The Compassion Deception
“And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good.”
These were the words God spoke in the Book of Genesis after He created man in His own image and likeness. In contrast to everything else that God created, man was and still is very good. God is particularly pleased with man, who He created only out of love. He loved every single one of us into existence. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it says “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being. (CCC 2258)” After the fall of man, the next major sin we see was murder which began with Cain killing his brother Abel. This was such a sin that it cried to heaven for vengeance, since it was the spilling of blood. In the Old Testament, blood was always considered a sacred sign of life. This is still the same today.
God loves us so deeply that He gave us the Ten Commandments, to help us live according to His Holy Will, because He knows what is best for us. Among them, there is the command that we shall not kill. The direct or intentional killing of another is gravely sinful. We have been commanded not to do this because God knows the immense emotional, physical, psychological, and especially spiritual damage it inflicts on us. Most especially, it separates us from God due to its grave nature. Despite this, human beings have many times returned to killing their fellow man by choice. Some kill for vengeance or in anger, some kill out of prejudice, but some kill out of what they deem to be “compassion.” It is this false notion of “compassion” which has deceived and plagued our families and our world. We need to return to a proper understanding of compassion, which our Lord has taught us par excellence.
On Wednesday, March 5, CatholicRuki (Brooke) came with me to hear a formal debate between Maaike Rosendal, of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, and Dr. Fraser Fellows, a late term abortionist and OB-GYN at London Health Sciences Centre in London, Ontario. The debate was on abortion as a human right or a human rights violation.
The arguments presented by Ms. Rosendal, stating that abortion is a human rights violation were respectful, clear, concise, to the point, and made logical sense in every way. She pulled together science and facts to produce very sound arguments against abortion. Dr. Fellows’ arguments were filled with ad hominum attacks and actually lacked much logic. He did not provide much of an intellectual response and had no facts to back up his claims, and for someone who works in the medical field, his arguments involved no scientific backing. His argument was for the right to choose, based on what society considers to be morally acceptable. He made it clear while debating that he wholeheartedly believes that morality changes like the wind, only requiring a majority vote. When questioned on slavery being right when it was allowable under the law, he said that everyone knows slavery was not okay. He said this, despite his belief that the law dictates what is right or wrong, and even though slavery was once considered morally acceptable under the law, he believes it was not right. Inconsistency is proof of a failed argument and he lost much credibility due to this.
Above all else, the main difference between Ms. Rosendal and Dr. Fellows was the issue of compassion. Dr. Fellows argued that abortion is a human right because it shows “compassion” for the woman in need. If she had been raped, it is going to help her. If she cannot afford another child or just does not want another child, it shows “compassion” and helps her out of that situation which she does not want to be in. The question is: Is it really showing a woman compassion?
Do not be deceived. The act of abortion is not actually a compassionate act but is the complete opposite. Dr. Fellows made it clear during the question and answer session of the debate that despite the fact that women have come back to him after their abortion with regrets, it helped them in the moment, and that is all that matters. They came to him after being “counselled” and this showed him that the abortion was something that they really wanted. In another recent debate, Abortion Debate: Stephanie Gray vs. Dr. Fraser Fellows, he said that he keeps himself at arms length from his patients with regards to their reason for having the abortion. The proof is in the pudding. He does not care about the long term wellbeing of his patients at all.
In that same debate, Stephanie Gray of the CCBR relayed the following story from a woman who previously worked for Planned Parenthood, prior to her working privately as a psychotherapist:
I remember a woman I counselled at Planned Parenthood. She had three abortions in two years … A year later, she came to my private office for psychotherapy. She wanted help rather in leaving her battering husband … Her situation brought home to me the importance of knowing the full context in which women make reproductive choices.
Those who procure abortion never really care. If they did, they would offer real solutions to the underlying issues about why women have abortions in the first place. Abortion only serves as a band-aid solution to a deep wound. Stephanie Gray puts it best when she says:
“Why do women have abortions?…I don’t doubt that there are many women who find themselves in desperate circumstances. It is the lack of support, perhaps the fear of being kicked out of their home, the plan they have for their career or their education, maybe being pregnant from sexual assault. Any number of these can be very, very difficult situations for a pregnant woman to be in. But regardless of what situation she is in, is what we saw on the screen a few moments ago (imagery of abortion) going to unrape a rape victim?…make a woman who’s poor suddenly become rich?…going to turn a woman’s frog of a partner into a price? I don’t think so. We need to be concerned about women, but we have to ask ourselves ‘why do they want the abortion?’ Abortion is not actually going to give them what they need, which is support. The ability to finish school, the counselling they are going to need if they are pregnant from sexual assault. That trauma needs to be dealt with … Getting rid of the pre-born child is not going to get rid of the memories.”
Euthanasia is a similar case. No one ever likes to see a loved one suffering and in pain. It pains the heart of all those involved. This does not, however, justify taking their life to “end it sooner.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that,”discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. (2278)” While this is the case, it is entirely different from purposely ending the life of the elderly. Ending life for the sake of convenience is never true compassion.
Compassion, at its root, means to suffer (passio) with (com) someone. In suffering with someone, there is real love. Love is the will to sacrifice for the good of the other, for the other’s sake. When we take the life of the elderly or unborn, we demonstrate that their life lacks value, and that they have nothing to offer us. It becomes about us, and not about them. We do not have compassion when we do “suffer” with those in need. We as Christians are called by Christ to comfort (not end the life sooner of) the afflicted. We are called to bury the dead, not make them dead. We are called to truly care for one another, as called for in the corporal works of mercy, which find their basis in charity. We are called to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, harbour the harbourless, visit the sick, ransom the captive, and bury the dead. With the advancements in medical care and the many pregnancy support centers we have, no one has to go unaided and uncared for. People will help. If one does not want to seek care or help in a center, turn to someone you know will love and help. There is no need to be ashamed, or afraid. If you are finding yourself or someone you know considering abortion, or supporting euthanasia, step out to be there for them and help them, or find them appropriate help.
During this time of Lent, we focus on the events surrounding the Passion of the Lord. One very important person we recognize during the Stations of the Cross is Simon of Cyrene who helped Jesus carry His cross on the road to Calvary. As Christians, we need to see Jesus in those in need, especially in struggling pregnant women and those suffering with illness. As Christians, we need to come and help carry and embrace their crosses. St. Augustine of Hippo said ,”What does love look like? It has the hands to help others. It has the feet to hasten to the poor and needy. It has eyes to see misery and want. It has the ears to hear the sighs and sorrows of men. That is what love looks like.” Let us imitate Christ in showing this love to our fellow man, just as he showed it to us in his life, passion, and death. Let us show the world what compassion really means.
Posted on March 10, 2014, in abortion, Catholic, contraception, death and tagged Abortion, Canadian Centre of Bioethical Reform, Compassion, Dr. Fraser Fellows, Euthanasia. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.