Pursuing happiness and protecting the unborn child

Pursuing happiness and protecting the unborn child
E-Column by Bishop Robert Vasa

want to spend one more week reflecting on Father Robert Spitzer's presentation of the Four Levels of Happiness. Recall that he wrote: "these four levels of happiness dramatically affect our viewpoints on every important personal and cultural issue we face. The level of happiness we tend to live for will determine how we view success, what we mean by quality of life, what we think love is, how we interpret suffering, the system of ethics we live by, and how we understand freedom, rights, and the common good."
Father Spitzer writes his book, Healing the Culture, with a particular emphasis on the life issues, especially abortion. As implied above, the American attitude toward policies and agendas is dramatically affected by the level of happiness which is sought. In a culture where the quest for personal fulfillment and gratification, personal happiness and wholeness, personal pleasure and enrichment is largely accepted as an appropriate ultimate norm and goal, then permissive policies in relation to abortion, contraception, euthanasia, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and the like make perfectly good short term sense. When we consider ourselves as creatures of God, created in His image and likeness and redeemed by Jesus and destined, by God's plan and design, for an eternity in heaven, then these same permissive polices are seen as serious violations of human dignity. In other words the level of happiness we tend to live for will determine how we "understand freedom, rights and the common good."
It is axiomatic that young children are great at asking wonderful and simple questions, most notably: 'Why?' This is, in reality, the philosopher's question. For each of us striving and living with a view of heaven in mind, it is an important question as well. It is well known that some, and by some reports many, Catholics hold rather ambivalent views about the evil of abortion, contraception, euthanasia, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues claimed as rights. I find it somewhat understandable that someone with no faith background could support and promote these things, but I find it incomprehensible that a thoughtful Catholic who has pondered eternal realities could do so.
Perhaps the "why" questions, even without the light of faith or belief in God, would proceed in this fashion: Why is it permissible to take the life of pre-born child? In order to promote the good of the mother or some other societal good. Why is the life of the mother superior to the life of the pre-born child? Because she has relationships and experiences and emotions and thoughts and the pre-born baby does not. Why should someone with a perceived higher quality of life be given the right to deliberately take the life of someone with a perceived lower quality of life? Because it's her body and she has the right to do what she wants, the Supreme Court said so. Why would the Supreme Court determine that a child's right to life is somehow less important than a woman's "right" to choose? Because freedom is an important American value and it needs to be protected. Why is it that, in the list of inalienable rights, life is always first, liberty second and pursuit of happiness third? Because without life there is no possibility of liberty, and without liberty there is no possibility of a pursuit of happiness. Why would the Supreme Court determine that a child's right to life is somehow less important than a woman's "right" to choose? Because they were operating out of a different value system, a system which prized individual liberty above life itself. Why should someone with a perceived higher quality of life have a greater responsibility to take care of the life of someone with a perceived lower quality of life? Because life is foundational and needs to be protected. Why is the life of the mother equivalent in value to the life of the pre-born child? Because the right that someone has to life can never appropriately be tied to one's productivity, usefulness, effectiveness, relational value, age, gender, or mental capacity. Why is it not permissible to take, directly and intentionally, the life of pre-born child? Because life is a more foundational right, even in civil law, than freedom or pursuit of happiness. The direct and intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is wrong. This is not something we believe because of a determination of the Supreme Court. We believe it because it is true regardless of the opinion of the Court.
When we add a faith-related or God-related element to this consideration, the incomprehensibility of a pro-abortion position on the part of a thoughtful Catholic is further heightened. "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2270)
In order to comprehend a Catholic pro-abortion stand one must abandon Level Three and Level Four considerations and stay inflexibly at Level One or Level Two. At these levels one is able to maintain a pro-abortion stand because (Level One) there is an apparent immediate benefit to the one "choosing" the abortion. It appears to be "good" for her or for her family. This person is granted an instant and seemingly permanent solution to a short term (nine month) "problem." At Level One, with little consideration for long term effects or impact on a foundational good of another, abortion provides a solution. Level One thinking cannot see beyond the self. At Level Two, with its emphasis on control and exercise of power and freedom, the pre-born child is seen as an interloper who would "complete" with the mother for her personal resources or her personal happiness.
The child and mother are thus pitted against one another as competitors; one seeking life, the other freedom. The child is seen, not as a separate and distinct person with his or her own rights and dignity, but only as an impediment to the freedom of the mother, and at Level Two, impediments are made to be overcome or removed. But a child is not an impediment. A child is a human being who has a right to life and, if that right is not summarily taken away in favor of another's right to choose, a subsequent right to pursue Level Three and Level Four Happiness.

---

This electronic newsletter may be duplicated, reproduced or retransmitted only in its entirety. Excerpts used for the purposes of quotation must be attributed explicitly to Bishop Robert Vasa and the Catholic Sentinel.