What's Life For?

Sunday night was when I first found out abortionist Dr. George Tiller had been murdered. But unlike Elizabeth Weil, I knew exactly who he was. I grew up in a conservative Christian family: loving my dad's lapel pin of tiny baby feet, dropping change in baby bottles to raise money for crisis pregnancy centers, and keeping up with relevant legislation. My family and I are probably a pretty good representation of 99 percent of the pro-life movement—people who wouldn't sabotage a clinic or use violence to stop abortion, but do our best with community involvement, prayer, and our votes. So I knew who Tiller was. I've prayed for him before.

I was following the lead-up to his trial for 19 misdemeanor counts all through March. Updates hit my inbox in a bizarre parallel track to another set of breathless updates from friends. Their baby daughter was born by emergency cesarean-section three entire months early and whose survival was an open question. Everyone was pulling for her to make it—doctors, nurses, friends, relatives, co-workers. It's a strange world we live in, to get those updates and then to read about tiny babies just about the same age that hadn't had that kind of cheerleading, who had first been held in Dr. Tiller's arms instead of their parents'.

To me, all the stories of Dr. Tiller's work raise one big question, "What's life for?" Is it just to be happy and have a good quality of life? And if it is, then who gets to set that bar for us—our parents, our laws, or our faith?

I came across one answer this week from my friend Erin, just back on Monday from a trip to Uganda. You can read the whole story here, but Erin writes,

I have to tell you about a brother and sister named Kevin and Catherine. He is 24. She is 21. Their parents died and left them as orphans. Kevin received a full scholarship to attend Liberty University in Virginia and has just graduated and is coming back to Uganda on Monday. Three years ago, Kevin looked around and realized that there were other orphans that needed care, so he and his sister began to take them in. At age 18, Catherine had become a mother to these children and their head caretaker, as Kevin returned to Liberty to study. Over the past three years, the number of orphans has reached a total of 68. The ages range from 3 months up to the lower teens. Catherine, a child herself, is now mother to 68! The only income they receive is from the part-time job that Kevin has at school, which he balances with being a full-time student. This brother and sister decided together that they would give their lives to these 68 children until they are grown and can provide for themselves. Their courage is a great challenge to me.

The children only get to eat once a day, around 3 or 4 p.m. Catherine serves them tea in the morning to hold them over until then, and then lets them play in the afternoon until bed, in hopes that they will fall asleep before they realize their hunger pains and ask her for more.

For $100 we were able to buy a wide variety of food for all of the children and give them a meal that would nourish their little bodies. Catherine, knowing each child intimately, cried throughout the meal because she couldn’t remember the last time she saw them enjoy eating so much."

So I don't know what defines happiness for you, or for a baby with serious medical problems, or for the parents of those kids. But for me, I know that whatever my definition of happiness is now, I hope it can grow someday to be as life-changing and life-giving as Kevin and Catherine's.

Tags: abortion, George Tiller, late-term abortion, pro-life

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Abigail Pilgrim Documentary film producer and freelance writer.

Comments

good to know that

By: pac79 | Wed, 11/11/2009 - 15:45

this is a great article! fotograf zdjecia slubne and fotografia slubna bielsko Katowice krakow fine art. Psycholog on Line korzysci pomocy online fotografia dziecieca zdjecia dzieci, fotograf slubny fotografia dzieci depresja stres psycholog i pomoc psychologiczna pomoc psychologa and internetowy psycholog psychologia internetowa poradnia psychologiczna and Psychologia and psycholog online psycholog on-line pomoc psychologiczna przez Internet and psycholog online psycholog internetowy and psycholog przez internet

tiffany jewelry

By: lily123 | Thu, 09/24/2009 - 03:50

tiffany bangles,
tiffany bracelets,
tiffany pendants
tiffany bracelet,
tiffany bangle or
tiffany pendant
tiffany cuff links
tiffany jewelry

There is an abundance of

By: Loki | Wed, 06/10/2009 - 23:55

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence on both sides as to whether an abortion is beneficial or not. Setting that aside, what is the end result of curtailing access to legal abortions? The devil we know is that humans are imperfect beings who tend to make mistakes, which in the past meant dangerous and potentially lethal procedures. As I understand it, the pro life movement would like all fetuses to come to term and then live under the care of natural parents or adoptive parents. This was possible in the past as it is now, yet people still attempted abortions.
So, the question then becomes why kill the fetus instead of putting up for adoption? Quite simply it means an outlay of both personal and monetary resources for which the person is unprepared to spend, and they do not wish the offspring in the care of another. That is their private decision, which most would be content to leave alone.
Excepting the individual liberty of the female, it then begs the question what is the state's/society's interest in keeping this fetus? It doesn't pay taxes, has no earning capacity, and will require an outlay of 18 years of resources. On balance, many argue human life is sacred. This is true- to a point. Humans older than 18 months are presently one of 5 self aware species on Earth. This self awareness is arguably what is cherished most about humanity, whether by God or mere mortals. In a perfect world, one would think that no being with the potential for self awareness would be destroyed. However, the world has not become so secure that there is no war or famine or disease which takes innocent human life on a daily basis- and does not appear that it will do so in the near future. America is fortunate that we do not suffer many problems to the same extent as they are experienced throughout the world, but not so fortunate that we can solve all of these problems at present. With the understanding that both the individual and the state have limited resources, and that every life added diminishes the resources for others in this dangerous world, who should bear the burden of raising an unwanted child? My answer would be those who choose to block access to legal abortions.

Saint Mom

By: SarahSays | Wed, 06/10/2009 - 12:05

What bothers me about "What Life's For", and it's something I've seen in other pro-life rhetoric, is this concept of motherhood as sort of wholly fulfilling thing that's sanctified and filled with self-sacrifice. Abigail doesn't say this outright but I think it is in this piece in her portrayal of Kevin and Catherine from Uganda.

You get the sense of Catherine as this Mother Teresa figure, "now mother to 68" as she put it. While Kevin gets to go to college in the USA. And I can't help but think that if Catherine were a male, she would get to go to college too. Don't get me wrong, they are both in a terrible situation and dealing with it with courage and humanity. But let's be honest, Catherine is getting the short end of the stick here. Because she is a woman. Because she has become a mother.

The Kevin and Catherine dynamic here is right out of the 1950's where she is the stay-in-Uganda mother and he is the bread winner for their adopted family. And I find it discouraging that this return to traditional work-family roles is often an undercurrent in the pro-life movement. Because I think many people have made it clear that the dependent stay-at-home wife role is not what they want. And it becomes hard to take you seriously when you say you have the best for society, or for the mother, at heart and your vision of society and the role of the mother and mine are so divergent.

Mother's are not saints. Self-sacrifice sucks. Children can be brats and it's hard to have a conversation with a toddler. We don't treat stay-at-home mom's as a real career is this society. And if you continually say that this is the mother ideal, it's no wonder some women will run away as fast as they can.

thanks Phenicks

By: phpeter | Wed, 06/10/2009 - 06:09

Those are similar to the numbers I found as well.

Glad you came back

By: phpeter | Wed, 06/10/2009 - 06:06

Glad you came back to finish your speech. You aren't really defending anything because all you have done is throw out labels, misstate facts, resort to school yard name calling (dimwit...really?) and have yet to put a cogent thought together.

You started making sense when you echoed my point that people should be responsible about thier sexual decisions, but you lost it when you try to blame others and say they really aren't responsible. Being responbile means accepting consequences (good and bad) for your decisions and actions. I suppose my view is tainted not so much by my religious beliefs, but actual life experiences. You unfortunatly have friends whom you think benefited from abortion, but I have family members who benefited from somebody making another choice. Having two cousins who were adopted as babies (one with medical issues) and me being raised in a home that had 5 foster children growing up, I do understand the real world choices. My cousins would have been aborted and to you, it would have been a responsible life decision. Frankly, you think it is better to abort the life because it might not be convenient, but I think there are other options. You think that it is OK to end the life of a child while I KNOW that the childs life has value and that value should be realized. You can spend your time opposing me and other dimwits, but you really aren't helping society. You want to help, you want to do some good, then why not meet the goals of helping women move forward AND being able to realize the value of the childs life? These are not mutually exclusive. It is not either/or.

Frankly, if you are the social opposition to abortion, then your cause is in big trouble. You are not a lost cause though, you aren't a rickety old woman yet...I don't think. :)

responsibility

By: lorikay4 | Tue, 06/09/2009 - 15:22

There is nothing more responsible than being honest with one's self about not being ready / able / willing to be a parent. The fact that one comes to such a realization after sex vs. before, sorry, doesn't really change my judgment of that. OF COURSE one should be responsible about sex and birth control. No one has ever argued otherwise, except for the religious nutters who even hate the Pill. But the punishment for bad luck / bad judgment shouldn't be a lifetime of unwilling parenting or an unwanted life.

you don't get it

By: lorikay4 | Tue, 06/09/2009 - 15:16

Peter, it doesn't MATTER that you personally don't want to turn your dream abortion regulation regime into a punitive sexual inquisition for women. The point is, that is what it would inevitably become if such a thing were ever to become law. (It's called sexism, and it is thick on the ground here on planet earth.) And that is why I will be a rickety old lady defending repro health providers against well-meaning anti-choice dimwits such as yourself for as long as necessary.

Bye, it's been fun.

True unbiased facts

By: Phenicks | Tue, 06/09/2009 - 14:51

Of ALL abortions 95% are done for social reasons (ie NOT medically necessary, not rape, not incest, not fetal abnormality, not at the risk of maternal life or health).

"For 2005, the highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were known to be unmarried (81%), white (53%), and aged <25 years (50%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 62% were performed at <8 weeks' gestation and 88% at <13 weeks." http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm?s_cid=ss5713a1_e

"CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]"http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Over 90% of abortions are done for social reasons, reasons that DO NOT include, maternal health or life, rape, incest, fetal abnormality or deformity. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

You can get an entire table of the precise social reason why women and girls chose abortion on the last link I posted but less than 5% are done at any stage of gestation for health,fetal abnorality or deformity, rape, incest and preserving life reasons.

Awesome

By: phpeter | Tue, 06/09/2009 - 14:50

I am glad you were able to get that off your chest. Hopefully you feel better now. Maybe you can get a nice tea to calm your nerves a bit :)

Now, are you ready to have a real discussion based on what I actually wrote, or do you want to monologue for a while longer? I am not trying be sneaky, so let me be clear, "I don't think abortion is right for issues other than health and rape." Now that I am clear, I never called women names or labeled them as you have. I also never mentioned policy actions, legal action, laws, rules, government intervention. In fact I said the opposite. I think there should be very little action taken for the exact reasons you mention. The federal government has little to no ability to actually do anything substantive on this issue and I think they should stay out of it . I also don't believe my personal beliefs should be national policy. Sorry to foil your arguement, but that is not what I think. With that said, if local townships, cities, counties decide against issuing a permit for a clinic or they choose to regulate them, that is an issue that should remain at that level. As far as drawing a line at a gestational age, the U.S. is such a geographically and socially vast nation that I think local social standards should dictate how they best deal with abortion. Isn't this working now for the Gay Marraige issue?

And yes, I am a man, a father of one girl and soon to be two children (my wife is 23 weeks pregnant with a boy). This is why it hits home for me, this is why the stories about health issues that Dr. Tiller helped women with is very real. Seeing the ultrasound yesterday confirms that which I already knew, that it was not just a fetus, but was actually a baby in there. I must also apologize, I have already begun to multiply and my spawn will soon have their heads turned to mush with crazy ideas about responsibility, decision making, right and wrong, dealing with adversity because life can suck and isn't fair. I know that is crazy talk, but it just might work. Just like all of lifes other missteps, it is not that they happen, but how we chose to deal with them that make us better people and build charactor. For me, I just don't think that abortion in general does that. Sorry, your friends may be more successful, but might not be better people for it. :)