On October 16, Dr. Jenet Erickson, a professor of religious education at Brigham Young University, spoke at “A Pro-Life Perspective,” an event hosted by the BYUSA Pro-Life Club. Dr. Erickson began by speaking about the strong, Catholic, pro-life movements she has witnessed on many other college campuses, questioning why the pro-life movement at BYU lacks the same energy. A student in the audience suggested that BYU students assume, perhaps wrongly, that their peers are pro-life. Another commented that an emphasis on peacemaking might make BYU students less likely to advocate for the more controversial beliefs they hold.
Dr. Erickson shared her experience speaking at a Catholic pro-life event at which some attendees were uncomfortable with her stance on abortion as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints: the policy states that exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and legitimate health concerns might exist, though even these circumstances do not automatically justify abortion. She suggested that the Latter-Day Saint theology, allowing for rare, potential exceptions for abortion, is more complicated than the “easier” Catholic theology where abortion is never acceptable. Consideration of these certain exceptions introduces a tension between regard for the agency of the woman and respect for the sanctity of her child’s life which has led to disagreement even within the pro-life community.
Dr. Erickson spoke about her encounter with a neonatal nurse from Denmark who, while caring for a down-syndrome child in the ICU, stated that, in Denmark, down-syndrome babies don’t exist. Abortion is legal up to 18 weeks in Denmark and, 12 weeks into pregnancy, doctors can identify whether a child will be born with down-syndrome. Sweden is looking to increase the window in which a woman can request an abortion to 20 weeks at which point doctors can determine the gender of the child, allowing a woman to utilize abortion to “choose” the gender of her baby.
Presuming all in attendance could agree that abortion for such reasons is appalling, Dr. Erickson turned toward addressing the interests of women. She acknowledged that society has long struggled with the fact that women have the power to bear life, outlining a few examples to demonstrate the complexity of the issue. The ancient philosopher Plato proposed that society require that “elite” women be involved in civic life and that their natural ability to bear children is a hindrance to their equality. Many years later, early feminists portrayed men’s lack of commitment as the problem, advocating for “chastity for men, votes for women.” With Margaret Sanger, the perceived solution of birth control was introduced, with the promise to finally “free” women by making them sexually equal to men. However, Dr. Erickson countered that such a viewpoint insists that a woman’s sacred ability to create life is a “deformity” that must be removed in order for equality to exist.
As Dr. Erickson pointed out, the “my body, my choice,” movement did nothing but liberate men by shifting their responsibility to women. Following the sexual revolution, the number of children born to unmarried mothers in America increased from 5% to 42% – almost half of all children are now born out of wedlock, presenting women with a choice: destroy life or rear children in poverty alone. Children born in such circumstances are at three times the risk of struggling emotionally, academically, and physically, making abortion an “attractive” choice for many connected to a woman in an unplanned pregnancy.
Dr. Erickson professed that abortion is almost always a response to fear of shame, rejection, suffering, or the disruption of educational and career plans, introducing the common argument for abortion: that a woman should not be compelled to give birth against her will. However, Dr. Erickson contended that abortion on demand does not address the woman’s fears but is, rather, the convenient option for society. She quoted Frederica Mathewes-Green, an author who was passionately pro-choice until she witnessed the performance of an abortion, who declared, “No one wants an abortion. [A woman] wants an abortion like an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. If nobody wants an abortion, why are women doing it 2800 times a day? If women are doing something 2800 times a day that they don’t want to do, this is not liberation.”
Dr. Erickson argued that abortion in no way addresses inequality but entrenches it, contrasting arguments for abortion that profess to be “pro-woman” with what a society that truly values women would do. She asserted that elective abortion, instead of adapting institutions and workplaces to respect women’s ability to bear and care for life, ignores that essential capacity. Referencing Mary Ann Glendon, a Professor of Law, emerita, at Harvard University, Dr. Erickson stated that a “real community” would address the fears and societal conditions that cause women to countenance an abortion.
Dr. Erickson told of the illumination of the World Trade Center in 2019 which celebrated the signing of a law legalizing abortion up to 40 weeks. The light fell on the 9/11 memorial which honors ten unborn children who, with their mothers, were killed in 2001.
As she concluded, Dr. Erickson cited a study which surveyed parents who chose not to seek an abortion even though they were told that their child would not have survived birth. She shared a few moving statements made by those parents: “I will always cherish the time I had with her,” “I got the chance to see her, hold her, and honor her sweet life,” “In those few hours, all my son knew was love,” “We would not trade those six hours for anything in the world.”
Those in attendance were emotional as Dr. Erickson bore witness of the sanctity of life, testifying that the parents’ words were so powerful because of the truth we all inherently understand: that life is precious.
Cover Photo Source: https://studentsforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Groupshotwithsigns-scaled.jpeg
