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Choose life." (Deut 30:15,18)

     Moses knew something about choice. At the time of his birth it was the law of the land that all male Hebrew babies be immediately put to death at birth. The midwives had a direct order from the king to throw every male Hebrew baby into the Nile River. The midwives had to make a choice between their own possible deaths from disobeying the law, and the lives of male Hebrew babies. The Scriptures tell us: "But the midwives were God-fearing and so did not obey the king; instead, they let the boys live." One such male Hebrew baby that they chose to save was Moses. Moses grew up to lead the Israelites out of slavery under the Egyptians toward the Promised Land.

     No wonder Moses told the people: Choose Life.

     There is much talk today about the right to choose. That's good. It shows we understand what it is to be human. Only human beings have free will, that is, the freedom to make deliberate choices. That's a right God himself has given us; the ability to choose. At the same time, god has given us the ability to reason. The two gifts go together. We are expected to choose what is reasonable.

     That's just plain common sense. When we see people doing something unreasonable, or irrational, we know there's something wrong. No one would argue that it would be reasonable for a mother to choose death for her own baby if she realized what she were doing. It's simply not natural for a mother to do that. The natural choice is life.

     Thank God our government recognizes our right of free choice. But thank God, too, that our government restricts the exercise of free choice if the choice impacts adversely on the rights of others.  There have been tragic periods in our history when our government has failed to do this. The most infamous was represented by the Dred Scott decision, when the Supreme Court went "pro-choice" in the matter of slavery.

     Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote the decision in the Dred Scott case. We are told that he was "a deeply religious Roman Catholic." He was "personally opposed" to slavery, yet he ruled that slaves were not citizens and could not become citizens; therefore, they could not b e protected by the Constitution.

      Justice Taney presumably did what he believed was right. Thank God the 13th and 14th Amendments declared him wrong. To their everlasting credit it was largely the leadership of Protestant ministers that brought slavery to an end.

      As the Taney Court of 1856, so the Supreme Court of 1973 also departed tragically from the normal principle of our government: to restrict free choice if it deprives others of important rights. The majority of the Court argued about unborn children as much as Chief Justice Taney had argued about slaves. Since they have not yet been born, they cannot be considered citizens. Hence, they have no right to be protected by the constitution. Therefore, a mother is free to choose what is unnatural: the death of her unborn child. (It is important to not that the Court never declared the unborn to be not a human being, only to be a non-citizen.)

     The 1973 Court undoubtedly did what it believed to be right. A later court may well declare the 1973 Court wrong.

     Whatever the court does, we do not have the right to lose hope that one day we will convince the country at large of the naturalness of the pro-life cause. We get discouraged when we read newspaper headlines that "pro-choice" politicians have been elected and "anti-abortion" politicians have been defeated. Such news, however, is misleading. For example, in the 22 recent congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections where abortion was a key issue, only six of those elected are pro-abortion, while 16 are pro-life.

     Moreover, the primary purpose of the pro-life movement is not to win political office, but to save lives. Legislation and political action favorable to human life can be important. Influencing hearts and minds in favor of human life is infinitely more important. There are differing opinions within the pro-life movement about how best to advance the cause of human life. This is to be expected in every moment. St. Paul tells us there are different charisms, and we must respect all of them. At the same time, of course, common sense tells us we must try at all costs to unify our very best efforts.

     That we have reason to hope is demonstrated as well by recent polls we believe to be completely objective. They reveal that far more people agree with our position about the rights of unborn children than we have been led to believe by poorly constructed or deceptive polls, or by some sectors of the press. The pro-life sentiment in our country is far stronger than many people have imagined. And it is getting stronger.

     For example, one recent national poll revealed that 42 percent of Americans believe the unborn's right to life outweighs the mother's right of choice from the very moment of conception onward. An additional 13 percent believe that at the first heartbeat the unborn's right to life outweighs the mother's right of choice. Still an additional 6 percent hold the same position from the time of the first movement of the unborn, and finally, another 17 percent hold this position from the moment the unborn becomes "viable." That all adds up to a remarkable 78 percent!

     Ironically, we find that an overwhelming number of abortions have taken place not for "pro-choice" reasons, but precisely because pregnant reason believed they had no choice. They didn't know where to turn. They were confused, embarrassed, poor, at risk of losing their jobs, or pressured by some such reason. One telephone survey found that 91 out of 100 women who had abortions had done so because they believed they had no choice. Ninety-one out of 100 stated flatly that had they known they had another option, they would not have had an abortion!

     That finding demonstrates once again that all of us must do everything we can to provided choices other than abortion: financial and emotional support, jobs, freedom from fear, insecurity and embarrassment, and so on. We must, also, publicize widely what we have to offer. Moreover, we must applaud the courage and heroism of so many single parents who have sacrificed so much to bear their children and preserve their lives, and do everything we can to assist them.

     At the same time, we must recognize the sincerity of many who do not agree with us, even those who criticize us  severely. Many believe that an abortion is best for their young daughter, even though they may believe abortion is wrong in itself. Some people really do not believe that the unborn is truly human and believe that they are doing nothing seriously wrong in having or promoting abortions. Such people are certainly not lost to God's love, nor must they be lost to ours. Obviously, those who respect all life as sacred must refrain from hatred and vitriolic attacks on those who do not share our positions. We have the right to be deeply distressed by what they may do, even justifiably angered; but we never have the right not to love.

     At the same time, of course, while we must be infinitely gentle, compassionate and kind to a woman or young girl who is a victim of abortion, or a parent who, after agonizing over it, has encouraged a daughter to have an abortion, we can never fudge the truth: that an abortion is the killing of an innocent little human being. About that, science leaves little doubt. It can no longer be argued that abortion is merely a religious-or a Catholic-issue, or that we Catholics or others are "imposing our moral beliefs on society." There is far too much scientific evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof that the unborn is not human is on those who are "pro-choice." Few people are prepared to argue that anyone has the right to kill a human being.

     We can no longer hide behind ignorance. Science has left us no place to hide. Nor is this a brand new discovery. All the way back in 1962, a pamphlet attributed to Planned Parenthood told teenagers: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

     No one could look at the pages of the recent Life magazine (August 1990) without recognizing what nature has been telling us all along: that the natural choice is life, not death.

     Finally, I would like to repeat something I said in a column I wrote recently called, "Abortion: Questions and Answers." (Catholic New York, June 14, 1990)

     The ultimate answer to abortion, I believe, lies in an understanding of love. There is probably no term we use more loosely than love. We often call sexual relations "making love," when no true love may be involved at all. Frequently we speak of a couple's being "in love," when they are simply experiencing intense infatuation.

     Love doesn't come and go with the wind. Love is unselfish, always ready to give. Our Lord tells us that there is no greater love than to lay down our lives for others.

     There are good parents who are tempted to encourage a daughter to have an abortion because they love her.

     Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if they encouraged her to protect her baby with the same kind of love that they are trying to show toward her? It seems to me that parents must ask themselves if they are thinking of their daughter or of themselves. That question is not intended to be cruel. Most parents are embarrassed or ashamed  if a daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock. Abortion can be an all-too-easy way out. In fact, I have known parents who have virtually forced abortions on daughters who didn't want them. Is that true love?

     In a very special way, men need to understand the sacredness of their own bodies and the bodies of women. They should be taught that sexual intimacies are intended for marriage. In the event that they have caused a woman to get pregnant, they must not only be aware of their responsibilities, they must be encouraged and helped to fulfill those responsibilities.

     There is another characteristic of true love that is pertinent to the whole question of abortion.  A girl who loves herself as she should will try to refrain from sexual relations outside marriage, or if married, will try to use periodic abstinence or Natural Family Planning in order to avoid pregnancy, rather than to risk a pregnancy with the intention of having an abortion if it occurs. A man who loves a woman will discipline himself likewise. If both yield to temptation, then love requires that they share the responsibility in every way.

     Obviously, love of God requires that we keep His commandments. This still means in the 20th century what it has always meant: sexual intimacies outside marriage are wrong. If we love young people we will not hesitate to teach them this.  We must never underestimate them. Far more young people are prepared to understand this and live accordingly than some adults realize. But adults must set the standards. Adults must be very clear in their own minds that lust is not love, and that, with the help of the sacraments, purity is possible. Handing out contraceptives or birth control pills is hardly evidence that you believe that young people are capable of withstanding temptation.

     If we teach a true love of life, the life of the unborn, the aged, the disabled, the blind, deaf, retarded, if we teach that God loves every life He creates, we go a long way towards ending abortion. The God of love has given to human beings the incredible capacity to share in His creation. We call that sharing "procreation." The God of love never intended that human beings would kill human beings. Love is always creative, never destructive.

      Finally, only God knows what pro-life workers have accomplished; how many lives they have saved, how many men and women they have helped, how many families. But of this we can be absolutely certain: without such efforts the pro-life movement would have long since die, and abortion would be less and issue today than smoking in restaurants. In the year 1990 abortion is a crucial issue, because so many people have sacrificed so much to make it so.

     If we spend the rest of our lives in an effort to save one Moses, or any other infant, could our struggle be called wasted? If any of us went into a burning building, or dove into icy waters, to save one baby, the community would bestow a medal for heroism, and we would always remember saving a single life. God knows the lives those in the pro-life movement have saved. Thank God for them.

     Might it be suggested that we all pray far more to our Blessed Mother, who knew the anxieties and the pain that can accompany a pregnancy. She suffered misunderstanding and was an embarrassment to others because she was pregnant.  She knew poverty and homelessness to the degree that her baby had to be brought forth from a stable. After He was born, she was told that both He and she were to suffer severely. Both did. No one knows more about suffering than does Mary.

     Let us pray to Joseph, too, to ask his protection for the unborn. He was chosen by God to protect Mary and her child. We must ask Joseph to remind men responsible for pregnancies to accept their responsibilities and not to abandon the mother of the children they help conceive, or the children themselves. Mary's pregnancy was terribly difficult for this "just man," who was minded to put Mary away privately. He understands.

     Finally, each of us each day can whisper a little Hail Mary for the cause of life. We can do a little bit of penance-give up a sweet, or a cup of coffee, or a drink, or whatever. This requires no organization, no great "movement," but it could very possibly move mountains of fear, or indifference, or ignorance or hostility. It could very possibly mean the difference between life and death. The natural choice is life.

<--Back to Abortion Information