Every Child A Wanted Child

Every Child A Wanted Child

Gregory Koukl

What makes an unwanted child's life necessarily unhappy? A reaction to the moral persuasion of some pro-choice advocates.

Some of you may be familiar with the series of TV ads the Arthur B. DeMoss foundation has been running promoting adoption. These are beautifully photographed, positive clips showing children at play, enjoying life and the love they receive from others in their family. The message is clear: "If you're pregnant, keep your child. Give your child a chance." The ads end with this statement: "Life: A Beautiful Choice." [M]any unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them. The campaign never mentions abortion. It just champions a particular choice, the decision a woman makes to bear the child of an unplanned pregnancy, and it does that very tastefully and powerfully. The ads are nicely done. Some people don't like these commercials, though. A few years ago I did a piece entitled "Calling a Spade a Spade" discussing Planned Parenthood's objection to the DeMoss Foundation's approach as "subtly anti-abortion." Well, I guess if a commercial encourages a mother to let her baby live, and if she can't kill her baby through abortion and let it live at the same time, I guess one might say the advice is subtly anti-abortion. But why should Planned Parenthood object? If it is pro-choice, this means that it promotes adoption as one of the legitimate choices. And if promotion of adoption is "subtly anti-abortion," then Planned Parenthood would be guilty of being anti-abortion by the same reasoning. One can't adopt and abort the same child. It's one or the other. This was evidence to me that Planned Parenthood is not really pro-choice. If it was pro-choice, it wouldn't object to the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation's commercials promoting the choice of adoption by letting a child live. Because they take offense, this tells me they aren't pro-choice, they're pro-abortion, prompting the title, "Calling a Spade a Spade." Let's be honest and label a pro-abort "pro- abortion ," and not "pro- choice ." Though not all who are pro-abortion bristle at the adoption suggestion, this objection from Planned Parenthood shows me they aren't really concerned about choice. If they were, they would be applauding the Arthur B. DeMoss Foundation for championing this alternative. I heard another spin on the same issue not too long ago in an L.A. Times article. As I recall, a female pastor responded to the DeMoss slogan by saying, "'Life: A beautiful choice'? It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child." This got me thinking, as you can imagine, because her comment has appeal, taking some of the force out of the DeMoss slogan. There's something terribly wrong with her approach, though, and when the error comes into focus, this rejoinder has no appeal whatsoever. In fact, it identifies a shameful condition. Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint? Here's the key question to her response: Yes, life might not be beautiful for an unwanted child--I'll grant that--but why isn't it ? Why is the life of an unwanted child ugly? What makes an unwanted child's life miserable? That's the question. The initial answer is, "The unwanted child's life is not beautiful because she's not wanted." But it goes deeper than that, doesn't it? No child's life is miserable simply by the bare fact that she is unwanted. Being unwanted doesn't make her life miserable. In this case, it isn't a what which makes the child's life miserable (being unwanted), but rather a who that makes the child's life miserable (the people, the adults, the parents who don't want the child). You see, people are miserable not because of the conditions of their conception, but rather because of the way others treat them afterwards. Consider this statement: "Well, life may be a beautiful choice, but it's not beautiful for my grandmother. Nobody wants her. We don't want her. We wish she were dead, so her life is miserable." The question is: Why is Grandma's life miserable? It's not because she's unwanted, but because she's being treated unkindly. That's why it's miserable. This is like saying, "I'll tell you why Grandmother is miserable. Nobody wants her and we treat her like we don't want her ." If, however, they treated her with kindness, if they valued her as a human being, if they showed respect for her as a family member who deserved love and care, Grandma wouldn't be miserable even though she was still unwanted . The misery doesn't come from the lack of want, but from the lack of kindness and love. The same is true with this pastor's statement about abortion. This is not an indictment against the condition of unwantedness; this is an indictment against adult human beings who treat children poorly. Her comment is an admission of guilt, tantamount to saying, "If I let this child live, I'm going to treat her so badly and make her life so miserable that she'll wish she were dead. So it's better to kill her now. Let's get her out of the way so she doesn't have to endure the bad treatment I'll give her." Now do you see why I say this is a shameful way of responding? It's an admission that we would rather kill a child than do what's necessary to give that child a meaningful life. Is this the kind of ethic we really want to promote? Is this the kind of moral reasoning we really think is compelling? Do you see what kind of people we're becoming, ladies and gentlemen? Do you see how these end-of-life decisions, after we keep making the wrong decisions over and over and over, start changing us inside such that we can respond with a statement like this and think it's a sound complaint ? "'Life: A beautiful choice?' It's not so beautiful for an unwanted child." This rejoinder has an appeal, but at its core it's despicable. We're arguing that it's better to kill the child, because we have no plans to be virtuous in our behavior towards her. I'm talking about standard virtue, here--ordinary, pedestrian, within-the-call-of-duty care--nothing heroic, the basic love parents are expected to give to their children, whether they want them or not. Yes, many unwanted children lead miserable lives. But whose fault is that? It is not the baby's fault. It's the fault of parents who would rather kill their children than be obliged to love and care for them.

This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. It is made available to you at no charge through the faithful giving of those who support Stand to Reason. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. ©1996 Gregory Koukl

For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org