New York Times columnist David Brooks is not a proponent of the pro-life movement or the rights of the unborn. However, on occasion, he offers insights that are worthy of consideration. Brooks once wrote a column (it was over eleven years ago!) that concluded with the following observation: “Cultures once structured people’s imaginations and imposed moral disciplines. However, more people are now led to assume that the free-floating individual is the essential moral unit.” Morality was once revealed, inherited, and shared, but now it is thought of as something that emerges in the privacy of the individual’s own heart.
There are numerous reasons why our opponents criticize us vehemently. However, I suspect that at the pinnacle of their concerns—if not the pinnacle—is that when it comes to protecting innocent life, it is of no consequence to us whether our moral decisions emerge from the privacy of our hearts if they result in the death of innocent human beings.
To their dismay, we assert—without reservation—that the termination of the lives of unborn children, infants born with disabilities, or the medically frail elderly is morally reprehensible.
It is not the case that the sanctity of life applies equally to all, and yet we are certain of this. This is not at the expense of empathy. This presents a significant challenge for those who are pro-abortion.
However, were they to read the essays that we have reposted from pro-life youth, they might come to understand that a passionate defense of unborn children and empathy for their mothers who are in difficult situations are not in conflict. These two concepts are inextricably linked and mutually reinforcing.
One may choose to attend one of the pro-life camps that National Right to Life affiliates organize, or listen to interns and Academy students at NRLC, or simply observe one’s own children discussing the topic of abortion. They are able to make judgments without being judgmental, which is a key distinction. The former encourages continued discourse with those who hold opposing views, in contrast to the latter, which frequently results in the conclusion of the discussion.
As is the case with many children, my own children have assisted friends through crisis pregnancies, worked with children with significant physical and intellectual disabilities, and have come to recognize that the same moral values that underpin these behaviors are equally applicable to the frail nursing home patient.
The question remains: why? What accounts for their capacity to support the lives of unborn children and to empathize with mothers?
To be frank, your own modeling of these attitudes and behaviors has been a significant factor.
Similarly, my wife and I have endeavored to instill in our children the understanding that a significant number of individuals rely on the benevolence of strangers.
However, we have also endeavored to instill a complementary truth: one reaps far more than one gives when one acts out of a spirit of love and generosity.
I do not idealize either pro-life parents or their children. As imperfect human beings, we are all susceptible to the same flaws. However, it can be argued that the aforementioned actions are providing our children with the necessary resources to cultivate their moral intuitions.
In so doing, you have bequeathed them an inheritance of inestimable value.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
