In our baptismal vows, we promise to renounce Satan, all his works, "and
all his empty promises."
One of his empty promises in unleashing abortion upon our nation was that
somehow the availability of this procedure would decrease the incidence of child
abuse. The reasoning went something like this: if unwanted children are aborted,
then only wanted children will be born, and since wanted children are less
likely to be abused, then child abuse will decrease in a land of abortion on
demand!
Yet it was an empty promise. Exactly the opposite has happened. Since the
legalization of abortion, child abuse has increased.
The promise had a fatal flaw in it, namely, the assumption that unwanted
children are more likely to be abused. As E.F. Lenoski reported as early as
1976, the opposite is actually true. Abuse is more likely to occur among
"wanted" children. Canadian psychiatrist Philip Ney reports the same
findings. He writes, "When I investigated the relationship between child
abuse and abortion and reported a direct correlation, people were angry and
astonished. It appeared that the rate of child abuse did not decrease with
freely available abortions. In fact, the opposite was true. In parts of Canada
where there were low rates of abortion there were low rates of child abuse. As
the rates of abortion increased, so did child abuse…Indeed, it is a vicious
cycle. That is, parents who have been involved in abortion are more likely to
abuse and neglect their children. Mothers and fathers who were abused as
children are more likely to abort their child" (Deeply Damaged, p.91).
The first thing that has to be noted when examining the relationship between
abortion and child abuse is that abortion is child abuse.
Dismembering a born child would certainly be considered among the worst possible
forms of abuse. Medical textbooks and court testimonies use the very same word,
"dismemberment," to describe what is done to an unborn child by abortion. How,
then, is this not child abuse?
Allowing the abuse of an unborn child, then, creates an atmosphere in which
-- more quietly and secretly -- we justify the abuse of born children. The child
becomes the scapegoat for our unresolved conflicts. As the Israelites in the Old
Testament placed their sins upon the goat, who was then led out into the desert,
we allow the child, particularly when still in the womb, to suffer for our sins.
The two forms of child abuse -- on the unborn (abortion) and on the born --
reinforce each other by a mutual causality. Abortion results in more post-partum
depression, which inhibits bonding with subsequent children. Conversely, the
wounds of abuse are echoed in the essentially self-destructive act of abortion
later in life.
In subsequent columns we will examine these connections more fully. It should
be noted that we are talking here about psychological dynamics and statistical
correlation, and that does not mean that every woman who has had
an abortion will be a poor mother.
