My Choice (moral relativism gone mad)

Minister's abortion two decades ago was a difficult decision that still resonates with a sense of loss - but it was a mature choice and the right one

I am a 58-year-old white woman. I had an abortion 19 years ago. I am not bragging, nor am I apologizing.

I am a mother of three children in their 20s, and I am an ordained Christian minister. I had one child and then twins. Having twins the second time caused me my great good fortune of having three children in diapers. While nursing the twins, I did not think I needed birth control. I was wrong.

When I got pregnant with the child I call "Alma," which means soul, I was not interested in a fourth child. I chose, with some searching, to exercise my constitutional right and ended her birth.

Why do I tell my story now? Because I fear that abortion rights may become even more restricted than they already are. I also find the very intimidation that I experience in telling my story to be the reason I must speak. Why would I be afraid? Because anti-abortion people like to punish people into their version of morality. Plus my editor warned me to expect a lot of heat. Should that fear replace free speech? I think not.

I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband and for my three children. I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to.

I did what I think men do all the time when they take us to war: They choose violence because, although they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives. The "just war" theory assumes that human beings get caught in terrible choices all the time. This freedom is not just for men; it is for women also.

When I made my choice to end one life on behalf of other life, I was terribly troubled. I was in a double bind. I prayed and anguished. Then I made a choice. Adults make choices.

I have long thought that the drama of the abortion battle was not about unborn babies at all. Instead, it is about women and sex and about women and maturity. We are considered babies, sub-adults, in need of supervision over our sexuality. Otherwise we are dangerous. The virgin/whore debates come to mind.

When I made my choice to end life, I was behaving as an adult. I did not shrink from the responsibility of making a choice. I did not ask someone else to make it for me. And I certainly did not request my government's help in my bedroom. Instead, I behaved as an adult who is also a sexual being. Things happen sexually between people that are not always controllable. The unprotected sex I had with my husband while nursing our twins had a consequence that neither of us desired. It was a human life. That's why we named her, wept for her, wanted her but also knew we did not want her enough.

Because women are mature sexual beings who make choices, birth control and abortion are positive moral forces in history. They allow sex to be both procreational and recreational, for men and for women. That is good news, even though most of the world doesn't know it yet. In Africa, for example, too many men assume the freedom to have unprotected sex with women, giving them AIDS and heartbreak. What does our so-called pro-life government recommend? Abstinence! Such a recommendation is immoral to its core.

Obviously, protected sex is the most moral thing of all. Unprotected sex is adolescent, immature, sometimes life-threatening and always stupid. Women are mature enough to handle that. We are not babies. Sometimes, in the battle over killing our babies, I hear the echo of people wanting to kill women's maturity and sexuality. I don't like it. That's why I am breaking my silence about who I am.

I am a 58-year-old sexual, mature woman. That's who I am. I had an abortion. I am not bragging and I am not apologizing.

Abortion that is legal, safe and rare is the best policy conceivable for men and women and for mature, moral sexuality.

The Rev. Donna Schaper is senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Manhattan.

OK, I would like to quote this women in an academic article but I am afraid it is a parody. Can any one out there confirm that this woman is really saying and meaning this stuff? Is this real? I am pretty sure that it is, but confirmation by one of your who say it in the paper or know this fine pastor would help.

"Here's why: Identical twins. They start out as one fertilized egg (conception), but that egg doesn't divide until several days later."

Actually the DNA of twins is programed from when the cell is single to develop into two persons at conception. It isn't a random event for the cells to form two people as it grows, but is actually in the genetic blueprint from conception. The split occurs very early. There is no reason why the single cell can't have two souls at this point since it is set to develop that way as it grows. Think of it this way: the twins share the same cell in the same way that they later share the same womb.

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I think abortion is murder. The point you make is interesting and worthy of more thought, but I'm not sure we can say a cell with a "genetic blueprint" possesses a soul. If so, then our bodies are full of millions of souls. Any one of our cells can be made to grow a new human, it doesn't need egg and sperm anymore. In some ways this level of the debate is starting to sound like the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" arguments!

The "soul" means the principle of being a unified, living organism.

I consulted my unabridged Webster's and I couldn't find this meaning for "soul". However, it is similar to the 1st definition of "The immaterial essence or substance, animating principle, or actuating cause of life or the individual life." Which could then apply to even plants. But, what I believe most of us think about in the human abortion debate is the third definition: "The immortal part of man having permanent individual existence" and implied is consciousness and self-awareness. Without these, we are nothing better than plants, no matter how many cells we have! I think the definition you used plays into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd, by devaluing the meaning of the word "soul." "We all kill many souls a day, what's the big deal about the one in my belly?"
Up to a point they're right; the point is the indwelling of the conscious immortal soul given by God. Now before you go ballistic, and think me wicked; that indwelling or quickening we now know comes much earlier in the gestation than we once thought, usually before the woman even knows she's pregnant. Therefore, once a pregnancy is confirmed, an abortion is killing a conscious human being.

All Hail the Brave Legislators of South Dakota!!!

Hi Rolf,

I'm sure not going to "go ballistic" about somebody's definition of "soul." ;o) Actually, I think the word is troublesome and ambiguous,and gets even worse when you go to other languages (try Greek vs Hebrew: a real headache.)

I don't see why prolifers, who are basically human rights advocates, necessarily have to invoke the concept of "soul" at all. Why not just say that human rights begin where human life begins? And that would be, of course, with the single-cell human zygote.

"Any one of our cells can be made to grow a new human, it doesn't need egg and sperm anymore. "

Since you started the debate on angel penheads, your statement above is in theory only. It has never been done with humans. But, if it were it would be exactly like procreation of a new baby -- which would have a soul like any person. The DNA in one of your skin cells in not programed to grow into a baby. It would take a lot of work to do that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.