Despite the extreme vulnerability of unborn babies and the relative ease of killing them when technologically well-equipped adults make a choice to do so, occasionally an attempt to kill one fails. As Gianna Jessen says, “And to everyone’s great shock and surprise, I didn’t arrive dead, but alive . . . in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic.”
Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden are two women, now in their 30’s, who survived attempts to abort them. From the information I can gather, both of their stories are authentic (though really the point these two women make could stand even if their stories were just fictional). Shaped by their experiences, both became ardent pro-life advocates. Both also attribute their religious belief to their survival against steep odds and what they see as evil designs. Jessen’s public activities seem to be motivated as much by religious evangelism as by her pro-life convictions; this might make her less effective as a pro-life advocate than she might otherwise be, with some audiences.
I am not myself a Christian, and my purpose is not to weigh in one way or the other on the validity of Christian doctrine. I would like to point out, however, that pro-choice forces often try to dismiss the pro-life feeling of Christians by saying that their feelings derive only from an abstract and debatable religious doctrine. Yet in the cases of these two survivors of the front lines of the “silent holocaust” (Gianna Jessen’s phrase), the converse seems to have happened: these two seem to have been driven toward doctrine by their highly-understandable revulsion against abortion.
I recommend watching both the following videos (10 minutes and 8 minutes) in their entirety. Here are the links and a few words from each of the women:
Melissa Ohden: Aborted At Birth
“I couldn’t understand at the age of fourteen how any parent could make that decision — to end their child’s life. . . . I felt like I deserved to know — you know, why is it my life was just a choice for someone . . .”
Gianna Jessen Abortion Survivor in Australia Part 1
(She is American, but speaking in Australia.)
“. . . if abortion is just about women’s rights, ladies and gentlemen, then what were mine? There was not a radical feminist standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day, and in fact my life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.”
The disproportionate importance of these rare cases is this: These cases, where the intended victim has grown up and become loud and visible, make most obvious what is always the simple truth — that even if you kill someone when they are quiet and invisible and preborn, you are killing a person.
What could any abortion-rights advocate say if face to face with such a survivor? To be consistent, they would have to say, “Your mother’s choice was not properly honored. Those bungling doctors let us all down. They should have upheld the Constitution of the United States (or wherever) and finished you off.” But would anyone have the guts to say that? No.
And what could any parent (barring those motivated to abort by the most extreme circumstances) say if they later came face to face with a child they had tried to kill? Could they say, “The abortion was a good idea in principle. And in the end they heard you cry and fished you out of that garbage pail. So everything worked out for the best” — ? They would not have the guts to say that. They would normally have to admit that they could have sacrificed a little more. And the fact that they would not have the guts shows that it was never a good idea in the first place. Yet somehow it takes rare cases such as this to reveal what a bad idea abortion so routinely is.
The potential value, for our social discourse, of such cases coming to light from time to time, is not to prove to anyone “I told you so” about the past. Their value lies in their potential impact on the minds of mothers and fathers and doctors contemplating abortion in the present. Any adult who contemplates aborting an unborn baby knows that the chances of ever having to actually face the grown-up target of their intentions, are extremely small. But if they have once or twice had a chance to meet an abortion survivor, as we all have had in the above videos, they will know that at any moment in their consciences, if not in external reality, they may be reminded of a fact — they may be reminded that the unborn baby whose life they took when it was tiny, helpless and perhaps shapeless, was a person destined one day not to be tiny, helpless and shapeless. They will know that in their consciences they will have to look that person in the eye one day and explain their reasons for what they did. And they will understand that their reasons had better be good.
Thus it would not matter if the stories of Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen were untrue. Their real value lies not in demonstrating a statistical possibility, but in their impact on our consciences and imaginations.
Anyone should be able to figure out that what is now small is in the process of growing up, and will do so if allowed to. But somehow we fail to see that except in those rare cases where our technology has failed us.
You may leave a reply, if you wish, without giving your name or email address. If you do give your email address, it will not be published.
Some future posts:
Life Panels
Evolution, and the Humanizing and Uplifting Effect on Society of a Commitment to the Unborn
A Trade-Off of a Sensitive Nature
Unborn Child-Protection Legislation, the Moral Health of Society, and the Role of the American Democratic Party
Abortion and Problem-Solving
The Motivations of Aborting Parents
Why Remorse Comes Too Late
The Kitchen-Ingredients Week-After Pill
Unwanted Babies and Overpopulation
The Woman as Slave?
Abortion and the Map of the World
“I am not myself a Christian, and my purpose is not to weigh in one way or the other on the validity of Christian doctrine.”
Just out of curiosity, what is your faith (or lack thereof)?
“I would like to point out, however, that pro-choice forces often try to dismiss the pro-life feeling of Christians by saying that their feelings derive only from an abstract and debatable religious doctrine.”
Their presumptions of an immutable soul and subordinate roles for women certainly don’t help.
“Yet in the cases of these two survivors of the front lines of the “silent holocaust” (Gianna Jessen’s phrase),”
And a perverse one at that. Fetuses aren’t a class of persons being systematically wiped out.
“. . . if abortion is just about women’s rights, ladies and gentlemen, then what were mine? There was not a radical feminist standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day,”
You didn’t have rights then… indeed, you weren’t even ‘you’ then.
“… that even if you kill someone when they are quiet and invisible and preborn, you are killing a person.”
No, you’re killing something that is human… personhood is a higher bar.
“What could any abortion-rights advocate say if face to face with such a survivor? To be consistent, they would have to say, “Your mother’s choice was not properly honored. Those bungling doctors let us all down. They should have upheld the Constitution of the United States (or wherever) and finished you off.” But would anyone have the guts to say that? No.”
I would… but like this:
—Your mother’s health was not properly honored… either before, during or after her unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. EVERYONE let her down. They should have helped her prevent her pregnancy, or barring that… terminated in a safe and timely fashion. They failed her… and thus you were born.—
“They would normally have to admit that they could have sacrificed a little more.”
To what purpose?
“they may be reminded that the unborn baby whose life they took when it was tiny, helpless and perhaps shapeless, was a person destined one day not to be tiny, helpless and shapeless.”
‘Destined’? Let’s not get prophetic, now.
“They will know that in their consciences they will have to look that person in the eye one day and explain their reasons for what they did. And they will understand that their reasons had better be good.”
Wait… ‘one day’?
“Thus it would not matter if the stories of Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen were untrue. Their real value lies not in demonstrating a statistical possibility, but in their impact on our consciences and imaginations.”
So… this is all about their propaganda value? That’s pretty cheap.
“Anyone should be able to figure out that what is now small is in the process of growing up, and will do so if allowed to.”
Hence the need for abortions.
“Just out of curiosity, what is your faith (or lack thereof)?”
I’m open to a big range of possibilities, and I explore through study of science (at a popular level) and of philosophy, and through meditation. My thinking about ethics has an agnostic basis.
“[Christians’] . . . presumptions of an immutable soul . . . certainly don’t help.”
Do you feel 100% sure there is no soul?
More later.
“Do you feel 100% sure there is no soul?”
Why would I need to be 100% certain about such things? As there is neither any necessity nor justified evidence for a soul… why bother with it?
(continuation)
I wrote:
“I explore through study of science . . . and of philosophy, and through meditation.”
I think that meditation is almost indispensable, if not indispensable, in order to know ourselves deeply, whether those deeper levels are neuronal or turn out to be something still deeper.
I think that once we can, by any means, deeply understand our own humanity, we will understand the humanity of all those we had previously considered second-class citizens.
I invite anyone who would like to communicate further on matters not directly related to the unborn, to see the About page and use the contact information there.
I had referred to —
“. . . these two survivors of the front lines of the silent holocaust (Gianna Jessen’s phrase)”
— and you had replied —
“And a perverse [phrase] at that. Fetuses aren’t a class of persons being systematically wiped out.”
She makes her point that the numbers are huge (far bigger annually, worldwide, than those of any entire war or entire campaign of genocide). Let’s just contemplate that.
“You didn’t have rights then… indeed, you weren’t even ‘you’ then.”
She had no legal rights and was not legally a person. The cause of that situation is certain formerly-preborn persons who now want rights only for their club or constituency, not human rights. That is the exact point she is making.
One second after birth she suddenly had rights (!). Would you deny her those rights also? If not, don’t you see how bizarre that is? If you do deny those rights, your position is consistent, so no one can attack your reasoning. Any change will have to come from something that touches you emotionally.
“No, you’re killing something that is human… personhood is a higher bar.”
Readers who have not yet read the “Personhood and Citizenship” post will find this comment of Phillip’s addressed there.
“I would [say to an abortion survivor]:
“—Your mother’s health was not properly honored… either before, during or after her unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. EVERYONE let her down. They should have helped her prevent her pregnancy,”
I very much appreciate your thinking and feeling up to this point.
“or barring that… terminated in a safe and timely fashion. They failed her… and thus you were born.—”
I had said that abortion-rights advocates, to be consistent, would have to say that the mother had been let down. But I didn’t expect to hear an abortion-rights advocate actually say that. How did the failure to kill the baby constitute letting the mother down? She gave birth, and it turned out for the best. And normally if a woman’s life is not in serious danger, and she gives birth, it will turn out for the best, even if she had expected otherwise. That should be the lesson.
I had said that parents “would normally have to admit that they could have sacrificed a little more,” and you replied: “To what purpose?”
When I replied to your first comment under “Personhood and Citizenship,” I said that the disagreements between us will boil down to two differences in intuitively-based points of view, number 1 being:
“I think that ethically, all humans should be considered as equal in value, whereas you think some should be second-class citizens (or perhaps think there should be not only two, but multiple gradations of value?).”
Your question “To what purpose?” reflects that intuitive difference.
“Wait… ‘one day’?”
In their consciences, yes. I’m not referring to Judgment Day, if that’s what you’re suspecting.
“So… this is all about their propaganda value?”
I would call it their mind-expansion value. I would expect their mere existence to have an impact on people who are ready to learn, that will break through all the cerebration on this issue.
I had written —
“Anyone should be able to figure out that what is now small is in the process of growing up, and will do so if allowed to”
— and you replied —
“Hence the need for abortions.”
On those occasions when it is necessary to kill a person, the fact that it is growing is often a factor in the necessity. On all occasions, the fact that it is growing makes the denial of its personhood an exercise in reductionism and contrivance.
“I think that meditation is almost indispensable, if not indispensable, in order to know ourselves deeply, whether those deeper levels are neuronal or turn out to be something still deeper.”
Ummm… ok. Moving along.
“She makes her point that the numbers are huge (far bigger annually, worldwide, than those of any entire war or entire campaign of genocide). Let’s just contemplate that.”
Nope… still not genocide, defined as “the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group” by the ICC.
“One second after birth she suddenly had rights (!).”
What is the exclamation point for?
“Would you deny her those rights also? If not, don’t you see how bizarre that is?”
Ok, fine… infanticide is cool by me. Happy now? lol
“Any change will have to come from something that touches you emotionally.”
This is a fallacious dead end.
“I had said that abortion-rights advocates, to be consistent, would have to say that the mother had been let down. But I didn’t expect to hear an abortion-rights advocate actually say that. How did the failure to kill the baby constitute letting the mother down?”
The woman went to get an abortion… and they screwed up by NOT aborting the fetus properly.
“She gave birth, and it turned out for the best.”
I disagree. Jessen’s entire life has been dedicated to forcing women to carry unplanned fetuses to term; her service of that barbarism makes one wish the abortion had been successful.
And normally if a woman’s life is not in serious danger, and she gives birth, it will turn out for the best, even if she had expected otherwise. That should be the lesson.”
What, that you DON’T understand that merely having a child is NOT an unmitigated positive? Many people regret having children… others regret having been born.
“Your question “To what purpose?” reflects that intuitive difference.”
And many others… though I would not say it was “intuitive” at all.
“In their consciences, yes..”
And how do you know this, exactly? Be specific.
“I would call it their mind-expansion value. I would expect their mere existence to have an impact on people who are ready to learn, that will break through all the cerebration on this issue.”
Nope. Moving along…
“On those occasions when it is necessary to kill a person, the fact that it is growing is often a factor in the necessity. On all occasions, the fact that it is growing makes the denial of its personhood an exercise in reductionism and contrivance.”
Both of which are justified, though not the only considerations.
“And how do you know this, exactly? Be specific.”
1. In the “Personhood” post you’ll find the statements of a few remorseful women and remorseful ex-abortionists. I could provide more, of course. This is not to say that “. . . in their consciences they will have to . . . one day . . .” can be completely established by just a few examples.
2. You’ve probably seen well-done movies in which you could understand what a character was thinking by their expressions. Not only COULD one understand, but the understanding of the movie depended on that.
I guess that this relative ability to understand others comes partly from observing correlations between people’s expressions, body language, and spoken language on the one hand, and their actions on the other; but also partly from projecting what is inside oneself. Projection may have a bad name because of its failures, but we should not discount its successes. I feel that the better one knows oneself, the better one can know others.
Yes, “. . . in their consciences they will have to . . . one day . . .” is a statement of my opinion.
More later.
A comment has just been posted under “Some Comments on ‘Personhood and Citizenship’,” but the comment may have been intended for this post, since it relates to Gianna Jessen.
The comment:
“In National University of Ireland Galway in 2005, Gianna Jessen, who survived an abortion was forced to speak in the corridor of campus.”
I copied some of the text — “National University of Ireland Galway in 2005 Gianna Jessen” — and Googled it, and found this Christian page —
http://www.youthdefence.ie/campaigns/ultrasound/the-revelation-tour/
— which tells the story of two universities’ fear of controversy, and ends with —
“Hundreds of students turned up at the appointed hour but security guards refused them entrance to the theatre. Eoghan de Faoite, the Youth Defence chairman, asked the huge crowd assembled if they wanted to hear Gianna Jessen. A roar of approval arose and the testimonies were given there and then.”
Based on Ireland’s pro-life laws, I wouldn’t have expected university administrations to be cowed (if the story is correct) by fear of pro-choice anger, but perhaps this shows how little I know about Ireland.