‘Unwanted’ and Retarded Children
‘Unwanted children’
Often in the abortion debate the issue of the ‘unwanted child’ is raised. As Hauerwas notes, what greater burden could there be than having to be a ‘wanted’ child? It is a very dangerous thing for Christians to start thinking in terms of ‘unwanted’ children in the abortion debate.
Firstly, we must question what is meant by ‘want’. As Hauerwas asks: What do we want when we ‘what a child’? Often what is meant by this is that people want a child with particular characteristics. A physically or mentally handicapped child is not the type of child that is ‘wanted’. Many people are looking for perfect children. Such people are invariably disappointed.
Secondly, we must recognize that all of this misplaces the problem. The problem is not that ‘unwanted’ children exist (presuming for argument’s sake that we ought to ‘want’ children in the sense that this word is generally used), the problem is that unloving people exist. As Hauerwas writes:—
The crucial question for us as Christians is what kind of people we need to be to be capable of welcoming children into this world, some of whom may be born disabled and even die.
By speaking in terms of ‘wanted’ and ‘unwanted’ we seek to justify the existence of the child. This, however, is not the issue. We are the issue. The emphasis should be placed upon our need to become loving people, not upon the child’s need to become a ‘wanted’ person.
Quality of Life
Related to the issue of ‘unwanted children’ there is the question of ‘quality of life’. Many believe that those who will suffer or be unloved should be ‘put out of their misery’. Often people have the idea that anyone who is not ‘living a normal life’ is better spared the experience.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is meaningful to talk about a ‘normal’ life, we must ask ourselves whether this is a true solution. I will now deal with the issue of handicapped children.
Retardation
In the case of retarded children we must recognize that the concept of retardation is very much shaped by our society. Our concept of retardation often is seen as the difference between what our society values and expects in and of individuals and the qualities and abilities that those individuals actually possess. As Hauerwas observes, in a society that valued cooperation more and competition less, ‘retardation’ might not ‘exist’. This is not to deny that the ‘retarded’ do not have specific problems. It merely serves to challenge the way in which we view these problems. Much of the following is a summary of Hauerwas’ insightful treatment of the subject.
Many people view retardation as something to be avoided at all costs. However, the idea of preventing retardation often goes further than the idea of preventing cancer or some other disease. People who abort children who are believed to be physically or mentally handicapped are seeking to eliminate the ‘suffering’ by eliminating the ‘sufferer’. Is non-existence to be preferred over the suffering of retardation?
We must question the exact nature of the ‘suffering’ of retardation. Do the retarded suffer from their retardation or do they suffer because we teach them to suffer? Hauerwas seeks to challenge the unthinking assumption that the retarded suffer from being retarded. He suggests that perhaps we believe not that the retarded suffer directly as a result of their retardation but that they will suffer in a world like ours because they are retarded.
The problem with the attitude that seeks to eliminate the retarded is that it seeks to remove injustice by removing the victims of injustice. As Christians we are called to seek to address the causes of injustice in our world, not to eliminate those who suffer from it.
One of the problems that we must face up to when we deal with the question of retarded infants is that of our own suffering of them. Hauerwas examines the nature of sympathy. When we are sympathetic we enter into fellow feeling with others through our imaginations. We imagine ourselves in their position. As we cannot have an immediate experience of the feelings of others, the imagination is necessary to create this bond.
Our problem with regard to the retarded is not that we are unsympathetic, but that we are unsure of how we ought to sympathize. We fear that the retarded are incapable of giving and receiving sympathy. We often think that we would rather not exist than be retarded. Consequently we project this onto the retarded and believe that they would be better not to exist. We forget that they do not understand their retardation as we do.
A further aspect of the problem is our general unwillingness to expose our sufferings to others. Suffering alienates us from each other and from ourselves. Our identity is threatened. We do not like to show others our neediness. If we do expose others to our neediness we do so apologetically.
Many people find their identity in a sense of self-possession. Our society idealizes this and as a result we look down on those who expose their neediness. The retarded expose our own insecurities in this area.
As Christians, however, we do not find our identity in belonging to ourselves but in belonging to Christ and in belonging to each other. Christians are people who have acknowledged their absolute dependence and the reality of their need. Our identity is bound up in this. Far from being the ‘normal life’, biblical speaking the independent life of the rugged individualist is ‘abnormal’. By exposing their neediness, the retarded often serve to challenge our unbiblical ways of thinking.
I would argue that the fact of belonging to Christ can comfort us when we face suffering. When we see a Christian friend or relative suffering with Alzheimer’s disease we can recognize that the threat the disease poses to their identity is not an ultimate one. Tragic as their condition is, their true identity is hid with Christ in God. Their identity is also found in the fact that they belong to us. By the way that we treat them we can reassert their identity against the disease.
Retarded people are people in need. They are not self-possessed or self-sufficient in the sense that we have idealized. Hence, within a society built around the concept of private property, we are tempted to question the degree to which they may be classed as ‘persons’. We are shocked by the fact that we are unable to overcome their disabilities. Perhaps this is a good place to question whether our primary issue in this respect is with their disabilities or with our own inability to overcome them—not their need, but the manner in which their need exposes our need.
The exposed neediness of the retarded provides us with a challenge to share our neediness with them. We do not have to appear strong in the face of others’ weaknesses. We need to shake the illusion of our strength. By exposing our neediness to the retarded we have created a way in which we can be more human and the retarded can enter into a true fellowship with us. We need to learn to ‘be with’ the retarded and allow this to govern our attempts to ‘do for’ the retarded.
In order to answer the question of ‘quality of life’ we must reassert the Christian view of the quality of life. Christians believe that the ultimate quality of life is found in a needy belonging and not in a self-possessed, self-sufficient independent autonomy. Whilst we do not idealize suffering—we should seek to alleviate it wherever possible—we realize that it is quite possible for it to exist without undermining the quality that makes life worth living.
For this reason, the Christian response to the question of ‘unwanted’ children, retarded children and physically disabled children is not to abort them, but to assert our view of life by giving them a place to belong.
Supporters of abortion may argue that aborting retarded children is ‘compassionate’. However, true compassion does not demand the elimination of suffering at all costs. We believe that compassion must be moulded by our worship of God. For this reason we challenge those who misappropriate the language of compassion.
Is the Solution we are Looking for a Law?
When addressing the question of abortion evangelicals tend to misplace the problem. They gravitate to such issues as
Roe vs. Wade and consequently miss the issue. The main issue is
not that abortion is permitted by law. The issue is that people choose to abort babies. By changing the law we merely force women to unwillingly deliver their children. All we have done is to assert the ‘rights’ of the unborn child over the ‘rights’ of the mother. This is not a solution to the problem.
The problem is not ultimately a problem in the law. Christians have fallen into the trap of seeing the solutions to most of the problems of life in terms of politics and law. We need to legislate certain choices out of existence. As a result of this mindset we live lives that are increasingly dominated by the authority of the state. Ultimately the principle for solving society’s problems is that of removing choice by force.
Suppose that we succeed in changing the law. Abortion is now illegal and we have forced people to do what we believe to be right. Does this solve the culture of death that gave rise to the problem of abortion in the first place? Does it tackle the problems of despair, loneliness, alienation and fear that underlie the problems that give rise to the sin of abortion?
By framing the problem of abortion in terms of the rights of individuals we have failed to see that there are some more complex issues involved. What about the responsibility of the fathers? There are many men who exercise reckless power by their promiscuity. Male promiscuity lies behind much of the problem of abortion in our societies. However, this seldom enters into our discussions. As churches we need to tackle this problem if we want to be serious about the problem of abortion. We must tackle this problem head-on in our churches and teach the Christian view of marriage as the positive alternative.
A further question we must ask is why some women wish to have abortions in the first place? Few if any women abort their unborn children merely because they just like aborting babies. It is just not that simple. Those arguing in favour of abortion rarely see abortion itself as a positive experience. Women, more often than not, ‘choose’ to abort babies because they (wrongly) feel that they have no choice. Of course, there are exceptions to this, but this is the general rule.
In a perfect world not even those who argue in favour of the ‘right to choose’ would want to abort children. People generally feel forced to abort their children because of the fear that relationships they are involved in might break up or due to fear that they would be unable to cope with the infant if it were born.
Abortion is a sin committed by people enslaved to death and by a culture that lives in continual fear of death. Every person in our culture who does not know new life in Jesus Christ gravitates towards death. Their lives become so entangled in death that they can never set themselves free. Only in a society that fears God will people be free from this fear of death.
Whilst we should beware of making the sinner the victim, we must realize the reality of slavery to sin. Just because people know what is right does not mean that they will do what is right. The world does not need more
ethics; what the world really needs is a new
ethos. Only the church, as the new humanity in Jesus Christ, can provide such an ethos. However, the church has spent so much time focusing upon making people aware of how sinful abortion is that it has neglected to give the necessary attention to the question of delivering people from this sin. This is not, I believe, how the gospel works. The church must demonstrate a lived out ‘better way’.
