Human Dignity

Pro-life advocates saw the 2022 Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a turning point in the fight against abortion in the United States. After the court overturned Roe v. Wade and removed federal protection for the procedure, some conservative states began introducing fetal personhood laws, granting the unborn the same rights as full-born children.

But Hannah Strege watched it all unfold with another vulnerable group in mind: frozen embryos. In this new era, would they have rights? If they did, would anyone respect them?

Strege, 24, was conceived through in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1996 and frozen for two years. In 1997, she and 19 of her siblings were adopted in embryo form by John and Marlene Strege. They were shipped by FedEx to a local fertility clinic. Hannah was the only embryo to survive thawing and to successfully implant in Marlene’s uterus. She was born in December 1998.

Since Hannah was born, the number of frozen embryos sitting in storage in the United States has risen from roughly 100,000 to an estimated 1.5 million. Many of these embryos remain from IVF treatments, indefinitely chilled in canisters of liquid nitrogen with no plans for their future.

Some clinics feel overwhelmed by the growing volume of embryos sitting in storage and doctors may create dozens of embryos per patient. One doctor told NBC News in 2019 that some patients have 40–60 eggs retrieved in a cycle, and “the embryologist gets the orders from her doctor to inseminate all of them—and the question isn’t asked if the patient even wants that many inseminated. … Nobody’s going to have 30 kids.”

One Florida reproductive endocrinologist said, “We were not prepared for any of this. Twenty-one percent of our embryos have been abandoned.”

49.6 million. According to the Global Slavery Index that's the latest estimate for the number of slaves in the world today. It could be just another number in a blur of facts that fly by our faces in a day, but this nearly 50 million number has a face. It includes women and men, boys and girls who are held in bondage as sex slaves, domestic servants, and child soldiers.

Of course, that is only an estimate since slavery thrives in darkness. But another news item gives this statistic an even more horrifying angle. A British paper shared a story about “Daniel” (not his real name) who was brought into the U.K. for what he had been told was a "life-changing opportunity.” He thought he was going to get a better job. Instead, it was then that he realized there was no job opportunity and he had been brought to the UK to give a kidney to a stranger.

"He was going to literally be cut up like a piece of meat, take what they wanted out of him and then stitch him back up," according to Cristina Huddleston, from the anti-modern slavery group Justice and Care.

Luckily for Daniel, the doctors had become suspicious that he didn't know what was going on and feared he was being coerced. So, they halted the process.

Daniel was not free of his traffickers though. Back in the flat where he was staying, two men came to examine him. It was then he overheard a conversation about sending him back to Nigeria to remove his kidney there.

He fled, and after two nights sleeping rough, he walked into a police station near Heathrow, triggering an investigation that would lead to the UK's first prosecution for human trafficking for organ removal.

Despite international and domestic efforts, about 10 percent of all transplants worldwide are believed to be illegal—approximately 12,000 organs per year. For example, according to the World Health Organization as many as 7,000 kidneys are illegally obtained by traffickers each year around the world. While there is a black market for organs such as hearts, lungs, and livers, kidneys are the most sought-after organs … The process involves a number of people including the recruiter who identifies the victim, the person who arranges their transport, the medical professionals who perform the operation, and the salesman who trades the organ.

People today may say that it shouldn’t matter what other people think about you. All that matters is what you think of you, that you live up to your standards and do what you think is right. I propose that that is utter nonsense. We are utterly dependent on others to name, bless, and affirm us.

Imagine a poet who says, “You know, I've been writing poetry for 10 years and I've let 3,000 people read my poems. Everyone has hated them. Everyone says, ‘This is stupid, this is terrible, this is bad. You must get another job.’” But the poet says, “It doesn't matter what they think. I know I'm a great poet.”

Would you say, “Well, there's a person with a great self-image?” Of course not. You’d probably say, “That’s a person on the verge of insanity. They are not functional.” And you know the reason why? Because we cannot bless ourselves. We cannot feel beautiful just because we keep saying I'm beautiful. You cannot bless yourself. You cannot name yourself. You cannot say I'm somebody. Somebody from outside has got to tell you you're beautiful. Somebody from the outside has got to tell you you're a good poet. Somebody from the outside has got to bless you. Somebody from the outside has got to name you. You can't do it yourself.

And that means you are completely dependent, or you will be completely dependent on somebody else, spiritually. Your whole being is going to rest on somebody, whether it's the critics, your parents, somebody you hope to marry, somebody you have married, or somebody else. Like sheep, we are dependent on others for our survival and flourishing.

In his book Forgive, Tim Keller tells the story of a friend of his who was a PhD student at Yale. Keller’s friend once told him that modern people think about slavery and say, “How could people have ever accepted such a monstrosity?” Keller continues:

My friend said, “That’s not the way historians think. They ask: considering the fact it was universally believed by all societies that we had the right to attack an enslaved, weaker people, and since everybody had always done it, the real historical question is, why did it occur to anybody that it was wrong? Whoever first had that idea?”

My friend then answered his own question, pointing out that the first voices in the fourth, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries who called for the abolition of slavery were all Christians. And the Christian, who called for this justice, believed there was a God of love, who demanded that we love our neighbors—all our neighbors—as ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln biographer Jon Meacham notes, “There was no evident political gain to be had for Lincoln [to be anti-slavery]; quite the opposite. So why did he … state so clearly that slavery was unjust?”

Someone close to Lincoln pointed to the following story:

One morning in … the city [Lincoln] passed a slave auction. A vigorous and comely [young woman] was being sold. She underwent a thorough examination at the hands of the bidders; they pinched her flesh and made her trot up and down the room like a horse, to show how she moved, and in order, as the auctioneer said, that “bidders might satisfy themselves” whether the article they were offering to buy was sound or not.

The whole thing was so revolting that Lincoln moved away from the scene with a deep feeling of “unconquerable hate.” Bidding his companions follow him he said, “By God, boys, let's get away from this.”

Meacham concludes, “That experience formed one element of Lincoln's reaction, if not the main one. ‘The slavery question offered bothered me as far back as 1836 to 1840’, Lincoln said in 1858. ‘I was troubled and grieved over it.’”

Possible Preaching Angle:

In the same way, are we today troubled and grieved by the injustice of the world?

Cicero said, “The thing itself cannot be praised. Only its potential.” He was talking about young children. Such was the view in the Empire where Jesus arrived as an infant. Plutarch said, “The child, is more like a plant” than a human, or even than an animal.

But Jesus and his followers had a different view of the moral status of children. To follow him, Jesus said, you had to become like a child. Even babies, Christians said, are fully human and fully bear the image of God. As the African bishop Cyprian wrote, “God himself does not make such distinction of person or of age, since he offers himself as a Father to all.” And if that’s God’s view, then “Every sex and age should be held in honor among you.”

The church even extended that honor and protection to the unborn. The Didache, one of the earliest Christian documents says, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”

Throughout the Roe regime, contemporary Christians have similarly demonstrated their “contempt of death,” their pursuit of justice for the unborn, and their love of children and pregnant women. The church has more than mere potential to better bear witness to life. It is the house of the Life himself.

Betty Hodge knows what it’s like to have an unplanned pregnancy. And she knows what it’s like to have the father of the unborn child push for an abortion. She’s been there. But she didn’t seriously consider terminating her pregnancy, because she didn’t feel alone. Hodge said, “Thankfully I had a family that was supportive.” She now works at a pregnancy resource center in Jackson, Mississippi, so she can provide that same support for other mothers in need.

These days, she sees a lot of them. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (in 2022), allowing the state of Mississippi to pass a law banning all abortions except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest that have been reported to police. The clinic that gave its name to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case shut down in July. It was the state’s only abortion provider. So, while women may still travel to Florida, New York, or Illinois to terminate a pregnancy, abortion has effectively ended in the Magnolia State.

The state health office estimates this will result in an additional 5,000 babies being born in Mississippi in 2023. The pro-life movement there is eager to celebrate each of these precious lives, but they’re also aware of other upsetting statistics: Mississippi has the highest rate of preterm births—over 30 percent more than the national average. The state has the highest infant mortality rate in the US, with nearly nine of every 1,000 babies dying. And for the infants who live to be toddlers, 28 percent will live in poverty.

Hodge doesn’t shy away from these hard facts. For her, this is part of the work of being pro-life. ... And with the state expecting 5,000 more babies in 2023, she sees an opportunity to put pro-life beliefs into practice and show that Christians care. She said, “If we’re going to say we stand for life, then it’s pertinent for us to stand up and say we don’t just care about the unborn child. As a church, we have an opportunity to make a difference.”

Last year a software engineer at Google made an unusual assertion: That an artificial-intelligence chatbot developed at the company had become sentient, was entitled to rights as a person and might even have a soul. After what the company called a “lengthy engagement” with the employee on the issue, Google fired him.

It’s unlikely this will be the last such episode. Artificial intelligence is writing essays, winning at chess, detecting likely cancers, and making business decisions. That’s just the beginning for a technology that will only grow more powerful and pervasive, bolstering longstanding worries that robots might someday overtake us.

Yet far less attention has been paid to how we should treat these new forms of intelligence, some of which will be embodied in increasingly anthropomorphic forms. Might we eventually owe them some kind of moral or legal rights? Might we feel we should treat them like people if they look and act the part?

Answering those questions will force society to address profound social, ethical, and legal quandaries. What exactly is it that entitles a being to rights, and what kind of rights should those be? Are there helpful parallels in the human relationship with animals? Will the synthetic minds of tomorrow, quite possibly destined to surpass human intelligence, someday be entitled to vote or to marry? If they make an articulate demand for such rights, will anyone be in a position to say no?

These concerns might seem far-fetched. But the robot invasion is already well under way. The question of rights for these soon-to-be-ubiquitous artificial forms of intelligence has gained urgency from the sudden prominence of ChatGPT and the AI-powered new form of Microsoft’s Bing. Both of which have astounded with their sophisticated responses to user questions.

“We need to think about this right now,” says David Gunkel, author of the book Robot Rights. Citing the rapid spread of AI and its fast-growing capabilities, he adds: “We are already in this territory.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

The world continues to play down the unique sacredness of human life and is willing to grant equality to animals or manmade robots. Humankind was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Only we have the “breath of God” (Gen. 2:7) and are unique among all of creation. Only God can create life; the best we can do is create an imitation of life in AI.

Best-selling Muslim author and renowned critic of Islam, Irshad Manji shook the religious world with her ground-breaking and highly acclaimed book The Trouble with Islam Today. Translated into more than 30 languages, Manji writes about the lack of inquiry and freedom of thought and speech that pervades across the entire Islamic world.

In 1972, her devout Muslim family immigrated from East Africa to a suburb of Vancouver, British Columbia, when she was four-years-old. She writes that she came to believe in the basic dignity of every individual not from Islam, but "It was the democratic environment to which my family and I migrated." A couple of years later, her always frugal parents enrolled her in free baby-sitting services at a Baptist church when her mom left the house to sell Avon products door-to-door.

There the lady who supervised Bible study showed me and my older sister the same patience she displayed with her own son. She made me believe my questions were worth asking. The questions I posed as a seven-year-old were simple ones: Where did Jesus come from? When did he live? Who did he marry? These queries didn't put anyone on the spot, but my point is that the act of asking always met with an inviting smile.

She cites another example at her junior high school and her evangelical Christian vice-principal.

[The majority of students] lobbied for school shorts that revealed more leg than our vice-principal thought reasonable. After a heated debate with us, he okayed the shorts, bristling but still respecting popular will. How many Muslim evangelicals do you know who tolerate the expression of viewpoints that distress their souls?

Of course, my vice-principal had to bite his tongue in the public school system, but such a system can only emerge from a consensus that people of different faiths, backgrounds, and stations ought to tussle together. How many Muslim countries tolerate such tussle? I look back now and thank God I wound up in a world where the Quran didn't have to be my first and only book.

Some people think that the claim that human equality comes from Jesus is just biased. But when the British historian Tom Holland set out to write his book, Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, he was not a Christian. He'd always been far more attracted by the Greek and Roman gods than by the crucified hero of Christianity. But through years of research, he concluded that he, agnostic as he was, held many specifically Christian beliefs. For example, his belief in universal human equality and the need to care for the poor and oppressed.

Holland writes:

That every human being possessed an equal dignity was not remotely a self-evident truth. A Roman would have laughed at it. To campaign against discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexuality, however, was to depend on large numbers of people sharing in a common assumption: that everyone possessed an inherent worth. The origins of this principle—as the philosopher Frederick Nietzsche had contemptuously pointed out—lay not in the French Revolution, nor in the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Enlightenment, but in the Bible.

In his book The Life We’re Looking For, author Andy Crouch relates the following spiritual prayer experience. While stuck in Chicago’s O’Hare airport on a cold winter night, he needed some exercise, so he tried the following prayer walk experiment:

As I walked, I decided, I would try to take note of each person I passed. I would pay as much attention to each of them as I could … and say to myself as I saw each one, image bearer. I passed a weary looking man in a suit. Image bearer. Right behind him was a woman in a sari. Image bearer. A mother pushed a stroller with a young baby; a young man, presumably the baby’s father, walked next to her, half holding, half dragging a toddler by the hand. Image bearer, image bearer, image bearer, image bearer. A ramp worker walked by in a bulky coat and safety vest. Image bearer.

By the time I reached the corridor where Terminal 1 connects to Terminal 2, I had passed perhaps 200 people, glancing at their faces just long enough to say to myself, image bearer. I had six more concourses to go. ... After about 45 minutes of walking—image bearer, image bearer, image bearer … I was at the most distant gates.

By the end of the walk … I had passed people in every stage of life and health, [many] national and ethnic backgrounds, some traveling together, most seemingly alone. The stories I would never learn behind each of those faces … the possibility and futility each one had no one and would know … carried an emotional and spiritual weight that I can still feel, years later. From time to time, I repeat this exercise on a city street, in a coffee shop, even driving on the highway with faces are just a blur behind a windshield. Image bearer, image bearer, image bearer. It never fails to move me.

Can fetuses (or unborn children) really feel pain and experience a human connection with other humans? New scientific research provides a mass of evidence that they can. Here are some of the facts from the latest research:

• There is now strong evidence that fetuses as early as twelve weeks exhibit conscious, intentional behavior and that they actively discriminate among similar sensory experiences.

• At 12 weeks the baby demonstrates intentional “social” movements—behavior that isn’t accidental nor reflexive but demonstrates conscious awareness of the environment, and intentional—even social—planning of physical actions.

• As early as 14 weeks, fetuses distinguish between music and mere vibrational noise that stimulates the same auditory pathways.

• At 19–23 weeks unborn babies electively respond to and distinguish between different types of external stimulation, displaying more intentional movement to their mother’s belly touch than to maternal speaking.

• As early as 20 weeks, fetal hand movements toward the mouth and eyes are straighter and less jerky, revealing a surprisingly advanced level of motor planning.

Stuart Derbyshire, a researcher and former pro-choice consultant, was considered “a leading voice against the likelihood of fetal pain.” Yet, faced with mounting scientific evidence to the contrary, Derbyshire changed his mind and wrote, “The evidence, and a balanced reading of that evidence, points toward an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks.”

Newly-released figures (June, 2022) show that one-fifth of all US pregnancies were aborted in 2020, with 930,160 terminations taking place over the course of that year. The statistics showed that the number of terminations rocketed by eight percent between 2017 and 2020.

An exact breakdown on how advanced each of the terminated pregnancies has not been released. But researchers did determine that 54 percent of all terminations which took place in 2020 were the result of the so-called “abortion pill.” It sees women take two doses of a drug which induces miscarriage during the first 10 weeks of a pregnancy.

The statistics were released almost two months after a leaked Supreme Court draft judgement indicated plans to scrap the 1973 Roe v Wade law. It guarantees American women the right to an abortion. Multiple states are now poised to impose an outright ban on terminations as the conservative majority court prepares to publish its completed opinion.

The number of abortions carried out in 1973--the first year the procedure became legal--sat at around 750,000. That number rose to more than one million by the late 70s, and stayed there throughout the 1980s, reaching an all-time high of more than 1.5 million abortions in 1990.

The figure dropped below one million for the first time in 2011, and now faces decreasing further as tough new laws come into place across conservative states.

Advances in medical technology since Roe was published have further complicated the issue. Roe allows women to have abortions up until the point a fetus can survive outside the womb. That is currently defined as between 23 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.

But in 2021, an Alabama baby born at just 21 weeks went on to survive thanks to modern medicine that would not have been available in 1973, sparking further discussion about abortion time limits.

In what has been called “the greatest pro-life speech of all time,” the now-deceased Christian leader Richard John Neuhaus shared the turning point on abortion. He was a pastor of what he described as a “very poor, very black, inner-city parish in Brooklyn, New York.” Neuhaus had just read an article by a distinguished professor at Princeton named Ashley Montagu. Montagu listed the following qualifications for “a life worth living”—good health, a stable family, economic security, educational opportunity, the prospect of a satisfying career to realize the fullness of one’s potential.

Neuhaus wrote:

And I remember vividly looking out the next Sunday morning at [my congregation] and seeing all those older faces creased by hardship endured and injustice afflicted, and yet radiating hope undimmed and love unconquered. And I saw the younger faces of children deprived of most, if not all, of those qualifications on Prof. Montagu’s list. And it struck me then, like a bolt of lightning … that Prof. Montagu believed that the people of [our church]—people of faith and kindness and endurance and, by the grace of God, hope unvanquished—that, by (his) criteria, none of these my people had a life worth living. In that moment, I knew that a great evil was afoot. The culture of death is an idea before it is a deed. In that moment, I knew that I had been recruited to the cause of the culture of life.

In late 2021, a young man by the name of Kaivan Shroff published an article entitled, “Men like me benefit from safe abortion access.” By “men like me,” Shroff clearly means successful men, men who are too busy to care about any aspect of their sexual activity other than enjoyment, let alone take responsibility for it. Thanks to abortion, neither the needs and desires of the woman involved nor the life of the child who might come into being must enter his calculation.

According to his lengthy bio, Shroff is very important. He’s a senior adviser to D.C. non-profit and a former staffer for Hillary Clinton campaign’s digital team. Not to mention he has an MBA from Yale and a BA from Brown—and, he is about to graduate from law school. He certainly doesn’t need a child to complicate all of that success.

Shroff tells us, “In many ways, it feels like my life is just about to begin. It would be a terrible time to have a baby.” He wants to have kids someday. But he’s not in a relationship and after suffering through the pandemic, he’s ready “to eke out and enjoy every last minute of my 20s.” So, while he’s busy sowing his wild oats, any children he happens to father will just have to meet their untimely end, at least until the time is right for him.

Legal scholar Erika Bachiochi writes, “While pregnant, a woman is carrying a new and vulnerable human being within her. Unlike a biological father, a pregnant woman cannot just walk away; a pregnant woman must engage in a life-destroying act.”

Abortion, in other words, facilitates the sexual desires of cowardly, irresponsible men to abandon their unborn child and their child’s mother—while encouraging women to “free” themselves from the tyranny of their biology by committing an act of violence against their unborn child.

But what Shroff doesn’t acknowledge is that abortion isn’t cost-free. While it enables him to walk away from sex with nary a consequence, it requires much of women, much that doesn’t set them “free” at all.

Official estimates are that approximately 30,000 Canadians died from COVID over the last 18 months (Editor’s Note: article was written in 10/21.). To combat the illness, provincial governments locked down businesses for weeks going on months, and also kept people from church, from funerals, and from seeing their aged relatives or anyone else. Masks were mandated in most public settings, and vaccines went from being offered to being required to travel on trains or planes. And at the federal level, the government was spending almost $1 billion a day on Covid.

The point here isn’t to question these impositions and costs, but to contrast them with what’s being done for the unborn. We don’t even know how many unborn babies were murdered over the same 18-month period because that toll isn’t being printed in our daily newspaper. Their deaths aren’t thought important enough for figures to be kept current, so we have to go back to 2019 to get any statistics.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada reports 83,576 unborn children were killed that year though this number only includes hospital and clinic abortions, which means the overall toll could be much higher. So, over the same time period that we’ve been dealing with COVID, a conservative estimate would put the abortion death toll at well over 120,000 Canadians. We can be grateful that there are signs COVID may be abating, but the same isn’t true of abortion: long before COVID hit our shores, abortion was already ending the lives of one in five Canadian babies and it continues to do so.

Christians should pray for our governments to take action to protect the unborn, but the contrast presented here is one for God’s people to consider too. If the deaths of 30,000 concerned us enough to shut down the country, and got even the Liberal Prime Minister arguing that when there are other lives at risk then “My body, my choice” shouldn’t apply, how should we respond when we learn that another plague is killing four times that number? What sort of attention should we give, and what sort of time, energy, and money should we devote, to fighting abortion?

Roland Warren has led the National Fatherhood Initiative for 11 years. In 2012 he became president and CEO of Care Net, the nation’s largest network of pregnancy resource centers. Roland contends that one of the keys to stopping abortion involves getting men to step up as fathers. Roland says,

If I were to have a heart attack at this moment, the most important person is the first responder whose action affects the life trajectory of the person in a crisis. With pregnancy, the guy is typically the first responder. We did a national survey of women who had had abortions and asked them who they talked with about it. The No. 1 person—ahead of medical professionals, abortion providers, pregnancy centers, their mother, their best friend, their father, anybody—was the guy who got her pregnant. He’s the first responder and the most influential person in her decision to abort.

Roe v. Wade delinked fatherhood and motherhood. When we talk to clients, the mother often says, “I can’t give birth to this child.” She understands she’s already a mother: Her body is changing. Often when we talk to the men, they say, “I don’t want to be a father.” [But] he already is a father. The question on the table is “What kind of father will you be?”

Margaret Boemer went for a routine ultrasound 16 weeks into her pregnancy with her third child. She quickly found out that things were far from routine. "The doctor came in and told us that there was something seriously wrong with our baby and that she had a sacrococcygeal teratoma (tumor) . . . And it was very shocking and scary, because we didn't know what that long word meant or what diagnosis that would bring."

Although other doctors had advised her to terminate the pregnancy, her doctor told her about another possibility: fetal surgery. This option, though, would not be an easy road. Boemer said, “LynLee didn't have much of a chance. At 23 weeks, the tumor was shutting her heart down and causing her to go into cardiac failure, so it was a choice of allowing the tumor to take over her body or giving her a chance at life. It was an easy decision for us: We wanted to give her life.”

She was 23 weeks and 5 days pregnant, when the doctor performed the emergency fetal surgery. By this time, the tumor was nearly larger than her baby. Surgeons operated for about five hours removed the bulk of the tumor and then placed LynLee back inside the womb. Boemer was on bed rest for the remainder of her pregnancy. Despite her pain, she marshaled her strength and made it another 12 weeks to nearly 36 weeks--full term--when LynLee Hope was born, for the second time via C-section.

Boemer said, "It was very difficult.” But seeing her toddler smiling with her sisters, she added: "It was worth every pain." A year after LynLee had been born for a second time, Boemer said, “We’re amazed at how well she is doing. We know that God has great plans for her in the future to do something big.” She explained how little LynLee loved to sing, one of her favorites, “Jesus Loves Me."

A recent Angus Reid poll asked 1,528 Canadians for their moral perspectives on a wide variety of issues. Among the findings: while 51% thought that using plastic straws is always or usually morally wrong, only 20% thought the same of “doctor-assisted dying” and just 26% for abortion.

(People) are rejecting God’s Law and … are creating their own substitutes in an attempt to justify themselves (Jer. 2:13-14. Luke 18:9-14). Sure, I may have just had my elderly mother euthanized, and had my unborn baby aborted, but I’m a good person because I always use a bamboo, not plastic, straw. I’m doing my part!

Possible Preaching Angle:

The lawless trend this poll reveals provides Christians with an opportunity to contrast the sandy foundation of the world’s moral code with the Solid Rock (Matt. 7:24-27, Ps. 18:2). God’s Law versus the world’s morals--has the contrast ever been clearer? Let’s take full advantage of this time and opportunity given to us to bring many to him.

Novelist Erica Jong supports abortion but is candid about its emotional toll. The author of provocative, sexual novels writes that abortion, for her, was too high a price to pay:

As a seventeen-year-old freshman at Barnard, I got my first diaphragm from Planned Parenthood (a college tradition). I never got pregnant accidentally because I knew that an abortion would make me terribly sad. I loved children, dogs, cats and other living things, and I understood that terminating a pregnancy would be extremely hard for me emotionally.