In January, 1831, author Victor Hugo published his second book, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Becoming an integral part of the revitalization of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and an instant classic, the book pulled at the heartstrings of the reading public as it depicted the plight of "undesirables" and the tragedy of false accusations spurred on by a corrupt legal system. Only 275 copies were printed during its first run publication, but such were the power of its words and story that that was all it took to immortalize the book in literary history and spawn a dozen reverent imitators. In June, 1996, Disney created its own version of the classic tale.
While the animated movie took some liberties with its source material (making the story slight more kid-friendly and adding a happy ending), no one who saw it could deny that it was a beautiful masterpiece of art and music, the latter of which personally touched me, especially when I rewatched the movie and noticed a particular verse that is still relevant today and opens the door for a bigger discussion in the Life v. Death debate.
In the opening of the film, we are briefly introduced to a rag-tag band of Romani refugees and the man who hates the group's entire race, Judge Claude Frollo. After arresting the group, Frollo decides that one of the women is smuggling stolen goods and, when she refuses to relinquish her parcel, chases her to the steps of Notre Dame, where he snatches the bundle and fatally kicks the woman to the ground. Only then does he discover that the bundle is, in fact, a deformed and now orphaned baby. Horrified by the baby's appearance, and in an effort to hide his crime, Frollo attempts to drown the child. Fortunately, he is stopped just in time by Notre Dame's Archdeacon, after which the two men have a powerful exchange that sees the priest ask Frollo if spilling a child's blood is guiltless in the wake of its mother's murder.
What the Archdeacon sings ("Now you would add this child's blood to your guilt on the steps of Notre Dame?") is poignant - powerfully so when applied to the Pro-Abortion cabal's attitude towards babies born from rape. This, among other things, is a fantastically sore point even for Pro-Lifers because, when looking at the situation from the outside, one can only see the crime that has been committed and the "product of rape" that will "inevitably hinder any healing for the victim." It's extremely easy to whisper that the woman would be better off without the reminder of her assault. That an abortion should be done so healing can happen and time can cause forgetfulness. Pro-Aborts vehemently defend these whispers and many Pro-Life laws allow exceptions in their abortion bans for these cases over fear of "abandoning women in need."
However, consider the story of Pro-Life advocate and rape survivor Ayala Harrison. At fifteen, Ayala experienced a rape that left her shattered and pregnant, but she didn't let it destroy her. Moreover, she didn't let it destroy her child because she recognized that her child was a glimmer of hope in her pain. The child, a daughter, was not at fault for what had happened and was the comfort, healing, and strength Ayala needed to become whole again and leave her assault behind forever.
Ayala has never seen her child as the child of a rapist. On the contrary, Ayala routinely reminds those she speaks to that her daughter is her child and hers alone, and that rape does not define either of them. The same is true for every mother who faces the unthinkable and yet adores her child for the unforeseen blessing he is anyway. These mothers know that the circumstances of conception can't change their children's personhood or God's ultimate plan for good - a plan that has given their children beautiful testimonies of strength to exude their entire lives.
If mothers can see the value in their children, why can't we? As the Pro-Life movement, we stand on a foundation of "human dignity at every stage and in every situation." If we truly believe this, we can't turn to children conceived in rape and tell them their lives are the exception - that their story is unworthy of our care because of its difficult beginning. That we will turn them over to murderers because of a circumstance they couldn't control. Our love isn't conditional; if it is, then we are no better than the Pro-Aborts who offer acceptance only when it fits their narrative. Our God has called us to a better fight than that. He has called us to unrequited love, for in it lies our strength.
A crime committed against a mother dose not justify a crime against her child, and to say that women will never find healing without abortion does a massive disservice to a woman's strength and her child's worth. These cases are no different than every other case we defend. Do not shy away from them. Rather, live up to the Pro-Life reputation of love, and stand in the gap between the shunned and their fate (circumstances and all).
Sources: Simonandschuster.com, Google.com, Addall.com, AbeBooks.com, YouTube.com
Photo Credit: Google.com (edited by Polish)
Original Article
See Also: May 2024 Edition Other News