In Psalm 139
“For it was you who created my being,
knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I thank you for the wonder of my being,
for the wonders of all your creation.”
“Already you knew my soul,
my body held no secret from you
when I was being fashioned in secret
and molded in the depths of the earth.”
A Letter from St. Jerome
“Some virgins (unmarried women), when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently, they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world, guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.” (St. Jerome (c. 340-420 AD), in his letter to Eustochim).
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence).
Those who believe that a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body are right by the law. What is lacking, in the understanding of the law, is the fact that what she has in her womb is another body which was created and endowed by his or her Creator with certain unalienable Rights. The woman and the abortionist have no right, under God, to destroy another person’s life. drm
Every human being “has the right to life, to bodily integrity and to the means
which are suitable for the proper development of life…” (Pacem in Terris, 11)
Child protection authorities imprisoned a woman for endangering the life of
her child because she used drugs while pregnant. In the case of RU-486, women are
actually paying for the right to use a drug to get rid of their unborn child. Why is it, then, that a woman who uses one drug, which can kill or harm her unborn child, is maligned and even imprisoned for her actions, while another woman pays for a drug that doesn’t just harm, but kills her unborn child? (Letter to the Editor: Megan Smith, for the Washington Times)
Nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, in her testimony before the Supreme Court on the Nebraska law concerning partial-birth abortion, which, sadly, as we know, was overturned, stated the following: “The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into them opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp.” (From an article in the Florida Catholic by Fr. John McCormick)
Some babies who have survived an abortion have been discarded alive into soiled
hospital linen or left on a baby scale, unattended, without warmth or nourishment,
their hearts beating and limbs moving, until they died. (From an article in Newsweek
by George Will)
One of the nation’s finest universities (Princeton) has given a prestigious position to an advocate of infanticide. Peter Singer suggests that for perhaps a month after a baby is born, birth parents should be entitled to dispose of unwanted children, it is not surprising that the senate has what deserves to be called an Infanticide Caucus. The caucus has at least three members. One of the former members, Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania (no longer a member of the Senate) asked two Democrats, Feingold of Wisconsin and Lautenberg of New Jersey: “Suppose during such an abortion, during which a baby is delivered feet first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed, the baby slips all the way out of the birth canal.
Should killing the baby even then be a permissible choice?” Neither senator would say “no.” During the Oct. 20, 1999 debate, Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus:
Santorum said to her, “You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you
agree with that?”
Boxer said, “I think when you bring your baby home…”
She said more, but what she would not say was “yes.”
(From an article in Newsweek by George Will)
The selling of body parts or human tissue is against federal law; but, fetal
tissue wholesalers pay abortion clinics a “site fee” to place employees into the
clinics to collect various body parts.
PRICE LIST FOR BODY PARTS
(Source: East Volusia County Right to Life)
“There is absolutely no question in my mind; whether Roe vs. Wade (abortion on demand) is preserved or scrapped depends on what happens in the presidential election, and to pretend otherwise is naive.” (President Bill Clinton, Washington Times, 1/23/2000)
No Catholic in communion with Our Lord who has stated, “Suffer the little ones to come unto me,” could possibly, in good conscience support candidates from any political party which condones, directly or indirectly, that unborn life be sacrificed on the altar of choice. (Fr. John McCormick, for the Florida Catholic)
Dr. James McMahon, now deceased, used to perform the partial-birth abortion procedure.
He was interviewed about it in the American Medical Association News (July 5, 1993), and was asked how he justified it morally. He claimed that he did have some moral compunctions and thought it would be great if the child could be adopted. But, then he said, “another and more important question enters my mind: who owns the child — It’s got to be the mother”, he answered himself.
This is the clearest piece of evidence that abortion is noted in the same mentality which brought us slavery and is, in fact, simply a new version of the same. The Gospel message, on the other hand is that we belong neither to our parents (in an absolute sense); nor to the state, nor to ourselves; but, to God.
The Daily Telegraph reported on October 11th.that 80 percent of neuroscientists who responded to the British national newspaper survey said that unborn babies aborted after 11 weeks’ gestation should receive pain relief during the procedure.
What if they televised abortion?
By Judie Brown, president, American Life League
I was in New Orleans, getting ready to return from a speaking engagement when I heard the horrifying news of the terrorist attack on New York City and my own hometown, Washington, D.C.
Like every American who planned to fly that afternoon, my flight was cancelled, so I just sat in my hotel room staring at the TV and silently viewing the horrors of that morning.
When they showed the trapped office workers on the top floors dangling outside their windows, I could feel tears slipping down my cheeks.
And I gasped out loud, when the camera caught one of the upper story victims plunging to his death, his arms reaching upward toward the heavens.
My first thought was that only an evil of unimaginable dimensions could be behind such brutal and pitiless attacks on innocent persons.
But then I remembered how a friend had once explained that evil isn’t a measurable thing that grows and diminishes, but instead a constant worldly presence that changes only in terms of its appearance.
There’s no more or no less evil today than there was when Adam and Eve first ushered it into the world. It just gives itself a different face from time to time.
The fact is the evil that ripped out the heart of downtown New York and killed six thousand people, is the same evil that stops the beating hearts of 1.5 million babies in the womb every year.
The only real difference between those two sets of innocent victims was the weeklong, wall-to-wall TV coverage.
I guarantee you, if CBS, NBC and ABC provided live continuous coverage of surgical abortions for even just one day, every abortion mill in this country would go out of business overnight!
The American Medical Association endorses human cloning!
They have embraced the “clone to kill” procedure whereby human beings are created in a laboratory, and destroyed for their stem cells. IT’S FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE 21ST CENTURY! From GrassFire.net
New Study: Risk of Psychiatric Hospitalization rises after Abortion
A new study published in the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) shows that psychiatric hospitalization risks rise dramatically after abortions. A review of the medical records of 56,741 California Medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery. Rates of psychiatric treatment remained significantly higher for at least four years. A previously published study by the same authors revealed that women who had abortions were also more likely to require subsequent outpatient mental health care. Depressive psychosis was the most common diagnosis.
According to the CMAJ study’s lead author, David Reardon, Ph.D., a common complaint among participants in post-abortion recovery programs is that when they raised the issue of their past abortions while seeking mental health care, their therapists dismissed abortion as irrelevant.
“Therapists who fixate on the ‘abortion is benign’ theory, either out of ignorance or allegiance to defensive political views on abortion, are doing a great disservice to women who need understanding and support,” said Reardon, who recently co- authored a book, Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion. “This study, based on objective medical records, validates the claims of tens of thousands of women in post-abortion recovery programs.”
Reardon said, 1.3 million American women undergoing abortions each year, would result in 18,200 cases of PTSD each year, or over a half million cases since 1973. Including other types of negative reactions, he said, would increase the overall complication rate by twenty times or more.
This is the seventh study Reardon and his colleagues have published on abortion complications in the last eighteen months. Among the other studies, also published in major peer-reviewed journals, one revealed that among women with an unintended first pregnancy, those who had abortions were at significantly higher risk of clinical depression an average of eight years later compared to similar women who carried their unintended first pregnancies to term. Higher rates of suicide and substance abuse among women who had abortions were also revealed in the other studies published by the research team. Springfield, Illinois, May. 15 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN)
Democratic National Committee refuses to acknowledge pro-lifers during the presidential election.
The Focus on the Family organization has reported that the Democratic National Committee is refusing to acknowledge pro-lifers within the party. The pro-life group, “Democrats for Life” have been denied a link on the DNC website even though the site has hundreds of links which have only remote ties to the party.
Kristin Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the group was told by the DNC that, because their pro-life view isn’t consistent with the Democratic platform, they wouldn’t be included on the very long list of official Democratic groups. “We’re excluded even though we’re supposed to be included,” Day said. “They have 280 links and I’m sure other links don’t agree 100 percent with the platform.” (LifesiteNews.com/CWN)
Stem-cell successes involve adult sources, not embryos
Comment from one of the readers Catholic World News
We are not able to declare when a soul enters a body—-BUT the Church Magisterium CAN! And it did in 1854 with the Declaration of the Immaculate Conception it became obvious when the soul entered the body in that Pius IX speaking ex cathedra did in fact declare that Mary the Mother of God was “Immaculately CONCEIVED”. This is the very definition of Life—soul and body united from the moment of conception. All Catholics are bound… (Posted by: gr8tmtman – Nov. 18, 2006 – http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=47718)
US House approves funds for embryonic stem-cell research
Washington, Jan. 11, 2007 (CWNews.com) – The US House of Representatives today approved a bill providing for federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.
The legislation, which was listed among the top priorities of the new Democratic leadership in Congress, is a direct challenge to President George W. Bush, who has indicated that he would veto the bill. Although the bill was expected to clear the House, the vote (253-174) fell more than 30 votes short of the two-thirds majority that would be required to override a presidential veto. The bill now goes before the Senate.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hailed the January 11 vote as a victory for medical research, and urged Bush “to join members from both sides of the aisle in supporting the hope of stem cell research.”
Indian government confirms sex-selection abortion crisis
New Delhi, Dec. 15, 2006 (CWNews.com) – The government of India has acknowledged the serious dimensions of the problem of sex-selection abortion. Renuka Chowdhury, federal minister for Women and Child Development, admitting on December 14 that over 10 million girls have been killed in 20 years in female feticide and infanticide.
“Today, we have the odd distinction of having lost 10 million girl children in the past 20 years,” Chowdhury told a seminar in Delhi. “Who has killed these girl children? Their own parents.” In some states, the minister said, newborn girls have been killed by pouring sand or tobacco juice into their nostrils.
UN commission raps Polish restrictions on abortion
Jan. 19, 2007 (C-fam.org/CWNews.com) – A UN commission has exceeded its mandate in order to criticize Poland for restricting abortion, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) reports.
UN activist group helped slant Times story on abortion
Are we, the citizens of the United States, getting the right story? Here is an example:
Jan. 5, 2007 (C-fam.org/CWNews.com) – The New York Times published a grossly inaccurate story about abortion in El Salvador with the help of an organization accredited to the UN, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam) reports.
Times freelancer Jack Hitt’s April 2006 story, “Pro-Life Nation” reported on a woman serving a 30-year jail term for supposedly having an illegal abortion. In reporting the story, the Times relied on a translator from a UN-accredited non-governmental organization called Ipas– which among other things, sells portable abortion devices over the telephone, reports Samantha Singson in C-Fam’s Friday Fax.
The inaccuracy of the Times story was exposed by the Canadian-based LifeSiteNews.com. The ombudsman for the Times later confirmed the accuracy of the LifeSiteNews charge: that a woman identified in the Times story as having spent time in prison for an illegal abortion had actually been convicted of strangling her own newborn infant.
Public opposition to the Roe v. Wade decision is reaching new highs in the United States, according to a poll commissioned by the country’s Catholic bishops.
A Harris Interactive poll, conducted found that public support for the Roe v. Wade decision had dropped to 52 percent, from 57 percent in 1998 – a significant drop in acceptance of the Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand throughout the US.
“While abortion has been legal in the United States for over three decades, many Americans don’t know basic facts, such as when in pregnancy abortions are legal or why they are generally performed,” observes Cathy Cleaver Ruse on behalf of the bishops’ committee. She notes that the public is particularly confused about the actual legal status of abortion, with many people believing that the Roe decision only allowed legal abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy– when in fact the Court’s ruling allows for abortion up to the moment of birth.
Case Highlights Contradiction
California’s law concerning an unborn human being states that prosecutors can seek the death penalty because “California law permits two homicide charges for the murder of a pregnant woman.” The article goes on to say that the law has an exemption for abortion. So which is it?
Is killing an unborn child the prerogative of a parent, or is it homicide?
Why is the death of an unborn human being valued and punishable if the father kills him, but devalued and not punishable if the mother kills him?
For those California lawmakers who are confused, allow me to offer this formula to ponder next time they are in making a life/death decision: “A live baby equals good; a dead baby equals bad.”
This would make their laws consistent no matter who chooses to take the life of another. Additionally, it would protect the rights of the unborn child who cannot yet plead for his or her own life. The Editor
Catholic Senators (past and present) who are openly pro-abortion:
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE)
HUMAN ENTITIES by Hadley Arkes
Hadley Arkes is the author of “Natural Rights and the Right to Choose” and is a fellow in Princeton University’s politics department. He had testified before Congress on behalf of anti-abortion legislation. Here are excerpts from an interview by NEWSWEEK’s Debra Rosenberg.
ROSENBERG: what rights does a fetus have?
ARKES: On what grounds would one consider a child in the womb as anything less than a human being? Doesn’t speak yet: neither do deaf-mutes. Doesn’t have arms and legs. There are many people who are born without limbs or lose limbs in the course of their lives and they don’t lose anything necessary to their standing as human beings. The fetus certainly wouldn’t have a right to practice law, wouldn’t have the right to use the squash courts, it wouldn’t have the right to a driver’s license. But certain kinds of rights that reside in human beings would not really be variable by height and weight. So the right not to be killed for a casual reason or an insubstantial reason would really not depend on the height or the weight of the baby – or its degrees of articulateness or even consciousness.
Does viability matter?
No, I don’t think so.
Would it be inconsistent to say that a fetus could be a crime victim but abortion is legal?
Not particularly. If the abortion were done not with the intention of destroying the child but with the intention of saving the mother, if we could say that the abortion were justified, then we wouldn’t say that the fetus was the victim of a wrong.
What should be done with frozen embryos in IVF clinics?
To the extent it’s practicable, we ought to arrange for the adoption of these embryos by people who are willing to gestate them. If not, then they perish. The question is whether anyone should have a veto, or whether the law itself should contain a preference for life.
So you’re saying the embryo could be implanted without the natural parents’ consent?
Sure. The embryo doesn’t encumber any longer the body of the woman. She’s not being affected by it. It doesn’t encumber her interests because she doesn’t have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. There’s a tricky question here as to whether the natural parents can have property rights. The law doesn’t ascribe property rights to bodies.
Can embryos be adopted?
The laws are mixed on this one. If these are human entities and they’re adrift out there somewhere, they’re abandoned, you can argue that we should be treating them with the same perspective we bring to other abandoned human beings.
So it’s not OK to donate them to medical research?
Not any more than it would be OK for people to donate their own born children to medical research.
Is cloning OK for research or reproduction?
The matter of cloning for reproduction may actually be more arguably OK, though I have a strong aversion to it. But the case against so-called therapeutic cloning, cloning for research, could raise even greater moral abjections. Would you allow parents to commit the bodies of their children – not for any procedure involving the treatment of the child or the well-being of their own child, but for some speculative gain or benefit that could accrue to some other children or some other generation?
So when does life begin?
The leading textbooks on embryology say it’s the union of two gametes, a male gamete or spermatozoon and a female gamete or mature ovum. You can phrase it in different ways, but on the medical side there is no dissent on this matter. What we find is that people are not arguing over the science, they’re arguing over the social definition of a human being. People throw in all these other attributes – it has to be alert, and articulate. Well, many of those things aren’t manifest in a newborn child. He’s not snapping off witty sentences. He’s not doing syllogisms. But we know that the capacity for it is there. If we know that about the child we know that about the zygote or the embryo.
Cloning human embryos becomes ‘constitutional right’
Missouri voters narrowly approve support for biomedical research industry
A ballot initiative in Missouri written to enshrine in the state constitution the right to clone human embryos for “research” was approved by voters by a single percentage point, and pro-life organizations have said they expect a court challenge to the plan.
The state’s Amendment 2 was advertised as a human cloning ban, however, the 2,000-plus word document bans only the process of actually creating a live human being from cloning and inserts the right to clone human embryos in the constitution.
Voters have now “ushered in an era of death in Missouri under the false claim of helping vulnerable members of society. On the contrary, the most vulnerable – the innocent embryonic child – is now at greater risk than ever before,” said Judie Brown, president of the American Life League. Posted: November 8, 2006 11:16 a.m. WorldNetDaily.com
New breakthrough with adult stem cells
Italian researchers have announced a potential breakthrough in treatment for liver and kidney disease, using stem cells taken from adult tissues, the ANSA news service reports.
A team of scientists in Florence, led by Sergio Romagnani, discovered kidney stem cells that could help repair diseased kidneys. And a separate team in Turin, led by Benedetta Bussolati, made a similar discovery of stem cells from livers.
Both teams of scientists found that the stem cells they had drawn from adult tissue could be cultivated in laboratory conditions to serve in other functions. Bussolati said that her team found the cells could “differentiate into liver cells, bone cells, blood cells, and even pancreatic cells.” The diverse possible uses for these stem cells make them a viable alternative to stem cells harvested from embryonic tissue. Sep. 07, 2006 (CWNews.com)
Stem-cell successes involve adult sources, not embryos
Nov. 17 (CWNews.com) – Stem cells drawn from adult sources have shown promise in the treatment of muscular dystrophy in dogs, the journal Nature reports this week.
Researchers found that by using stem cells obtained from mature animals, they could ease the symptoms of muscular dystrophy, allowing previously crippled dogs to walk again. Sharon Hesterlee, the president of the Muscular Dystrophy Association, said the study allows for “cautious optimism” that similar treatment would be successful for humans.
The Nature study was the second announcement this week of a successful stem-cell treatment. On November 15, in a presentation for the American Heart Association, a team of Swiss doctors showed success in growing heart valves from stem cells obtained from amniotic fluid. These heart valves might be used to treat some of the 1 million babies who are born every year with congenital heart defects.
Neither of the two research breakthroughs involved stem cells that were taken from human embryos. To date, all of the most promising findings in the field of stem-cell therapy have come through the use of cells obtained from adults, or derived from amniotic fluid or placental tissues– sources that involve no significant ethical concerns.
In a survey of stem-cell research, published this week by the Family Research Council in Washington, DC, three analysts– Sarah Kleinfeld, William Saunders, and David Prentice– made the simple but trenchant observation that “embryonic stem-cell research has not yet yielded a single successful human treatment.”
Does anyone know of any unborn child whose life was destroyed in the first trimester who will ever have to concern himself or herself with the cost of prescription drugs at the age of 69? (From an article in the Florida Catholic by Fr. John McCormick)
A Germantown, Md., teenager, who has been convicted of attempted first-degree
murder, [was] sentenced for trying to kill her newborn child. After giving birth in a bathtub, she abandoned the baby in an unheated trash room on a January morning. Considering that partial-birth abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, what, exactly, did she do that was so wrong? (From an article in Newsweek by George Will)
A poll taken says, 16% of the people say, “all abortions should be banned. 55% say “abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.” Together, that is 71% of the people. (Source: East Volusia County Right to Life)
Why are politicians so worried about offending the pro-choice people? drm
Pro-abortion people say, “Women have the right to choose.” Choose what? When I went to school every sentence had a subject, verb and object. Where is the object? Why don’t they complete the sentence and say, “Women have the right to choose to kill their babies.” drm
Question: Does anyone believe that a Roman Catholic over the age of 18 who believes himself or herself to be in communion with the Roman Catholic Church under the Magisterium of the Holy Father and in adherence to him who came that “we might have life and life to the fullest,” can vote for a candidate to public office who openly and publicly advocated abortion anytime? A simple yes or no will do. (Fr. John McCormick, for the Florida Catholic)
Abortion is the most commonly performed surgery in America, yet it is never seen. If you ask any group of people whether they have seen some form of surgery on television, all but a few will say yes. Why, on those same networks, have they never seen an abortion? The question is important to get people to think that perhaps someone is hiding the full truth about this procedure.
Women who regret abortions have spoken at Supreme Court.
After 30 years of America’s abortion debate, the voices of women who have experienced abortion’s devastating effects are being heard more loudly and in greater numbers. Some of these voices were heard in front of the US Supreme Court, as participants in the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” and conducted numerous similar events across the country.
The Campaign, a joint project of “NOEL” (National Organization of Episcopalians for Life) and “Priests for Life,” seeks to raise awareness about the harm abortion does to women and their families, and about the many healing programs available. Actress, model and author Jennifer O’Neill who has been the national celebrity spokesman for the “Silent No More Awareness Campaign” has spoken at the Supreme Court along with others who are no longer silent about their abortion. She joined the campaign because she was forced to have an abortion and understands the pain it brings.
According to Georgette Forney, who had an abortion at age 16, a National Director of NOEL and co-founder of the Campaign said, “Hearing woman after woman speak about the problems created by abortion really puts this issue in perspective. Despite the sadness of each woman’s story we are also able to share the help we’ve found to deal with the pain, which gives those still hurting hope.”
“We want to help women who are hurting from abortion find peace and healing. This campaign will let them know they’re not alone,” says Janet Morana, associate director of Priests for Life and co-founder of the Campaign. (LifesiteNews.com/CWN)
Now, “Let Us Pray” for all the mothers-to-be and for those who fight for the lives of the unborn. Keep them in your prayers daily.
Dennis Mallon, O.F.S. Editor