Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

A Pastor's Reflections

0 Comment

Rachel Still Weeps

20 Dec 2016
W. Ross Blackburn
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah: A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more (Matthew 2:16-18).

The passage records what has become known as the “Slaughter of the Innocents,” when Herod killed baby boys under the age of two in order to destroy Jesus, thus preserving his own rule. The lines above also record the effect of the slaughter—having lost their children, the mothers were undone. Rachel wept, for her children were no more.

Today, however, Rachel no longer weeps. In our abortion-committed culture, she is not allowed to.

Contemporary examples are legion, but let me give you two. The first is last year’s season finale of ABC’s Scandal, which shows the main character, Olivia Pope, undergoing an abortion—doctor with scalpel in hand, suction machine in view, Christmas hymns in the background—apparently without regret or significant emotional consequences. The show’s message, embedded in an episode that explicitly supports the funding of Planned Parenthood, appears to be that abortion is a normal procedure, causing little turbulence. Such is certainly how Jennifer Conti, an OB-GYN writing a response to the episode on Slate, took it: “Abortion isn’t what you may think it is. Abortion is normal. It’s not rare, and it’s rarely tragic.” On the other side, Georgette Forney, president of Anglicans for Life, saw it similarly (if more sympathetically): “In the scenes following the abortion, Olivia’s reaction is pretty realistic. She goes on a rampage in search of alcohol to numb the pain she is feeling, has a huge fight with the President and father of her baby, and ends the relationship. The last scene shows her drinking wine on her new sofa, alone and sure she did the right thing. She looks up at the Christmas tree and smirks, affirming her empowered choice.” Olivia Pope is not weeping.

The second example comes from a paper concerning the emotional effects of abortion, available on Planned Parenthood’s website.  Speaking of pro-life advocates, and their claim that abortion harms women emotionally, Planned Parenthood writes:

They have called this nonexistent phenomenon “post-abortion trauma,” “post-abortion syndrome,” or “post-abortion survivor syndrome.” They have hoped that terms like these will gain wide currency and credibility despite the fact that neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recognizes the existence of these phenomena. More recently, they have suggested that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, but there is no substantive scientific evidence that this is true (AMRC, 2011). The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect—except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing. (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/8413/9611/5708/Abortion_Emotional_Effects.pdf).

Notice the term “substantive,” used twice above. Apparently Planned Parenthood isn’t interested in all the evidence, only the “substantive” scientific evidence. And, unsurprisingly, the most “substantive” studies seem to agree with their claim. The criterion by which they judge the substantial from the unsubstantial is apparently unimportant, for Planned Parenthood does not bother to tell us how they determine what is substantial. Regardless, the implication is obvious. If a woman experiences emotional trauma post-abortion, something is wrong with her. The problem is not the experience of the abortion, and not what has been done to her and to her baby, but with her. The “substantial” science has shown that abortion is benign. Rachel is not allowed to weep.

One doesn’t really need to track down the numerous studies (those Planned Parenthood obviously deems unsubstantial) that show the profound and disturbing emotional effects upon women that an abortion leaves in its wake. Only those with a prior commitment to keeping abortion acceptable and available would consider it abnormal for a mother to have emotional problems when her child is no more. Common sense indicates otherwise. But the impulse to bury such unpleasant effects is understandable. Better to maintain this façade, for if people really knew what abortion does to women, what might happen to abortion?

Yet isn’t it interesting that those who claim they want to support women in effect shame women by implying that there is something wrong with them when they weep? And isn’t it also interesting that those who are said to be engaged in a “war on women”—denying them their basic reproductive rights—are the ones available to comfort those who do weep?

← → The Massacre Of The Innocents Nicolas Poussin

The Massacre Of The Innocents
Nicolas Poussin

Of course Rachel still weeps. This is what mothers do when they lose their children. For even when women are told to get over it and stuff their emotions, reality has a way of surfacing. No, not all women are the same, and all do not respond to abortion in the same way. But they do respond, and in a myriad of ways: depression, suicide, broken relationships, sleeping difficulties, anger, the loss of the ability to trust, hardening. And even weeping. The effects are real.

As much as our culture would like to, it cannot keep Rachel from weeping.

326 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
W. Ross Blackburn

Dr. Ross Blackburn has been ordained for 20 years and has served as Rector for Christ the King for the past 10. He earned a Master of Divinity at Trinity School for Ministry, and a PhD in biblical studies at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland. He and his wife Lauren have been married for 23 years and have five children.
As a member of Anglicans for Life's Board of Directors, Dr. Blackburn is a regular contributor to AFL's Lectionary Life App series, and writes for the Human Life Review as well as  Christian Publications.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Minnesota passes one of nation’s most permissive abortion laws

01 Feb 2023

Hit and run violence after Roe: Can't we talk about the morality of abortion?

28 Jan 2023

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.