An “unwanted child” might have been
eliminated, but
inevitably, “the memory lingers on.”

“Ending it”
is only the beginning

By Joseph H. Foegen

n Could you live with the knowledge that your mother was a killer? That she might have killed you? That your father could not have prevented it, had he wanted to? Those possible thoughts of “survivors” are bad enough, but every woman who has had an abortion has a major problem of her own. An “unwanted child” might have been eliminated, but inevitably, “the memory lingers on.” Admitted or not, and no matter the creative euphemisms, that situation is reality for millions in the United States today.

    Questions like these can come into focus especially around Mothers’ Day, when all of the greeting cards, gifts, hearts and flowers, the whole gamut of emotions are brought to bear. What do women who have had abortions think about on that day? Any day, really, but this one especially? Poignant reflections, including a sense of “something missing,” are as likely as those experienced when away from home at Christmas. In one sense, a baby is “away from home” on Mothers’ Day.

    Often called the “post-abortion syndrome,” psychological fallout from destroying an unborn child can linger much longer than often believed. Nevertheless, evidence does surface occasionally. When it does, it is usually dramatic. For instance, the British Medical Journal has reported that the post-pregnancy suicide rate in Finland from 1987 to 1994 was 6.4 times greater among women who had undergone induced abortions than among those who had given birth, 34.7 per 100,000 and 5.4 respectively. William J. Hogan, M.D., President of St. Luke’s Physicians’ Guild, commented “It is clear that induced abortion in Finland poses serious and sometimes fatal risks to the mental health of the women who undergo the procedure.”1 That this effect is limited only to one country is highly unlikely. Difficult though it can be, aborting a child is more easy, arguably, than “aborting” the psychological effects of killing one’s own offspring.

    Even if a woman has other children, feelings of loss cannot be escaped completely. While some individuals are undoubtedly more successful at minimizing them than others, it is difficult to see how any woman worthy of that name, a person carrying the experiences of generations of childbearers before her, can not feel a certain “emptiness.” Having borne previous children can ease rationalizing about having “done one’s duty,” thus assuaging guilt pangs somewhat, but this argument goes only so far. Because of the contrast between her children born and unborn, loss feelings can be especially strong after abortion.

    Even if a woman rationalizes about helping to reduce “worldwide population pressures,” she fools no one, leastwise herself. Begging the question to start with, the argument conveniently overlooks the fact that it is not “world population” that experiences guilt, but rather one individual at a time. While such experiences do add up, this fails to mitigate the immediate effects upon any given woman.

    Even if the popular argument about “not wanting unwanted children” is appealing, rationalization is again at work basically. The decision should in fairness be made before conception, not afterward. Besides, the argument reflects basic selfishness. Two people at least have a logical stake in the situation. While the mother might not want the child, it can be argued easily that the unborn child himself/herself would very likely prefer a mother to an executioner. The logic is hard to challenge.

    Even if it seems convenient to abort in the short run, that factor can pale, given the prospect of a lifetime of existing with what might have been. True enough, a child, or another child, can affect family budgets negatively. Two heads might be better than one, but it costs more to feed two mouths, not to mention providing clothing, other necessities and eventual college tuition. Careers might be delayed also, if a newcomer is accepted instead of aborted. Somebody has to care for the child, after all. The “bottom line” challenge is selfishness versus responsibility, and the value placed upon knowing that the latter was not conveniently avoided.

    Even if the woman would like to think that “it’s only tissue; it’s not a real person yet,” how convincing is that argument really? Given any intelligence at all, and being aware of many births to others over generations, not to mention basic “birds and bees” biology, the mother knows what that “tissue” will become, absent malevolent human intervention.

    Even if the State condones abortion, or encourages it, potential psychological fallout cannot be avoided. What goes on in legislatures and courtrooms is not the same as what a given woman thinks and feels. Politicians and judges can make their laws and rulings and forget about them. Abortion cases can get “lost in the shuffle” of an ever-more-crowded docket. Whatever emotion might be felt recedes quickly in the ongoing rush. Contrasting significantly, the woman is eternally “stuck with” her decision.

    Although any or all of the above considerations should give pause to women considering abortion, they are still not the whole story. What do post-born children, a.k.a. “survivors,” think of their mothers . . . and their unborn brothers or sisters? And what thoughts go through the minds of the potential fathers?

    “Children suffer too, with the dawning realization that their mothers could have chosen to end their lives—or even perhaps the knowledge that a baby brother or sister has died to serve their parents’ convenience.” When a child matures enough to have such thoughts, do they enhance or detract from the respect for, and confidence in the care of those parents?

    “Men have also suffered—not only because they are powerless to prevent the destruction of their own children, but also because the state of American law makes the father a disposable item.”2 The long-term effect on would-have-been fathers has been all but ignored so far. A good argument can be made that whatever “post-abortion syndrome” afflicts women also applies to men.

    The main point to all this is that pro-life groups especially should trumpet the following considerations much more often and vigorously: that the psychological trauma created by abortion is more likely than not a lingering one, possibly lasting a lifetime; that more than one victim is involved in each “procedure”; and that recognized or not, admitted or not, widescale abortions have injected considerable hypocrisy into today’s celebration of Mothers’ Day. Thoughtful individual women involved know they are not kidding anyone when rationalizing as noted at the beginning of this essay. Had they not had those abortions, other children would be present to honor them on Mothers’ Day—and every day!

    1 Personal correspondence, cited in Communique, (American Life League, Inc.), April 18, 1997, 1.
    2 Lawler, Phil, “30 Million and Counting . . .”, the Catholic World Report, February, 1993, 28-31.

Dr. Joseph H. Foegen is professor of business at Winona State University in Minnesota. He has published more than 4,000 articles in a wide range of professional, church-related and general journals. Dr. Foegen is a member of the Academy of Management, Industrial Relations Research Association, Society for Business and Ethics, and the World Future Society. His last article in HPR appeared in the August-September 1998 issue.

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review August/September 1999 Table of Contents

Back to Catholic information Center on Internets Main Periodical Page