by Jerry Brenneman
December 3, 2006
LifeNews.com Note: Jerry Brenneman is a resident of Fort Wayne, Indiana.
A few days ago, I had lunch with a young man whom I had never met before. We had spoken several times over the telephone. We had been introduced by a mutual friend. The reason for lunch was that his life was in crisis, and he needed someone to listen to him.
His wife of only a short time had left him and had moved back to California. To make matters worse, she was also two months pregnant with their first child. His wife had made it clear to him that she didn’t want the relationship to continue, and, as long as she was getting rid of him, she was also considering getting rid of the child as well.
Through his anguish and tears, he spoke to me of not wanting to lose her or the baby, but as he put it, “I don’t have any say in the matter.” My first thought was, “This is terribly wrong.”
I then thought about Judy Harris’ guest column of Nov. 16. Several things intrigued me.
First, what did she have against Dr. Joel Brind? I had never heard of him so I “googled” his name. I discovered that he is a Yale-educated endocrinologist and college professor. He has been an invited speaker for medical conferences and symposiums all over the world.
I read many articles that attested to his scientific research and methodology and concluded it was both credible and reliable as it related to the link between breast cancer and abortion.
I also looked at the National Cancer Institute’s Web site and read essentially the opposite. I was still puzzled.
When I read her next paragraph, I was puzzled no longer. She described Dr. Brind as an “anti-choice, born-again Christian” (apparently those are two titles one should avoid). That explained her statement: “The FEAR tactics are detrimental to women’s health and well-being, only serving the self-righteous causes of those who wish to promote their ideology, even if based on weird science.”
In other words, because Dr. Brind is a born-again Christian that makes his research tainted, biased, and “weird.” I also resent the label “anti-choice.” The truth is both sides are pro-choice. One side chooses life, the other side chooses death.
Medical science is a wonderful thing. It has created a quality of life that is beyond description. It also, however, has given us the ability to make decisions that were never ours to make.
Years ago, my wife was the director of a four-county WIC program, providing food aid for women, infants and children. I remember once saying to her that I could never do her job, because the temptation would be too great to lecture. Her response was, “It’s not the child’s fault.”
She was absolutely right. Even with the issue of abortion, it is not the child’s fault. So why is it that when adults make poor decisions and poor choices, we take it out on the most innocent?
I believe that most of us, when faced with difficult times in our lives, will live and die not knowing why we went through some of the things we did. Sometimes we are fortunate enough to discern the reason. Many times we don’t, however. None of us possesses a divine knowledge or wisdom. None of us has all the answers. None of us is omniscient.
When it comes to something like abortion, we don’t have what it takes to make this type of life-and-death decision. It simply is not our choice to make. I will not pretend to claim that I understand the psychological trauma a woman endures, whatever her specific set of circumstances may be. However, regardless of those circumstances, is it the child’s fault?