Stephanie Gray

Does an unborn baby have the right to use his mother’s body?

Stephanie Gray
Image

This week I’ll be making a return trip to speak at my alma mater, UBC. This upcoming engagement has brought to mind an encounter I had with a philosophy and pre-law student at that same campus just a few months ago.

The young woman was justifying abortion from the perspective of abortion advocate Judith Jarvis Thompson who argues that even if the pre-born are human persons, they do not have a right to use another person’s body without consent.  Given that this argument continues to be raised by some who support abortion, I thought it would be helpful to create an imaginary exchange between two people debating this perspective:

AA (Abortion Advocate): If a famous violinist was going to die and someone who had the right body type to keep him alive was kidnapped in order to be plugged into the violinist, wouldn’t we say that while the violinist is a full human person he doesn’t have the right to use another’s body without consent?  Wouldn’t we say that the kidnap victim has no obligation to keep the violinist plugged into him, and that just as the kidnap victim may unplug the violinist, a woman may “unplug” her fetus?

PL (Pro-Lifer): Well, for the violinist scenario to be analogous to abortion you’d have to turn around and dismember the violinist’s body, cutting it to pieces.

AA: So are you saying if abortion is merely removal that it’s okay?

[This reaction is where we see this typical pro-life response is not that strong a point, which is why we need to go on.]

PL: Fair enough.  No, I’m not, because even if you merely “removed” or “unplugged” the pre-born child without dismemberment, it would still be killing and still be wrong.  If you unplug the violinist who doesn’t have a right to your kidneys, she dies of kidney disease.  If you unplug the fetus, she dies because you directly killed her.  In one situation (violinist) a person is dying.  In another (pregnancy), a person is living.  Furthermore, a parent has a responsibility to her offspring she doesn’t have to strangers.

AA: So then consider that the person plugged into you, using your kidneys, is your own child—if you can unplug that child you can unplug the fetus.

PL: Parents have a responsibility to meet the ordinary needs of their children, not the extraordinary ones.  So, for example, parents aren’t obligated to take their kids to Disneyland but they are obligated to feed, clothe, and shelter their children.  Pregnancy is analogous to the latter, not the former.  Giving your kidneys, even to your own child, would be extraordinary.  After all, kidneys exist in my body, for my body; therefore, there isn’t an obligation to give those in the way the uterus exists in my body, every month, getting ready for someone else’s body, so there is an obligation to “share” that, so to speak, with the pre-born child.

AA: I don’t see why that matters.

PL: Well let me explain through analogy: Imagine you just gave birth but didn’t want to breastfeed your baby.  You have formula and bottles all ready to provide nourishment for your child that way.  But suddenly, you and your newborn are kidnapped and locked in a cabin in the woods. There is solid food for you to eat but no bottles or formula for the baby.  Would you be obligated to breastfeed your child or could you justify letting her starve because you didn’t want to use your breasts [a body part, like the uterus, designed to provide nourishment to one’s offspring] to help your child?

[It is also worth noting that even when one opts for formula and bottles, the mom must use /her own body/ to prepare the meal and hold the child and put the bottle in the baby’s mouth—thus “using” her body to help their child’s body.]

AA: But if someone used several methods of contraception then they shouldn’t be forced to keep the child in their uterus.  If my body was like a house, use of contraception is like locking your doors.  And if someone breaks into your house when your doors are locked, it’s not your fault and you can kick them out.  Maybe if someone didn’t use contraception then abortion would not be reasonable (analogous to keeping your doors open and inviting someone in, a degree of negligence in a way), but with the presence of contraception, I’m putting up a “keep off my property” sign.

PL: Your example isn’t analogous.  Because no contraception is 100% effective, the failure risk is like you actively unlocking your doors and physically welcoming that person into your home (even if only for a small percentage of time).  Further, pregnancy from failed contraception is not analogous to a burglar breaking into your home because the latter requires the burglar unlocking a locked door and it is also an action done independent of you—there’s nothing you did to make the burglar break into your home. On the contrary with your analogy, however, when you have sex, you yourself have done something that “unlocks” your doors and you physically place the pre-born child in your “house” by engaging in an act, sex, which has pregnancy as an outcome.  Breaking into a home cannot be directly associated with unlocking your door, but pregnancy is directly associated with having sex.  As a result, having sex is like setting up a sign that says “come onto my property” and then walking someone through the process of entering your home.

AA: Well what if someone is raped?  She didn’t choose to have the action which brought about that consequence?

PL: Certainly it’s true that when we consent to an action (like sex) we have to accept the consequences (like pregnancy).  But saying that you are responsible for the consequences of choices you consented to, does not mean that when you don’t consent to something, you have license to do whatever you want in response to that unjust situation.

So in the case of rape, the pre-born child is still the offspring of the woman (even though the baby’s creation was not willed by her).  The only way out for the next several months is to kill the child; therefore, that act of injustice is not acceptable even though a previous act of injustice occurred to the woman.  So, to borrow an example someone once mentioned to me, imagine you rowed a boat of yours far into the ocean one day.  After paddling for an hour, you suddenly discover that a baby is sleeping in that boat.  You could argue you didn’t consent to that baby being in your boat and you could even say you want the baby out right away, but if the only way of getting the baby out of your boat is to throw her into the water where sharks are, you may not do it.  Just as you would have to wait until you were able to pass the baby to someone else, so too it is with pregnancy from rape: the rape victim can certainly “pass” the baby to someone else through adoption at birth.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement

Justin Trudeau tramples the Charter

Stephanie Gray
Stephanie Gray
Image

Justin Trudeau has been lambasted for being against “choice” when it comes to how new Liberal candidates vote on bills related to abortion—he expects them to vote in favour of dismembering pre-born children, which includes children moments from birth.  But the problem with Trudeau is not his new expectation that representatives who align with a specific party align one particular way; rather, the problem with Trudeau is the specific position he holds on abortion.

Justin’s father Pierre may have given us the Charter, but it seems Justin himself hasn’t read it.  If he had, he would have seen The Charter is actually anti-abortion.

Most prominently, Section 7 guarantees “everyone” the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.  Who falls under the category “everyone”?  Considering that killing a dog, while perhaps outrageous, isn’t a Charter violation, but killing a toddler is, it seems reasonable to deduce that “everyone” refers to all members of the human family.  After all, that’s how the United Nations defines everyone in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To exclude some members of the human family from basic rights like the right to life, is to permit discrimination, thus violating Section 15 of the Charter as well: “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination…based on…age.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

To deprive the pre-born their right to life because they are inside of, and dependent on, their mothers’ bodies, or because they may not feel pain, or because they cannot think and reason, is to discriminate against them based on age.  After all, the pre-born are where they are because, in our species, at that age, that’s where you should be.  They are as dependent as they are because, in our species, at that age, you are dependent on your mother’s body.  They have a low level of development because, in our species, at that age, that’s the developmental level you should be at.

Why should those of us who are older be allowed to kill those who are younger?

But Justin seems to think they should be, making him an oversized bully who not only wants to maintain Canada’s status quo (which includes abortion late in pregnancy and for sex-selection) of ripping off the limbs of tiny human children for any reason, but he wants to ensure other Liberal party representatives do the same.

Reprinted with permission from Unmasking Choice

Share this article

Advertisement

Pro-life activists need strong minds, but also tender hearts

Stephanie Gray
Stephanie Gray

2014 marks my 15th year of doing public speaking and serious activism for the pro-life cause.  And over this time, I believe the most important development this experience has taught me can be captured in the observation of a priest friend of mine who heard me speak in 2005 and not again until 2013: “There’s something different about your presentations now,” he said. “They’re softer.  There’s a softness there that wasn’t there before.”

He’s right.  The past few years I have learned to balance the head with the heart.  Historically, when I would make an airtight (and I mean airtight) case against abortion (I knew how to navigate through the science and philosophy and argue so well that people would tell me to become a lawyer), I would observe that people would still disagree with me.  “How is that possible?” I’ve wondered. “The pro-life view is so logical.  It makes sense.  Why don’t people get it?”  Well I have come to see that, as I’ve written about here and here and here, peoples’ disagreement with the pro-life message often comes from a place of pain, suffering, and personal experience.

I have come to see this because my 600+ presentations have been complemented with thousands of one-on-one conversations whether after talks, on call-in radio interviews, or through CCBR’s activism projects.  And when you actually engage the culture, when you actually talk to people “on the streets,” when you hear pro-abortion rhetoric actually coming from the mouths of people and not just in a philosopher’s essay, you start to notice things.

You start to notice that the angry guy who won’t accept that abortion is wrong has a sister who had an abortion—and what he’s really doing is defending the sibling he loves.

You start to notice that that girl who won’t accept that life begins at fertilization was conceived by in vitro fertilization—and what she’s really doing is resisting a devastating truth that would cause her to question her beginnings and necessitate that she grieve for the siblings she never knew because they’re frozen or killed.

You start to notice that the girl who thinks abortion is needed in cases of rape was molested by her uncle—and what she’s really doing is crying out from a place of pain, wondering not so much if the pre-born are human, but as my friends over at Justice for All say, whether the pro-lifer is human.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

And the best advice I can give to passionate pro-lifers who will have these sorts of encounters if they’re engaging the culture as they should, is to live the Prayer of St. Francis: “O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be understood as to understand.”

Seek to understand.

Listening does wonders.  And when we seek to understand, we will truly and deeply listen.

Asking questions does wonders.  And when we seek to understand, we will ask good questions. 

Praying does wonders.  And when we seek to understand, we will pray for Divine inspiration to conduct ourselves in such a way that the person most needs to see and hear.

Nothing of what I’ve said means we shouldn’t refine our arguments to be as clear and solid as possible, or that we shouldn’t show abortion victim photography.  We most certainly should do those things.  But what I’m saying is that what matters is how we do them.  What matters is that we master the art of dialogue, and know when to appeal to “the head” and when to appeal to “the heart.”

Case in point—my colleague Maaike recently shared this testimony about the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) when it was displayed at the University of Lethbridge last fall:

In one conversation, a pro-life student went to the heart of the matter when an angry protester defended her right to abortion. The protester had already heard our apologetics from another volunteer, talking for about 45 minutes.  Then the protester turned to the pro-life student when the pro-lifer asked her why she felt she needed to defend abortion. It turned out that the protester had been abused by her dad and her mom didn’t do anything; she said she would never put a baby in a similar situation. The GAP volunteer expressed sympathy and affirmed the woman's value. They then talked about abortion, and the volunteer asked how killing her own child would improve the situation/cycle of abuse. After about 30 minutes the woman said no one had ever told her that she deserved to be loved by her own parents. She then rolled up her sign and left.

No one had ever told her that she deserved to be loved by her own parents. 

When we seek to understand, we find ourselves amidst profoundly beautiful opportunities to build up the brokenhearted, and to love them—to desire the other’s good—in a way that the abortion advocate least expects yet most needs to hear.

May all people who claim the name pro-life follow the example of this young pro-life student, and have the strongest of minds and the most tender of hearts.

Reprinted with permission from UnmaskingChoice.ca.

Share this article

Advertisement

Notorious abortionist Garson Romalis has died: over a decade ago, I sat with him in his office

Stephanie Gray
Stephanie Gray

Another infamous Canadian abortionist has died.  The Vancouver Province reported that Dr. Garson Romalis died from illness on January 30, incidentally almost a full pregnancy gestation since abortionist Henry Morgentaler died last May 29.

When I learned of Dr. Romalis’ death, I couldn’t help but recall our encounter sitting in his medical office more than a decade ago when I was an 18-year-old UBC student. 

File 2496

My classmate and I wanted to organize a debate on abortion; having heard of Dr. Romalis as a local abortionist, we went to his office and asked his secretary if we could speak with him about participating in a forum.  After a few moments she returned to escort us down a hallway where we were brought to a room to speak with Dr. Romalis.  He was unwilling to debate, but recommended I contact Joyce Arthur—who also ended up being unwilling to debate.  We chatted for about 20 minutes and one thing he said was that women are always going to get abortions, so they can be legal and safe or illegal and unsafe.

That concern for women that he expressed to me back then was consistent with a reflection he gave in a January 25, 2008, speech at the University of Toronto Law School’s Symposium to mark the 20th anniversary of R. vs. Morgentaler:

“I have been an abortion provider since 1972. Why do I do abortions, and why do I continue to do abortions, despite two murder attempts?

“The first time I started to think about abortion was in 1960, when I was in second year medical school. I was assigned the case of a young woman who had died of a septic abortion. She had aborted herself using slippery elm bark.

“...The young woman in our case developed an overwhelming infection. At autopsy she had multiple abscesses throughout her body, in her brain, lungs, liver and abdomen.  I have never forgotten that case. [Emphasis added]

“After I graduated from University of British Columbia medical school in 1962, I went to Chicago, where I served my internship and Ob/Gyn residency at Cook County Hospital....I will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina.” [Emphasis added]

It is a tragic and powerful image that undoubtedly and profoundly affected Dr. Romalis.  My guess is that he didn’t get into abortions because he loved killing babies (in the speech above he said, “I had originally been drawn to obstetrics and gynecology because I loved delivering babies”).  My guess is that he got into abortions because he was moved by the plight of desperate women.

That is consistent with what two other abortionists I have since met (and formally debated) have conveyed.  Both Dr. Baram in Minnesota and Dr. Fellows in Ontario cited the impact, early in their pursuit of medical careers, of seeing women brought to the hospital, hurt by botched abortions, and their desire to help these women.  In fact, at our debate at the University of Western Ontario’s medical school, Dr. Fellows said, “[D]oing an abortion is not something I take great pleasure in; however, helping a woman solve the conundrum that she is presented with is something that I take pride in.”

Believe it or not, I have common ground with these abortionists—I agree that the tragic, horrifying, and very real situations they encountered most certainly warrant a serious response, and that the crises they saw should be prevented.

Where we differ is over how.

What kind of society have we become when we ensure no more women have their own small bowel hanging out of their vaginas by pulling and ripping the bowels (and other body parts) of their babies through their vaginas?

What kind of society have we become when we think we can eliminate a woman’s crisis by way of eliminating a woman’s child?

What kind of society have we become when the hands trained to heal become hands trained to kill?

When Dr. Romalis said abortions can be legal and safe or illegal and unsafe, he made a false dilemma.  There is a third option—illegal and unthinkable.  Abortions don’t have to happen at all.  There is a better way.

That better way is through supporting teenagers like Nadege who was abandoned by her father, five brothers, and boyfriend, and whose mother was dead, but who nonetheless embraced her pre-born son.

That better way is through empowering students like Veronika who was single, 22, and pressured to abort, yet said she “went from being very directionless to a full time student with a direction because of [her] daughter.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

That better way is through walking with parents like T.K. and Deidrea, who were faced with a poor prenatal diagnosis and chose to maximize what minimal time they had left with their son—embracing every moment of their pregnancy, carrying to full term, and loving Thomas until he died five days later.

If only Dr. Romalis embraced this better way.

In a few days, his funeral will be held.  I wish it could be like that of another abortionist—Dr. Bernard Nathanson.  He was a founder of the National Association of the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the United States and was responsible for committing more than 75,000 abortions.  But in 1979 he committed his last one.  He became pro-life and his funeral in 2011 was filled with pro-lifers, including Joan Andrews Bell, a woman who had been jailed for peacefully protesting outside clinics.  In a gesture of mercy and trust, it was Joan Andrews Bell who had asked this redeemed doctor to deliver her baby girl years earlier, knowing that what matters most is not our past, but our present.

In his autobiography, Dr. Nathanson explained that he “discovered that the New Testament God was a loving, forgiving, incomparably cosseting figure in whom I would seek, and ultimately find, the forgiveness that I have pursued so hopelessly, for so long.”

May Dr. Nathanson’s sentiment be ours as well.

Reprinted with permission from UnmaskingChoice

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook