[Forty-three years ago], the United States Supreme Court ruled that the sin and crime of abortion is legal in our nation. I wonder if, in their naivete, they thought that their decision would lay to rest the ongoing debate about the morality of abortion. If so, they were very much mistaken; here we are, [forty-three]years later, still deeply divided as a nation over the question. Let me read to you a letter to the editor of the Houston Chronicle that appears in today’s newspaper. It has to do with a column that recently appeared in the Chronicle, having to do with a human embryo which survived hurricane Katrina in some hospital or clinic. The writer says this:
Embryos contain DNA, but not small-sized people! There is no human being in an embryo, no little soul striving for life. An embryo is not a fetus. I would go further and point out that a fetus is not a child, either, but I’m sure the logic of that would be lost. This article was absurd at the very least. If this were complex science, I could understand the confusion; but this is at the level of basic animal husbandry, biology 101.
There are many things that might be said about the letter. For one thing, how does the writer know that “there is no human being in an embryo”? I suppose it depends upon how one defines a human being. And then, he says that an embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child. Then, I wonder, how far can we take that line of “reasoning,” if it can be dignified with that name? If an embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a child, then presumably a child is not an adult. So, where does the humanity begin? Only with adulthood? Then is it licit to kill embryos, fetuses, infants, children, and teenagers up to the legal age of eighteen or twenty-one? We are already seeing the atrocity of the so-called “partial-birth abortion,” in which, at the very moment of birth, a large needle is inserted into the back of the skull and the brains are sucked out.
In contrast with a letter like that, let me tell you about Peter. Peter is a child whom I know, the grandchild of dear friends of mine. Several months before Peter’s birth, an accident occurred and his mother lost the amniotic fluid in which an unborn child lives and moves up until the time of birth. If the amniotic fluid is lost, the baby can no longer move freely and is usually fixed in one position, causing some sort of paralysis. Peter’s mother went to see her obstetrician, who recommended to her that she “terminate the pregnancy.” The pro-death proponents don’t like to talk about abortion; they prefer to “terminate pregnancy,” just as they don’t talk about children or babies before birth, but rather “fetuses, embryos, or DNA.”
Peter’s mother did indeed terminate something: she terminated the medical services of that obstetrician and found another doctor who would not recommend that she kill her baby.
Peter is now a very bright, very delightful, and very successful high-school boy — the pride and joy of his parents and family.
Let us pray for the reversal of the Roe vs. Wade decision by which abortion was legalized in this country. And let us remember that although the nine justices who sit in Washington are called the “Supreme Court,” there is another court which is even more supreme than they are: it is the court composed of three justices: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And it has said, and will always continue to say: “Thou shalt not kill.” Thank you for seeking God’s truth. God bless you. Father Victor Brown, O.P.
Note: This message was composed some years ago.