Personally, I never have been enamored with the pro-life position because I find it too short-sighted. I do not see how the pro-life position actually solves any problems after the babies are born. What if they would be born in poverty and the mother has no means for taking care of the child? Do pro-lifers have a more obligation to be concerned with the welfare of children after they are born (in addition to before they are born)?
IMHO, this is written like an article out of the
Summa Theologica. Advancing a ridiculous proposition for the purpose of debunking it. For example:
It seems that liberality is not a virtue. For no virtue is contrary to a natural inclination. Now it is a natural inclination for one to provide for oneself more than for others: and yet it pertains to the liberal man to do the contrary, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 1), “it is the mark of a liberal man not to look to himself, so that he leaves for himself the lesser things.” Therefore liberality is not a virtue.
Summa 2-2-117-1
So, in that spirit, let me provide the “on the contrary” response.
The first principle to be considered is that sexual relations outside of the context of marriage is considered objectively sinful. The second principle (or set of principles) to be observed is that the Catholic response to a social issue should be in context of the basic principles of Catholic Social Doctrine: the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, participation, and solidarity. The following should be considered in the above context.
It is clearly the woman’s husband’s responsibility to provide for his wife and child. It is the responsibility of the husband’s employer to pay him an adequate amount to facilitate providing for his family in at least a modest but adequate fashion. Any other answer presupposes a forcible rape (or other circumstance where she finds herself pregnant without a husband through no fault of her own) or the violation of both the natural and revealed law, fornicating outside of the context of a marriage.
If her husband, through no fault of his own, is unable to provide for his wife and child, then society,
with full respect for the principle of subsidiarity, should, in solidarity with him and his family, provide what assistance is necessary until such point in time as the husband is capable of carrying out his responsibilities.
In the case of rape or other circumstance where she finds herself pregnant and without a husband due to no fault of her own, it would be society’s responsibility to stand in solidarity with her and her child, by assuring that the woman had the ability to acquire the means to care for herself and her child,
with full respect to subsidiarity.
Finally, in the case of a pregnancy happening as the consequence of an immoral act (consensual sex outside of the context of marriage), the interest of the innocent party (the child) must be primary in the mind. Once again,
with full respect to subsidiarity, the child’s health and well being must be taken care of by society, as a corporal act of mercy, and as an act of solidarity with the child who is simply unable to care for him/herself until reaching adulthood. The woman, as the mother of the child, must also be treated with mercy, so that she is able to carry out her responsibilities as the parent of the child.
You will note that I have highlighted the concept of subsidiarity in all the cases above. By this I mean that the most immediate societal unit possible has the obligation to provide the support. This would mean, in order, the individual, the immediate family, the extended family, the neighborhood, the parish, the community, the surrounding communities, and so on. The only role for the State would be if all of the intermediate communities are so overloaded as to be unable to provide the necessary support (note I said unable…not unwilling).
