 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by A. Koraszewski
excerpt from a Polish book published by SCHOLAR, Warszawa, 1996; here
re-printed in English with permission of the author.
This
book is about love, physical love between a man and a woman, the natural place
of desire for one another and about the obsessions of the creators of moral
laws.
Love your neighbour (Chapter 5)
The
discussion about abortion now taking place in Poland and elsewhere appears to
consist of a clash between different approaches to the love of one’s
neighbour, different ethics, different ways of understanding of personal
responsibility.
What
strikes one in the discussion is that no voices are raised approving of
abortion. Probably all those taking part in the discussion agree, that surgical
abortion is wrong. Some see the wrong as premeditated murder, carried out for
the sake of convenience or profit. Some think that in some cases abortion is a
lesser evil; both parties agree that as a method of family planning abortion is
a social evil.
It is
obvious that the agreement that abortion is an evil does not bring the
protagonists any closer together. The disagreement appears to be not about
abortion itself, or about a search for a workable method of limiting a social
evil. It is a clash of ideologies.
All
my life I have been told that love of one’s neighbour is a key idea of our
civilisation. When I compared christianity with judaism, islam hinduism or
buddhism I thought that the uniqueness of christianity lies in that very idea
of love of one’s neighbour, which goes beyond the clan, nation, even
religion. My enemy is still my neighbour.
I
have always understood that the command to love one’s neighbour is a
command to love another human being, whether it is a member of one’s
family, a friend, a countryman, a christian, or a stranger. This interpretation
is given to us by the story of the Good Samaritan, or by the words of Jesus
quoted in the gospel of St. Matthew.
It
may be added that nowhere in the Old Testament are we commanded by God to hate
our enemies. But there is no doubt that the New Testament clarifies the meaning
of neighbour.
I was
under the impression that the biblical command “do not kill” is
universal. Killing is always a sin, although in some circumstances, defined in
law as self defence, the sin is obviously forgiven.
Those
who support a change in the law which allows abortion often refer to the
command to love one’s neighbour. The interpretation of this command is
fundamental to the discussion. In the same way the definition of who is
one’s neighbour is also fundamental. Is sperm or a fertilised human egg
already a “neighbour”, or only a potential neighbour? Does the foetus
become a “neighbour” after six months, or only after the birth of a
live child?
I
would maintain that the dispute is not about abortion ( i.e. a surgical
termination of pregnancy), but about family planning, about all manner of
preventing conception or early termination of pregnancy by medical means.
The
Catholic Church only accepts the so called “natural family planning”
– the very uncertain calendar method, thermal method or sexual abstinence.
As a result, according to information which I obtained from gynaecologists,
practising Catholic women, who act according to the advice of their confessors,
undergo abortion more often than those Catholics who disregard this Church
teaching or non-catholics. I have been keeping an eye on this for thirty years.
I ask practising Catholic women how they approach the problem of contraception
in the confessional. Most of them say that they look for a “suitable”
confessor. Some have ceased going to confession for that very reason. In a few
cases the answer given was “ I don’t confess it, this is my own
affair.”
One
can only direct such questions to women of the same social sphere, who will not
feel threatened by such questions. But the change in the character of a Polish
family clearly shows, that such attitudes exist throughout society. At present
the usual family in Poland has two or three children. As a women during her
fertile years can give birth to up to twenty children, the conclusion is
obvious: over ninety percent of women in Poland plan their family. What is
more, the great majority does not use “natural” methods. This does
not mean that this majority uses contraception. Before 1989 Poland was in the
forefront in the number of abortions. Only 26 percent of people use modern
contraceptives. Access to them has always been limited, and now, under
pressures from the Church, it has become even worse. In 1992 the Health
Ministry cut off subsidies for contraceptives and many of them were outlawed.
(Attempts to reinstate subsidies for contraceptives have been strongly opposed
by politicians and political parties which counted on Church support.) The cost
of contraceptives went up dramatically, which means that many families cannot
afford them. In many pharmacies, especially in small towns and in villages
contraceptives are not sold at all.
In
the opinion of people who support the right to abortion the very high numbers
of abortions in Poland was caused first of all by lack sexual education, lack
of contraceptives, drink and general irresponsibility. In my view these are not
the only reasons. The scourge of abortion is partly caused by double standards
of morality. The Church, while teaching the moral norms, slows down the spread
of efficient contraceptives and many of the faithful accept the Church’s
teaching, but only until the moment of an unplanned pregnancy. It could well be
that ,without wishing to do so, the Church is partly responsible for the fact
that in Poland abortion is used as a method of family planning, instead of
being used exclusively in extreme circumstances, in which it is necessary to
save the life of the mother, to remove a damaged foetus or to find a solution
to exceptional social situations, for example pregnancy as a result of rape.
(From the moment the law limiting abortion was brought in, official statistics
showed a sharp decline in the number of abortions. But the use of
contraceptives did not rise, neither did the number of births. So there must
have been either a great rise in sexual abstinence, or surgical abortion has
become part of the black economy).
For
nearly all women abortion is a dramatic experience. Gynaecologists and
psychiatrists who work in this sphere know this very well. Perhaps sometimes
abortion is undertaken for selfish reasons. I don’t know Polish statistics
about what motivates women to undergo abortion, perhaps they do not exist. In
other countries such research is carried out. Decisions about abortion are
generally in answer to the question: “Will I be able to give my child a
home, a normal family, an education”?
My
mother had an abortion during the occupation. My father was an officer in the
Home Army. The probability that the whole family would survive was not great.
My mother decided it would be irresponsible to bring another person to life in
such circumstances. (After a violent exchange with her confessor she stopped
going to confession. I suspect that my religious indifference and my interest
in the problems of family planning is partly an echo of those far-off days). My
friend’s sister became pregnant and doctors found she carried quadruplets.
Because of her state of health, they were convinced that she would not be able
to carry them to full term and all four foetuses would die. Thanks to modern
medical knowledge it was possible to remove three of them and the fourth one
was able to be born. Was it three murders, or was one life saved?
We
can easily reconstruct the questions posed nowadays when a person decides to
have a child. As a rule they are not concerned only with personal comfort. The
potential parents - and in the case of irresponsible men – the potential
mothers, face the question what sort of life they can offer to their child.
Abortion is a very bad method of family planning. An even worse method of
regulating populations are starvation, destitution, disease and war. Those
“natural” methods of population control have been present from time
immemorial. Reproduction is a physiological function, similar to eating and
excreting. Here many readers may be shocked. But it may be worth remembering
that consuming God-given food is also a sacrament, and process of digestion is
a wonder of nature no less than the beginning of new life.
Nature controls population in a cruel way. It gives creatures a generous
capacity to procreate, taking for granted that only a small proportion of those
which are conceived and born will reach adulthood and ensure the continuation
of the species. The higher the consciousness, the greater the rebellion against
uncontrolled procreation envisaged by nature. Mother bird who loses its brood
suffers, so does a bitch losing its puppy. The fate of Niobe is a tragedy.
In
the years between sexual maturity and menopause a woman may be the cause of
many deaths and much suffering. Niobe had seven sons and seven daughters. Our
grandmothers brought into the world thirteen or fourteen children, died young,
and before their death often witnessed the death of their children. A woman
even if she never sat by the bed of her dying child, looks differently on the
decision of brings a new life into the world than does someone who only
approaches the question theoretically. I am afraid we must look on the problem
of abortion world-wide, from the perspective of Africa, India, Mexico, Iran,
and also Poland. Poland is still a country which is fairly prosperous, with
reasonable population density – so far. I have studied what happened in
Mexico in the last forty years. A violent demographic explosion can, in only a
few decades, change a country with a reasonable population density into one
resembling Mexico or India. According to a report published in March 1993 by
the Demographic Institute PAN, by 2010 the population of Poland will reach 42
million. We do not know of course to what extent such prognosis will prove to
be correct, or to what extent this population growth will be matched by the
growth resources.
Since
this is a discussion on ethics, the question must be asked if we are opposed to
family planning by modern medical means not only in Poland, but also in
Ethiopia and Somalia. Do we take into account in such discussion the picture of
a woman with a child in her arms who is dying of starvation? Is not the value
of human life diminished when a sperm is seen as equally valuable?
South
Korea is equal in area to one third of Poland. That small piece of land is
inhabited by forty two million people. Political economy of that country is
strictly tied to a drastic birth control programme. So called
“barbaric” pressures on society has now resulted in children born to
life, instead of being born to a quick and horrible death. Abortion, financial
rewards for sterilisation, contraceptives, all those are seen as morally valid
so that people no longer die in gutters. Is this a criminal policy?
In
Brazil, where the government cannot manage to bring about social reform or to
propagate a policy of family planning there is a “plague” of
thousands of abandoned children. Those children live in rubbish dumps, they
steal and murder. The citizens organise special squads which hunt those child
gangs and shoot them like vermin. Public opinion research has shown that a
large part of Brazilian society approves those methods, stating that this
“plague” must be controlled in some way.
The
Shah of Iran thought, that for economic reforms to be workable they must be
accompanied by family planning . In the sixties and seventies he organised a
widespread network of medical units, which gave out information and popularised
modern contraception methods. This was violently opposed by Muslim clergy. As
soon as the Shah was deposed, the network was closed down and a campaign began
with the motto: “Multiply the mouths which will repeat - There is one God
and his name is Allah”. As a result birth-rate in Iran reached an
outstanding level. The population rose from 38 million in 1979 to 59,7 million
in 1995, and that in spite of the 8 years of destructive war against Iraq. In
1995 one third of Iranian population was under sixteen, nearly a half under
twenty five. According to information given in August 1995 by the Minister of
Health, Reza Marandi , unless a miracle happens the number of inhabitants will
be doubled during the next 25 years. Such a miracle , according to the
minister, could only happen if the Iranian clergy decide to join an active
campaign to popularise contraception. In 1994 less than a third of school age
children attended school. In 1992 twelve million adult Iranians were unemployed
or subsisted on casual work. At the beginning of the nineties the Iranian
government quietly changed its policies and began to rebuild the network of
birth control clinics. In 1991 16 million dollars was set aside for spreading
information on contraception. Iran has recently approached the World Bank for
financial help towards modern family planning. As recently as 1992 the rate of
population growth in Iran was 3.3%, which meant two million per annum. It took
this catastrophic population explosion for the Muslim fundamentalists to agree
to back down, but they demanded that the new policies should be introduced
quietly, as “there can be no change to the universal ethical rules”.
In August 1995 a conference on the problem of population growth was organised
in Teheran. The government clearly stated that the country was on the brink of
demographic catastrophe, which can only be avoided by a united effort. There is
little probability that such united action will take place.
I am
terrified by the present anti-abortion frenzy. It is clear this is a struggle
not to limit the number of surgical abortions, but a struggle against modern
family planning. I have the impression that those attitudes contain a readiness
of writing off a greater evil in the name of “principle”. I am afraid
that this principle of defence of life conceived, or even one not yet
conceived, may be a principle of condoning of suffering. What should also be
considered in the dispute about family planning is the example of Bangladesh
and Ethiopia, of American slums, in which newly born black children are more
likely to end up in prison than in High school , of children of alcoholic
fathers in Poland, who very often adopt the life style of their fathers. It is
also worth while to remember the example of Romanian orphanages. One of the
participants in the discussion taking place in Poland wrote that the reason for
the terrible fate of those children was not prohibition of abortion (rather
lack of means of contraception. A.K.), “but that which was the cause of
misery in all the Communist countries, that is Communism”. But Communism
was not the only cause of misery in the world. The experience of Communism may
easily mislead people on that score. Everywhere where the rate of population
growth outstrips the rate of economic growth, the point is soon reached when
life of an individual becomes cheap and no-one pays attention to the misery of
others. Love of one’s neighbour begins to refer only to close family
members.
The
problem of abortion is also discussed in the West. It is noticeable that
Protestant churches express their opinions calmly. They adopt a firm position
against abortion as a means of family planning,, but they have accepted
contraception since the thirties. Protestantism has long ago abandoned the
philosophy of “God has given, God has taken away“ or “God gives
children, so he will look after them”. The individual parents are seen as
responsible for the quality of life of the children they bring into the world.
I
consider it to be criminal to bring children into the world irresponsibly, so
that my attitude is diametrically opposed to the attitude of those who see as
criminal termination of life conceived or prevention of conception. I also see
abortion as an evil. This evil should be allowed only in exceptional cases and
its use limited by the use of modern contraceptives, by allowing for the
possibility of family planning in such a way that there is no need for surgical
abortion.
Do we
have a right to plan? Who has given us the right to decide about life? This
moral dilemma has appeared as a result of expansion of the borders of
knowledge. We now have to face the question of difference between clinical and
biological death; learning about the process of conception we have trouble with
defining what is a human being. We have many problems unknown to past
generations. At the same time morality deals first of all with conflicts of
values. The bible gives us countless examples of such conflicts, of dilemmas of
law givers seeking to limit selfish actions and moral relativism. The story of
the search for God is also a history of legislation and of constant attempts to
contain man’s selfish urges. During the Renaissance another attempt was
made to discover universal laws of nature. It was made obvious that neither
religion, in which the tradition of searching for God is linked to timeless
intuition of what is moral, nor the “natural law”, which tried to
link the wisdom of generations with enlightened rationalism, nor democracy,
which takes into account the opinions of ordinary men – can free us from
the burden of taking responsibility for choices made in the situation in which
there is a conflict of absolute values.
Personally, when it comes to such choices, I vote for responsibility, for a
couple who bring up their children and instil in them love and respect. I vote
for contraception. This choice is based on the command to love one’s
neighbour, on the wish that there should be a place for each child who is
brought into the world, so that each “neighbour” is expected with
anticipation. It is very difficult to love one’s neighbour in a world
ruled by animal laws and in which people have to fight each other to survive.
The
contraceptive revolution is far more valuable than journeys to the moon, to say
nothing of the car, the colour television and other wonders of technology.
Contraceptive revolution has allowed us to take away from nature some of the
decision about the number of those whom we love.
The
wrongly focussed discussion about contraception has led to a wave of fanaticism
among Christians. Instead of the common cause aiming to limit the plague of
surgical abortion used as a family planning method, the Church releases through
its stance the most primitive fanaticism. In March 1993 Western press reported
a shooting of a Gynaecologist by a fanatical anti-abortionist. The murderer,
Michael Griffin, said that he acted “in the name of Christ”. Later
abortion clinics were attacked by bombs, windows were broken and telephone
threats used. The Polish press reported the case of a priest, who commanded the
only children to wear black armbands at school, as a sign of mourning for their
unborn siblings. There have been many cases of psychological and even physical
terrorism. The Church hierarchy does not cut itself off from those actions and
does not protest against violence committed in the name of God. Politicians who
represent Christian parties appear not to see the difference between the care
for life and the family on one hand and a primitive and often barbarian
political campaigns.
The
Warsaw weekly, Polityka, has shown in a characteristic example that the
conflict about abortion is not about life, but about scholastically understood
values, in an article entitled “Neither dishonour nor glory”. The
majority of pregnancies is terminated not by gynaecologists but by Mother
Nature. Gynaecologists often make superhuman efforts to save a pregnancy, which
the body tries to end. Professor Teresa Pajszczyk from Lodz is a specialist in
trying to combat the abortionist efforts on the part of Mother Nature. As the
market economy took over, she had to limit her activities, as drugs needed to
sustain an endangered pregnancy are so expensive that many mothers cannot
afford them. The doctor advised the distraught women to appeal to Catholic
organisations, who naturally should support such actions. According to
“Polityka” Mr. Niesiolowski, at that time an M.P., was indignant at
the suggestion. Obviously this interpretation of his conviction that conceived
human life is sacred was, as he himself wrote to the Medical Association,
“behaviour unworthy of a doctor”. Perhaps this is because Mother
Nature does not sin. People commit sins, and Mr. Niesiolowski does not struggle
to maintain life, the struggle is against sin. If his convictions are
interpreted in this way, his dislike and irritation at the actions of a doctor
trying to maintain conceived human life become quite understandable.
I
must underline that by the word abortion I understand surgical termination of
pregnancy. Does this mean that in my opinion so called abortifacients are a
valid means of family planning on a par with contraceptives? As we know, a
large proportion of embryos are discarded by the woman’s organism and an
early miscarriage may even go unnoticed. Nature very often brings about
abortion. A question arises why, if miscarriage is part of nature, we cannot
bring it about through drugs or with the aid of a spiral? One may reply by
making an analogy: people die, so why should we not kill them? The question
regarding the beginning of human life is not that simple. What is the different
between destroying a sperm and destroying a fertilised egg? Are we allowed to
shift boundaries here? Abortifacients give more problems than contraceptives,
because of the definition of human life accepted by the Church. I think it is
much easier to understand the Church’s appeals to its faithful not to use
abortifacients, than its prohibition of the use of all contraceptives. Here
comes to mind another question – the right of the Church to enforce its
moral concepts on the whole of society in matters which are still very
controversial. The Church’s aggressive approach to these matters may well
result in fanaticism which would act against life and against science.
Personally I am against putting surgical abortion and murder on an equal
footing. But many priests think that even the doctor who fits a woman with a
spiral is a mass murderer. Many will even see the swallowing of a pill as
murder. To what extent do such attitudes weaken the idea of murder? Surely
there should be a gradation – while contraceptives are a blessing,
abortifacients in the eyes of believers could be controversial , but they are a
lesser evil than surgical abortion. This surely could be used to save the life
of the mother or as a lesser of two evils , but is a social evil when used as a
method of family planning. The worst nightmare, I think, is the killing of
babies.
Not
that long ago in Europe babies were killed in large numbers. Perhaps while
splitting hairs in the discussion we have forgotten the basic facts. Let us
remind ourselves of the existence of baby killing. We have little information
about the size of this problem in Poland, but it was well known in a country as
civilised as Britain. A book by a British historian, Lionel Rose, entitled
“Massacre of the Innocents” appeared in London a few years ago. The
author uses statistics, reports of cases in criminal court, witness of doctors.
He analyses the problem of child killing in the years 1800-1939.
As
far back as 1624 there existed a law, that a mother who tries to hide that she
had given birth is guilty of murder. On the other hand, the first attempts in
the eighteenth century of setting up institutions to care for abandoned
children were met with indignation on the part of champions of morality. Like
the present critics of contraception, they maintained that such actions would
encourage vice.
It
was not for the first time that moralists attacked the results without
understanding the causes of that of which they disapproved. Industrialisation
and urban living resulted in dramatic changes in housing conditions, introduced
previously unknown mobility and weakened traditional forms of social control.
As industrialisation and urbanisation grew, so did the number of children
conceived out of wedlock. In the modern era child killing is primarily
connected with unmarried mothers, who often had no means of looking after their
children. According to Lionel Rose, official statistics show that in the middle
of the 19th century in Britain over fifty thousand children a year
were born out of wedlock. He considers those numbers to be about 30% higher, as
a large number of births remained hidden. Mortality among illegitimate babies
varied between 60-90%, while the average for the country was at that time 15%.
The author states that at the time, in the middle of the nineteenth century,
neonatal mortality was already rapidly falling. Even at the end of the
seventeenth century a quarter of babies did not live beyond their second
birthday. The reasons for such high mortality lay in lack of food, lack of
hygiene, often alcoholism of the parents or simply neglect. Poverty reaped its
terrible harvest. A mother who decided to get rid of her child could easily do
it , as no-one would try to find out if the neglect was intentional or
unintentional. The death of a baby was a natural and frequent occurrence. The
powers that be were interested in death which was the result of violence –
poison, strangling or drowning. In 1864 our of the total number of 112 thousand
baby deaths 1730 were under this category. Often the courts would decide that
the cause lay in the parents’ ignorance rather than in a conscious
decision. Death was often caused by giving the baby excessive alcohol to stop
it from crying , unsuitable food or the suffocating of the baby by an adult
under the influence of alcohol.
Since
the death of a baby was seen as natural, people were not too disturbed by the
finding of children’s bodies in rivers and canals. In 1861 The Times
wrote: “During the last five years in the London area were found the
bodies of two hundred and eighty murdered babies. Over sixty were found in the
Thames and in canals, over one hundred under railway arches, in staircases, in
rubbish dumps, in cellars and similar places”.
This
occurrence was obviously growing in frequency, as just in one year, in 1870,
the London police noted 276 bodies of murdered babies. At the same time it was
assumed that most of the bodies had never been found. The creation of sewers
and the liquidation of earth closets caused a sudden growth in the number of
bodies found. Very few of the perpetrators were ever found and only a small
number of people were sentenced. Lionel Rose pointed out, that “the
consciously carried out holocaust of illegitimate babies immediately after
birth left only a small proportion of them alive at the age of one year.”
Midwives often aided the mother in disposing of unwanted children. The figures
show that in 1858 out of 600 thousand of confinements there were 60 thousand
stillbirths. Over half of those “stillbirths” were illegitimate.
There is doubt how such statistics should be interpreted.
A
clear fall in birth-rate begins towards the end of the nineteenth century.
Abortifacients, abortion, contraception, slowly begin to making it possible to
plan one’s family. As Lionel Rose writes – women were determined to
limit the number of babies to as many children as they could bring up. The
number of illegitimate children also went down. The number of children killed
slowly fell. At the end of his book Lionel Rose wrote: “Historically
speaking, the value of live of a new-born baby is determined by market forces
and by an attitude towards death of a given society. In periods of high
fertility and high child mortality people were fatalistic. The death of a baby
was commented simply by saying “It was God’s will” with a sigh
of relief that the child would not have to suffer in this valley of tears. When
fewer babies were born, when the standard of living , medical knowledge and
better hygiene undermined this fatalistic view, the life of a baby became more
valuable”.
Members of anti-abortion lobbies, campaigners against the use of modern
contraceptives, without exception put themselves forward as defenders of life.
The reduction of the defence of life to propaganda slogans and taking the whole
discussion out of its historical context, fanatical campaigns for values which
are divorced from human realities , appear to me to go against what I see as
the essence of Christianity – love of one’s neighbour, humility,
ability to understand and to forgive. I found a very similar way of thinking
expressed by Jacek Kuron in an interview published by Tygodnik Powszechny
(2.7.95). “How can we speak about love he said – when we make the
woman afraid and force motherhood on her? It is true that abortion is an evil.
Motherhood and the woman who carries a new life are sacred. But for that very
reason no-one should interfere by bringing criminal law and the police between
her and the new life. That is contrary to the Gospel. The Gospel never
commanded that someone should be sent to prison. On the contrary, it said
“visit those in prison”.
This
book was to be about the love between a man and a woman, about the value of
marriage which is based on true partnership. But a study of life and the family
cannot be divorced from their social aspect. The fear of overpopulation also
gave rise to a philosophical attitude of contempt for life and the concept of
limiting population numbers through the physical elimination of “less
valuable” individuals. That attitude is also present in our European
heritage, and we should not leave it aside when discussing the problem of
family planning and birth control.
Many
people referring to abortion use the expression “holocaust”. I think
this is a serious abuse of the word, which shows contempt for the suffering of
conscious human beings. This is not new. The rise of nazism was preceded by
European philosophies of the intellectual elites, who highly valued their own
opinions but were unable to feel compassion for their neighbour.
The Christian Enjoyment of Sex
Frequently Asked
Questions
Fantasies
Nakedness
Contraceptives
Guilt
Homosexuality
Masturbation
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!