Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
THE PILL KILLS - BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Posted: Wednesday May 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm EST by Judie Brown
When American Life League launched the new web site, www.thepillkills.com, we fully expected to get some very interesting e-mail comments from the public. We have not been disappointed. However, buried in the rather obnoxious messages there is opportunity after opportunity to tell the truth about the pill and hopefully open some eyes to what those truth are. So I am going to use my blog space today to share with you a few of the e-mails we have received and our responses. I hope that these help you develop your own apologetics for speaking about the pill with those who for one reason or another refuse to see the facts as they are.
-------
FROM JESSICA
This is ridiculous. It is simply false that the pill kills babies. You can be against abortion on rational grounds even if I disagree with you, but saying that preventative birth control is the same as an abortion? You are just flat out lying and it’s pathetic.
AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE'S REPLY
Dear Jessica:
As you know from the information you read on our web site: www.thepillkills.com, the birth control pill has three modes of action, one of which results changes in endometrium which reduces the likelihood of implantation. This of course means that the preborn child is not able to implant so that he can continue to grow, and he dies. This is chemical abortion.
If you check the web sites of companies that manufacture birth control pills, you will find the very same information. Here are some examples:
LoOvral: Look at Clinical Pharmacology and note the third mode of action: "Changes in endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)."
Alesse: Look at Clinical Pharmacology and note the third mode of action: "Changes in endometrium (which reduces the likelihood of implantation)."
Ortho Cyclen: Look at Clinical Pharmacology and note the third mode of action which is the same as noted above
Jessica, the birth control pill does kill preborn children during their first week of life. Therefore the birth control pill can, and does, cause abortion.
-------
FROM ALLISON
Are you planning on imprisoning women (young, poor) for taking the pill? Seems to me if you make abortions illegal there will be a lot of pregnant women in jail. Doesn’t that seem incredibly unreasonable? I swear to fight your "league" and its judgmental/weak message till my last breath. You may not have my rights.
AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE'S REPLY
Dear Allison:
Thank you for your e-mail about the birth control pill. While nobody has ever proposed that women who take the pill be jailed, here is what will happen once personhood is restored to all innocent human beings including the youngest that is the human zygote. The pill will be illegal because it can kill preborn children and therefore it will simply not be available.
The idea behind our drive to restore personhood to all human beings from the moment their lives begin is not to jail anybody but simply to make all murder illegal, including abortion at any stage of a preborn child's life. The laws should protect innocent people; the law should not protect someone else's right to kill them.
Don't you agree?
Thanks for your comments and have a blessed day.
-------
FROM STEPHANIE
Why do you continue to try and take my reproductive rights away? Why do you impose your beliefs and religion on people? You say sex out of marriage is wrong? Sure ok... perhaps. I'm a virgin so such an issue doesn't bother me, but pressing your beliefs and forcing your opinions onto others and taking their rights to THEIR OWN BODIES … IS wrong. Hypocrites with little evidence to back up half the information. The pill KILLS babies? Ha-ha wow.... how religion blinds people. Have a wonderful time trying to prevent something like pills that actually helps prevent abortion (the actual baby killer).
AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE'S REPLY
Dear Stephanie:
Thank you for your comments regarding our web site, www.thepillkills.com. The web site presents the facts regarding the birth control pill. Perhaps you are not aware of this, but there is nobody in America who can take someone else's rights away ... that would be in conflict with the Constitution. However, as pro-lifers we want to see human rights bestowed on every person from the moment his life begins onward, and that is why we work to end abortion - all abortion including the abortions caused by the birth control pill, the IUD and other so-called contraceptives.
Once the pro-life movement succeeds in constitutionally protecting preborn children as persons, chemicals like the pill will be outlawed specifically because they can act to kill a fellow human being.
It is our right and duty to pursue this goal as it is only just that every person at every stage of his life be given equal protection and equal rights.
The fact that the pill kills is not a religious belief, Stephanie. Look at the pill package insert for the birth control pill and you will read right there in black and white how the pill works. No religion at all; just facts as presented by the manufacturers of the pill. Check the section entitled “Clinical Pharmacology.”
Since when is sharing facts that are based on scientific evidence a type of hypocrisy? I cannot imagine it.
By the way, the pill is an abortive drug so how could it possibly help prevent what it can cause?
Have a great day!
-------
These comments and our responses are just three of the many we are seeing daily. It is our hope that the existence of this web site, and the activism planned for June 7, 2008 will open eyes, minds and hearts to the truth.
In case you were not aware, June 7, 1965 was the date of the Griswold vs. ConnecticutSupreme Court decision, which is where the alleged right to privacy was first fabricated. This is the decision that lifted all legal barriers to access to birth control and could well be remembered as the blackest, most deadly day in American history.
The level of ignorance among folks about the deadly effects of the pill is truly shocking. Thanks for posting these responses, Judie! Barb M. | May 9, 2008
I know I've said this a lot before, but it's still true. Education saves lives. Isaac K. | May 13, 2008
NO ONE, and I mean no one, scientist or otherwise, has demonstrated in peer-reviewed literature that hormonal birth control is "necessary and sufficient" to cause failed implantation. "Necessary and Sufficient" (look it up in any Endocrinology Review) is THE gold standard for determining and defining a hormone's effects.
The types of studies and experiments to *definitively* demonstrate that hormonal birth control directly causes failed implantation would take years, and million and millions of dollars. Double-blind, placebo controlled, with frequent invasive endoscopy would be required.
Basically, you can NOT determine if a fertilized ovum would have implanted had the uterine lining been slightly thicker. It's impossible to repeat under similar circumstances.
Even if there is a "Personhood" Amendment, Birth control will still remain legal because is it classified as *contraception", and not an abortive method. You'd have to outlaw ALL POTENTIAL abortofacients (including some types of teas and other chemicals) because they have POSSIBLE side effects of failed implantation. It simply will not happen. All Pharmaceutical companies will do is amend their FDA application and remove failed implantation as a method of action, and then Birth Control will be 100% legal at all times.
They have no DEFINITIVE evidence to prove this claim anyway, and the FDA should have never allowed failed implantation to be listed as a POSSIBLE mechanism. Dave | June 4, 2008
Dear Dave:
The modes of action of the various birth control pills are public information, published on the patient package insert and discussed over the years in more than a few medical journals. Apparently, if we are to believe the comments in your first two paragraphs, we would have to assume that all the pharmaceutical companies that did their research early on erred. I doubt that.
Dr. Jerome Lejeune, The Father of Modern Genetics, testified prior to his death that, "Each of us has a very precise starting moment which is the time at which the whole necessary and sufficient genetic information is gathered inside one cell, the fertilized egg, and this is the moment of fertilization. There is not the slightest doubt about that and we know that this information is written on a kind of ribbon we call the DNA."
Archives of Internal Medicine, among other journals, has published studies dealing with the effects of the birth control pill including the possibility of early abortion. We are positive you are aware of these articles.
While science is still not as precise as it should be, when there is doubt about whether or not a particular chemical works in a certain way, the obvious ethical position to take would be to avoid it rather than take the chance that by consuming it one might cause the death of an embryonic child during his first week of life.
Further, if personhood is established as beginning at the point when a human being's life begins, then all those chemicals that have defined modes of action that include thinning the wall of the uterus would indeed be outlawed as would in vitro fertilization.
Finally, Dave, as someone who is obviously most familiar with how the birth control pill works and doubts it to one degree or another, we are also positive you realize that it was ACOG that redefined pregnancy for the express reasons you state in your closing comments. Lies are what they are, Dave - and sooner or later the lies will be reversed.
LAUREN RICHARDSON - YOU CAN HELP! Posted: Tuesday May 6, 2008 at 11:10 pm EST by Judie Brown
It has been a source of ongoing sadness to read of the difficulties Lauren Richardson’s father has had over the course of the past several months. For those of you who are not familiar with her case, Lauren overdosed on heroin on August 28, 2006. She suffered oxygen deprivation as a result of the overdose and Lauren is now in a coma and is unable to speak out for herself. At the time of the overdose Lauren was expecting a baby. Her parents honored what they knew would have been her wish and did all they could to keep her healthy and comfortable until the child was born. Today, though Lauren may not be aware of it, she is the mother of Ember Grace, who was born in February 2007.
Since the birth of her daughter Lauren remains unable to speak of her concerns, but she has a loving father who is doing all he can to protect her from suffering the same fate as Terri Schiavo. However, Lauren’s mother, who has been named her legal guardian, is sadly not of the same opinion and is working with attorneys to pressure the courts to permit Lauren’s starvation.
Lauren’s father has kept hope alive, even at times when there appeared to be no hope in human terms. Lauren’s father is a man of hope in Christ and is dedicated to spending every breath he has on defending Lauren, regardless of what it might cost him in physical exhaustion and worldly goods. The most recent update to those concerned about Lauren tells us the following:
We struggle at times as we seek to share with the public the details of what is happening with Lauren because of the disagreement we have with Lauren’s mother. We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing and restoration for Lauren and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her. The issue in Lauren’s case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health.
Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, has written about Lauren in an editorial earlier this year, "False Compassion," and is working closely with Lauren’s father in order to provide expertise that he is uniquely qualified to share during a trying time like this.
There are many links on the Life for Lauren web site that will assist you in tracking this case and learning who is supporting Lauren’s ongoing care and who is opposing it. More importantly, there is something you can do to express your concerns.
ACTION NEEDED NOW
The governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, is being asked by pro-life Americans across this nation to intervene in this case in order to save Lauren from what many fear is an imminent court order dictating that Lauren be starved and dehydrated to death. I am asking you to be one of those who communicates your passionate belief that Lauren’s life is sacred and deserves to be protected from those who would order her death. The governor’s e-mail address is governor.minner@state.de.us.
Further, it would mean a great deal to Lauren’s father, Randy, if you sent him a copy of your e-mail to Governor Ruth Ann Minner. Randy’s e-mail address is Lifeforlauren@aol.com.
During a recent visit to Anchorage, Alaska where Bobby Schindler was invited to speak, he told a reporter from The Catholic Anchor:
Once we accept that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, we lose any type of parameters. Euthanasia is a form of abandonment. It is not compassion.
Truer words were never spoken. As I frequently tell people who argue that we pro-lifers are being heartless and cruel for fighting to defend the rights of a "hopeless case": God is the author of every human being’s life, and He has never given permission to a single one of us to arbitrarily rob another human being of life for any reason including disability or illness.
As Flannery O’Connor once wrote on the subject of false compassion:
In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And tenderness leads to the gas chamber.
Lauren Richardson is not terminal – she is severely disabled. Lauren Richardson should not be murdered.
ITA! Lauren needs help! You never know. She could get better. I don't understand why the judges in Terri Schivo's case, were such idiots. They could have let her live if they wanted too. Someone should have to be on total life support, before, they could even consider letting them die.
Chantell Chantell | May 7, 2008
I just think that everyone pushing for Lauren's death should try to look at things from her perspective and see what they think then. Isaac K. | May 13, 2008
STEM CELLS, BISHOPS AND SLOPPY LANGUAGE Posted: Monday May 5, 2008 at 8:56 pm EST by Judie Brown
There have been many occasions when I have realized that the use of one or two innocent words entirely transformed the meaning of a sentence. For example, if we use the words "pregnant woman" when referring to an "expectant mother" we play into the hands of abortionists by dehumanizing the woman’s preborn child and ignoring her motherhood. We all know how much abortion advocates hate words like "mother" and "baby," don't we? But we still slip up now and then and fail to use these words.
Last Thursday I first heard of the Wisconsin bishops’ pastoral letter on ethical stem cell research, Serving All and Sacrificing None, which was reported by LifeSite News, I was elated. I did not read it, however, and that was my first mistake.
This morning I was privileged to read a critique of the letter by Professor Dianne Irving. Irving is a scientist and expert on the deceptive scientific language that is frequently used to mask what is truly being planned for the youngest of our brothers and sisters, the zygote and early human embryo. In her critique, which I encourage you read carefully, she demonstrates to anyone with the desire to understand how the Wisconsin bishops’ statement is full of erroneous language.
For example, the Wisconsin bishops write:
We know many struggle with official Catholic teaching that a small group of cells invisible to the naked eye deserves the same protection as the life of a baby in the womb. . .
Professor Irving points out that by using the phrase “small group of cells” the bishops, whether intending to or not, relegate the early human being to the mis-defined terms used by scientists who want the public to think of the young preborn child as nothing more than a “bunch of cells.” It would have been so easy for the authors of the Wisconsin bishops’ text to have written “We know many struggle with official Catholic teaching that a early human being who is invisible to the naked eye ….”
The statement also tells the reader:
The Church applauds the recent breakthrough in reprogramming adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells.
The reference is to the extremely controversial induced pluripotent stem cell research, which has been discussed in this blog before. You may recall Dr. Theresa Deisher’s article, "Why Are We Celebrating the Reprogramming of Adult Cells?" that explains in no uncertain terms:
The ability to transform adult cells into embryonic stem cells could be moral, however, a close inspection of the two published papers revealed that cells from an electively aborted fetus were used in the work, and therefore it cannot be considered moral.
One has to wonder why the Wisconsin bishops did not take these matters into consideration when drafting the statement. And I wonder why they did not invite critique from experts like Professor Irving and Dr. Deisher. At this point, I suppose, it may be too late but that depends on how seriously the bishops want to review their writing on this subject. I will be sending this message along with all of the supporting documents to each of the four bishops who signed the document, asking them to weigh the analyses and examine their statement with an eye toward possibly revising it so that the words mean what the bishops intended them to mean.
As I read Professor Irving’s analysis of the statement I realized that it is provocative. It should, however, invite introspection and careful examination on the part of the bishops who signed the statement. As I have said, a single word can change the entire meaning of a sentence and a pastoral letter that is not scientifically accurate in every way can contribute to the very confusion that has some sincere people supporting scientific efforts that are, at the very least, diabolical to the core.
True Judie! I think we can all get into the habit of using "sloppy" language.
Chantell Chantell | May 6, 2008
Before you nationally publish something: read and read again. Proofreading is very important. Still, even though this should have been avoided, we should cut the bishops some slack. They're busy guys. Isaac K. | May 13, 2008
Isaac:
The use of incorrect language can result in death and when the language could easily have been corrected if additional experts had been consulted, there is no reason to cut anyone slack.
THE MISGUIDED CHARITY OF AMERICAN AIRLINES Posted: Sunday May 4, 2008 at 1:14 am EST by Judie Brown
I fly all over the place and frequently use American Airlines. My husband loves collecting those "miles" for upgrades. However, we were quite shocked to read a note from a fellow airline traveler mentioning the airline was going to support the activities of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation. In the official press release the airline announced:
American Airlines has launched ‘Miles for the Cure,’ a special fundraising campaign that rewards donors by giving them five AAdvantage miles for every dollar they contribute to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
This project will run through the end of May – May 31 to be exact. It is fortunate that we learned of this early enough to let the airline know precisely how disturbing it is that they have chosen a foundation that is aligned with many facets of the culture of death to benefit from their charitable efforts. Before I give you the contact information for American Airlines so that you can register your displeasure, let me set forth the problematic nature of the Komen/Planned Parenthood record:
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer notes that a former Komen Latina adviser, Eva Sanchez Silver, left Komen due to not only its support of Planned Parenthood but its refusal to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer.
It has been proven that a woman who uses oral contraception has a higher risk of have breast cancer than a woman who does not. As the Polycarp Research Institute makes clear: "As of 2003, 18 out of 21 retrospective studies show that women who take oral contraceptives prior to their first-term birth incur an increased risk in developing breast cancer." Today we can be sure that number is either the same or higher.
Any charitable effort pursued by a corporation as large as American Airlines should be based first and foremost on the undeniable fact that the charity being supported is totally honest about the efforts it is pursuing.
We know beyond a doubt that the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure is not involved in unbiased, savory research efforts. It is not providing support to research that confirms the connections between abortion and breast cancer, not to mention the connections between contraception and breast cancer. And, perhaps most egregious, it has aligned itself with the world’s number one promoter of the very things that contribute to breast cancer: contraception and abortion.
Therefore, American Airlines has made a grave error and it is up to you and me to point it out to them.
Here's how:
AA Customer Relations invites customers to send comments or inquiries via mail, fax or e-mail.
U.S. Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
P.O. Box 619612 MD 2400
DFW Airport, TX 75261-9612
Overnight Mail
American Airlines Customer Relations
4255 Amon Carter Blvd. MD 2400
Fort Worth, TX 76155-2603
Fax
Fax: (817) 967-4162
You may e-mail American Airlines by going to their web site, http://www.aa.com/index_us.jhtml, clicking on "Contact AA," then clicking "Customer Relations" and then selecting "Email AA Customer Relations."
Don’t let this opportunity to let American Airlines know what a dreadful error in judgment they have made by choosing to support a "charity" that is not interested in stemming the real cause of increasing numbers of breast cancer cases in America pass by.
Hi Judie! Why doesn't Susan G. Koman wise up? Why don't they want to admit the link between abortion and breast cancer? I think American Airlines is just misguided. Hopefully things will change!
Chantell Chantell | May 4, 2008
HUMANAE VITAE PRIESTS Posted: Thursday May 1, 2008 at 11:11 pm EST by Judie Brown
From the first moment I met Father Tom Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, I knew there was something incredibly special about him. He is totally devoted to Catholic teaching. A few years ago when he made a presentation to an American Life League national conference in New Orleans, Louisiana, he brought the house down. His genuine holiness, humility and dedication to spreading the good news, especially about Humanae Vitae, have won him admiration and appreciation around the world.
So I really should not have been too surprised when he announced the formation of a new organization called Humanae Vitae Priests. The announcement comes as we prepare to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae.
Right there on the Humanae Vitae Priests home page another unbelievably inspiring priest is featured in a photo with Pope Paul VI – his name is Father Paul Marx, OSB. He founded Human Life International and has since retired, but he certainly has no worries about his legacy being carried on.
Father Paul Marx has said so often over the many years that he and I have been friends, "You cannot be truly pro-life unless you oppose contraception."
I agree with that completely. As I wrote several years ago in Celebrate Life:
I remember the first time I met Father Paul Marx. He was working at the Human Life Center in Minnesota and had sent me an article he had written entitled "Are You Really Pro-Life?" The article changed my life.
Father Marx was the first person to point out to me, in black and white, the reasons why the contraceptive mentality and the practice of contraception always leads to aborting babies. Always! No exceptions. And he has traveled to more than 70 countries to prove it!
And now, at long last, we are witnessing the fruits of Father Marx’ unyielding commitment to that truth in the unveiling of Humanae Vitae Priests. And it could not have come a moment too soon as far as I am concerned. We welcome this effort and are so grateful to Father Euteneuer for making it happen.
When you visit the web site you are going to find an incredible wealth of helpful material. I have to say that one of my favorites is the article by Father Don Blickhan.
I like this piece for a number of reasons, the most important among them being that it reveals how a Catholic priest can teach with boldness and at charity at the same time. Father Blickhan sets forth the very concepts that we at American Life League know are true. In fact we have been asking priests to think about and speak about these very subjects for many years.
In the article, Father Blickhan says:
Over the years I had evolved in my preaching style. Perhaps it was because I was tired of hearing the same old sermons that I decided to place an emphasis on the basics, the fundamentals that we rarely talked about anymore.
I began to talk about sin, grace, salvation, hell, Satan, angels. Some said it was the first time they had ever heard a sermon on hell or on angels. They loved it!
And as if that isn’t inspiring enough, he continues:
There is a hunger in the people. When a person tastes a fine recipe, he relishes it. When a dish is not palatable he pushes it away. "No thank you!"
Over the past few years, I have noticed that when people hear the Truth, not only do they listen, but they begin to get excited about their Faith, and they want to learn more. Some have asked for book suggestions, one even began a master's program in theology.
What a blessing it is to read these words written by a Catholic priest.
The rest of his commentary will be uplifting to you in every way, so please take the time to read it and savor his words. He is expressing what, in my view, should be the focus of every Catholic priest who takes the pulpit and has the opportunity to help others see and live truth.
It has been our experience at American Life League that the truth always has a way of enlightening as well as inspiring those who hear it. And now we are going to hear from priests who are committed to this principle and willing to write about it, speak about it and will as a result bring souls to Christ by their zeal.
In case you have not noticed, I am wildly ecstatic about Humanae Vitae Priests; I am sure you will be as well. Their message, American Life League’s message and the Catholic Church’s teaching all agree: The only way to end abortion is to expose the evil of contraception and encourage people never to practice it again.
There is no doubt that contraception is the root cause of abortion. It engenders a mentality that denies the value of children and focuses instead on the instant gratification that comes from divorcing man from the beauty of God’s design for marriage. And now we are going to hear about it more and more from Humanae Vitae Priests!
THE NUMBERS GAME: PREBORN BABIES ARE LOSING Posted: Wednesday April 30, 2008 at 11:28 pm EST by Judie Brown
A headline appeared this past weekend suggesting that both the abortion rate and the birth rate were dropping. The United States Centers for Disease Control have recently released the latest numbers, from 2004, and the media is echoing precisely what the federal government has reported.
So once again we have consistency between the evil empire of acquiescent government agencies and the evil twin of smile-and-nod mass media – now there's a twist for you.
But a careful examination of the actual data from the government reveals a few problems in the calculations, at least from the perspective of a pro-life leader. To find the error, you must first recognize every act of abortion as an act of murder, whether the act is a chemical abortion, medical abortion or surgical abortion.
The fact is that the report addresses only those abortions defined as "induced," referring only to the abortions that were caused intentionally by administration of a chemical abortion compound, such as RU-486, or a surgical act.
The report makes it clear that its abortion data is based on estimates, not hard numbers. The CDC collects data from "most" states, not all of them. The CDC subsequently adjusts its numbers to coincide with the Guttmacher Institute reports but does state that their numbers tend to be lower than those published by Guttmacher. So which set of numbers is accurate? Probably neither.
Also, the CDC points out that its own numbers may differ from previous estimates. In other words, what we are getting from the CDC is a best guess based on data that could itself be questionable. Who knows? Such reports keep a lot of bureaucrats employed so who cares about attempting total accuracy and requiring total compliance from all 50 states?
When Dr. William O’Brien, a pro-life physician, read the recent news item in the Baltimore Sun he circulated the following e-mail:
In my opinion, the most dangerous myth is that the number of abortions is declining ... Three things need to be done about this. The first is to recognize that the declining numbers refer only to surgical abortions. The fact that the total number of abortions (surgical + chemical) is rising can only be proven by adding the data about chemical abortions to the reported data about surgical abortions. So the second thing that needs to be done is to get reliable sales data from the pharmaceutical producers of all abortifacients (not just RU-486) and conduct research on the utilization of these products. The third thing is to recover the advantage of the language. The abortion industry is promulgating the term "medical abortion" to refer to killing the unborn with chemicals. Of course, most of us tend to think of medicine as a good thing that cures illnesses. I suggest that all 'Pro-Lifers' try to promote the more descriptive and accurate term, "chemical abortion" by all pro-life organizations.
To the above, I would add the caveat that "medical" abortions are those that occur after implantation, at least according to the pro-aborts who also tell us that pregnancy does not begin until implantation. Therefore, following this "logic," any child who is chemically killed prior to that time is not even recognized as having existed. This is the way they lie their way out of admitting that the birth control pill and the inter-uterine device actually cause abortions.
I do agree that we pro-lifers have to take back the language; we have to stop issuing press releases brimming with joy when false figures come out of government agencies and we have to literally demand that people think about the basic scientific fact that pregnancy begins when a human being begins: at the moment of conception or creation.
The numbers game being played by the media in concert with the government is simply a sham. But then again, when the government is marketing abortion and the media is endorsing abortion, what else should we expect?
I hope everything gets better Judie! All abortion is murder!
Chantell Chantell | May 1, 2008
Aha!
Shall we properly indict those who use chemical "contraceptives" as well? I was chatting with a priest not long ago who was exhorting the necessity of excommunication any Catholic who is openly pro-choice. I agreed with him. He and I both agreed that, in accordance with Scripture, the Church teaches that to receive the Eucharist "unworthily" is to bring condemnation on one's self. Keeping those in a state of grave, possibly mortal, sin is an act of charity. I then asked him, "Father, but what about those using chemical contraception?" He didn't answer me. As a Church, we have yet to dare take the bold stand that will challenge the children dying in the wombs of their practicing-Catholic mothers due to the chemical birth control their parents use.
To echo Mother Theresa's philosophy, if we want to do great things in the pro-life movement we need to start in our own homes and our own communities. Speak the truth in love. Distribute pamphlets explaining how birth control works and evangelize pastors and fellow lay persons. Promote Natural Family Planning. Live the truth, observe marital chastity and "preach the gospel to everyone, using words if necessary." Terri K | May 1, 2008
If they use the media, why can't we? I have never once seen a pro-life tv commercial, yet I know that there are plenty of pro-abortion ones. This is a powerful and prolific way to get people's attention and get them to care (which is much harder). Isaac K. | May 1, 2008
Terri:
First, if personhood is restored to every innocent human being from his creation until natural death not only would abortion be illegal but so would all birth control methods that CAN cause abortion including the pill and the IUD.
Second, you are so right that far too many in the Church have not taken the bold step of teaching the full truth when it comes to contraceptives.
Thank you!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | May 5, 2008
Isaac:
There are lots of pro-life commercials produced by good companies like Virtue Media and Life Commercials.
All pro-lifers have to do is raise the money to get them on the air locally.
MAN'S ARROGANT PROPOSALS OR GOD'S PERFECT PLAN? Posted: Wednesday April 30, 2008 at 12:24 am EST by Judie Brown
Ever since the first in vitro fertilization baby, Louise Brown, was born the in 1978 reproductive technology has taken many turns. For those who do not remember the world’s attention on Louise Brown, the two doctors who "created" her in the laboratory and the agreement they made with Louise’s parents that she would be aborted if she was in any imperfect, a bit of history may be of interest.
Patrick Steptoe, a gynecologist and researcher, teamed with Robert Edwards, a physiologist, in the development of the basic research that led to the discovery of in vitro fertilization. It was only after many failed attempts that Louise was finally born. It is interesting to note that Steptoe financed the research by performing abortions. It may sound odd to you that a doctor who wanted to help women have babies paid for the research by killing babies, but this is exactly what occurred.
An interesting excerpt from the classic Pro Life Encyclopedia tells us the following about Dr. Steptoe’s philosophy, which may account for his involvement in both aborting and generating children:
Dr. Patrick Steptoe, one of the originators of the [in vitro fertilization] technique, recently denied that he was destroying human lives because, in his opinion, only "a potential life has been started when an egg is fertilized. The mortal part of life has been joined with the immortal part: by that I mean the genetic material. We are all merely transient carriers of our genes, I'm afraid; it is our genes that are immortal, definitely."
In other words, the thought process behind the science does not take into account that a human being exists at the moment of creation but rather that a group of cells is an entity that potentially can become a human being. So it is really not that surprising that one man could be accommodating to both ending and attempting to begin pregnancies.
At any rate, since Steptoe and Edwards, much has happened in the world of IVF and the most recent news comes to us from the Medelle Corporation, which is currently testing a device known as INVOcell™, described as "low cost IVF." The news report explains :
The INVOcell™ intra-vaginal culture device, an approximately two-inch long barrel-shaped cylinder filled with culture medium, is currently being used in the clinical study to test the invention’s effectiveness as a replacement for IVF lab culturing. The woman’s eggs and the father’s sperm are first placed into the device. Then, the INVOcell™ is inserted into the patient’s uterus and secured using a retention system as opposed to leaving them in a Petri dish in the fertility clinic laboratory.
The idea is that by sidestepping the laboratory the potential client could save a few thousand dollars so that the IVF cycle would cost $7,000 rather than the usual $10,000. However, the device is still in the early testing stages and so the possibility lower-cost IVF remains a mere idea without clinical results to attest to its effectiveness or safety.
The larger question in these discussions about reproductive technology is whether or not they are ethical in the first place. The Catholic Church resoundingly tells us no, they are not. In case you are thinking, “Isn’t that a heartless way of looking at treatments that do help some infertile couples realize their dream of having a child?” let me help you see the wisdom in Church teaching.
The sad fact is that sterility is a source of immense suffering for a couple, but no couple has a right to a child. And it is very clear that every child has a right to be conceived according to God’s design of procreation.
In conformity with the traditional doctrine relating to the goods of marriage and the dignity of the person, the Church remains opposed from the moral point of view to homologous 'in vitro' fertilization. Such fertilization is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even when everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo. Although the manner in which human conception is achieved with IVF and ET cannot be approved, every child which comes into the world must in any case be accepted as a living gift of the divine Goodness and must be brought up with love. [emphasis added]
The Church recognizes each human embryo as a child deserving of love, not a life in a freezer or a life ended for the sake of stem cells. But the Church also alerts us to the gruesome outcome of technologies that are designed to replace God with man’s interventions, whether it is to create or to destroy a human being.
Thus it is with great anguish that I look at the latest invention, the INVOcell™ device, which is to be placed within the womb of a woman so that her body heat will help the device incubate the resulting zygote, and I shudder. I continue to be horrified for the children whose lives have become nothing more than consumer goods that are destined to be saved or trashed, depending on their quality, of course. I wonder how much longer the Lord can have patience with a world that has so little regard for His design.
And I ask you: What are you doing to expose these grotesque practices hiding behind glowing descriptions of help for couples in need?
Judie, how anyone could kill innocent babies, is beyond me! If people want a baby so badly, what does it matter if the baby isn't "perfect"?
Chantell Chantell | April 30, 2008
Dr. Steptoe is right in that the zygote has great potential. From then on, he couldn't be more wrong. Life and potential begin at conception. You kill the baby, you kill the potential. Isaac K. | April 30, 2008
Pro-Life Story: Amy in Alabama Posted By Amy on Mar, 8 2006 When I was 18 I found out I was pregnant. I was shocked, scared and felt very much alone. The father of my child wanted me to have an abortion. He called the clinic in Montgomery, ... Read
