March 17, 2008
A Voice Of Sanity?
(Jimmy Akin)
Despite the current UK government's seeming desire to plunge headlong into as much babykilling as possible, there are a couple of interesting developments on the pro-life front in Britain at the moment.
First, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has reversed its earlier stance (PDF warning) that abortion's mental health risks to the mother were outweighed (before 24 weeks) by the relief of getting an abortion when the mother found the pregnancy distressing.
Now they have announced (PDF warning), based on a review of the literature, that the possible mental health risks of abortion are significant enough that they need to be taken seriously and that the whole question of the mental health risks associated with abortion needs to be revisited, with possible changes to medical practice and public policy.
Legislation, which is not supported by the UK government, is also being introduced that would shorten from 24 to 20 weeks the time when abortions can be performed "for social reasons" (ick!). I assume, since this proposal isn't backed by the government, that it isn't likely to pass, but it's at least a sign that the pro-life movement in Britain isn't so dead that it's unwilling to try a legislative route to protecting babies' lives.
(NOTE: One of the mental health accounts in the story will rip your heart out.)
One other thing: It might be too much to hope for, but in the Royal College of Psychiatrists' re-evaluation of this subject, I hope they don't overlook the importance that a mother's faith can have in helping her cope with post-abortion syndrome. Finding forgiveness from God is important in a situation like this, not just pharmacology and secular counseling.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (10)
January 22, 2008
Chesterton on Babies
(Tim Jones)
In honor of those who march today...
"I doubt if anyone of any tenderness or imagination can see the hand of a child and not be a little frightened of it. It is awful to think of the essential human energy moving so tiny a thing; it is like imagining that human nature could live in the wing of a butterfly or the leaf of a tree. When we look upon lives so human and yet so small. . . we feel the same kind of obligation to these creatures that [God] might feel. . ."
from Chesterton's essay In Defense of Baby Worship from The Defendant 1903.
For more, visit the Catholic Education Resource Center
(http://www.catholiceducation.org/)
Posted by Tim Jones in Abortion, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (52)
November 26, 2007
Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, c-Myc
(Jimmy Akin)
What are the strange alphanumeric expressions in the title of this post?
Are they stock numbers?
Perhaps the key to cornering the market?
No. They're human genes, but they are--potentially--the solution to a raging social issue: the embryonic stem cell debate.
Writing in The Weekly Standard, Ryan Anderson--an assistant editor at First Things--states:
The stem cell wars are over. Leading scientists are telling us that they can pursue the most promising stem cell research without using--much less killing--human embryos. This breakthrough enables researchers to create human embryonic stem cells directly from adult cells. In fact, the new method may actually prove superior to embryo-destructive alternatives. This is the biggest stem cell advance since James Thomson became the first scientist to isolate embryonic stem cells, less than a decade ago.
It is a new study by Thomson himself that has caused the present stir, but this time Thomson is not alone. Accounts of independent research by two separate teams of scientists were published on November 20--one in the journal Cell and one in the journal Science--documenting the production of pluri-potent human stem cells without using embryos or eggs or cloning or any morally questionable method at all.
The new technique is so promising that on November 16, Ian Wilmut announced that he would no longer seek to clone humans. Wilmut, you may remember, is the scientist who cloned Dolly the sheep. He recently sought and received a license from the British government to attempt to clone human embryos for research purposes. Now, citing the new technique, he has abandoned his plans.
Now, I've head prospective ways of creating pluripotent stem cells without embryos before--and I haven't been convinced that they were what they were said to be. The ones I've heard before struck me as ways of creating, or potentially creating, severely deformed human embryos and harvesting their stem cells, so I'm skeptical of new miracle procedures that will get around the problem.
I'd like to learn more about the technique that Anderson writes about, but from the description he gives of it in his Weekly Standard article, it sounds as if we may have the genuine article here.
The idea is that you take adult cells and--rather than turning them into totipotent stem cells, which could conceivably be an embryo under another name, you reprogram only select genes in them--those in the article title--and you get a pluripotent-but-not-totipotent stem cell directly from an adult cell.
If that's what's really happening in this technique, we may--indeed--have a solution to the stem cell wars.
If so, we have a cause for rejoicing.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (29)
October 16, 2007
Rome Really Needs To Get Involved on This One
(Jimmy Akin)
The U.S. bishops continue to hold diverse opinions about whether or not canon law requires one to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians.
Many, out of an apparent desire not to alienate those who hold pro-abortion views--as part of a "woo them back gently" strategy--resist the idea that Communion should be withheld from such politicians.
The replies given by some bishops involve arguments that strike one variously as (a) dodges of the real issue, (b) subversive of canon 915, or (c) simply incoherent.
For the record, canon 915 states:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.
This is the Church's law. Yet some quotes from bishops in the media give the appearance that the respective bishops have never heard of this canon, which is difficult to believe after the "Can John Kerry receive Communion?" controversy of the 2004 election.
Part of the problem we are encountering at present is that bishops do not like to be pitted against each other in the press and, since there is not a consensus among them about whether canon 915 should be applied to the case of pro-abortion politicians, many are engaging in diplomatic contortions to avoid bringing the disagreement among them into sharp public focus on the eve of an election season.
So we have a significant disagreement among Church leaders on how the Church's law is to be applied.
Well, that's why God created the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.
We need an authentic interpretation on this point--one way or the other.
For myself, I am strongly of the opinion that both canon and moral law require the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it's with an "I'm personally opposed, but" dodge).
But Rome needs to sort this out for the good of the Church--both here in American and wherever in the world abortion is being promoted, which includes Rome's own back yard: Europe.
It's time for the Church to take a stand on this, for as canonist Ed Peters writes:
We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (281)
September 05, 2007
UK Embryo Horror
(Jimmy Akin)
You may have seen press stories recently about UK scientists pleading for the use of hybrid human-animal embryos in stem cell research.
Now the British press is reporting that it looks like the plan will be given the go-ahead.
If this were a matter of just splicing a few human genes into a clearly non-human organism, matters would be different, but it appears that the plan involves the creation of an organism that is 99.9% human (see diagram, left).
Basically, they're talking about eliminating the nuclear genetic information in an animal (most likely cow) cell and shoving in the nucleus of a human cell, then stimulating the result to develop into an embryo.
It's true that there is non-nuclear genetic material that is found in cells--in organelles besides the nucleus. For example, you may have heard of mitochondrial DNA (DNA found in the mitochondria, which are not part of the nucleus). The process as described would appear to leave that genetic material intact from the animal providing the ovum.
But I'm sorry, this really looks like creating a human being that has a slight admixture of cow genes, not creating a cow that has a slight admixture of human genes.
As a result, one must err on the side of caution and conclude that such embryos are human beings with the right to life and the British government is planning on murdering them or funding their murder.
The stories in the British press cite polling done of people suggesting that the British public favors the use of embryos in trying to find cures for Parkinson's and Altzheimer's.
I bet the pollsters didn't ask, "Are you in favor of research that involves killing something that might be a human being and that in fact has 99.9% human genetic material."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (113)
August 21, 2007
Anne Rice on Clinton and Abortion
(Jimmy Akin)
I've been writing a (much) longer post dealing with the story I'm about to link, but I realized that I'm just not going to get it finished tonight and--after a few days of being unable to blog--I didn't want to go with nothing again today.
So let the discussion begin.
Keep it polite.
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (320)
August 06, 2007
Mitt Romney on Pro-Abort Mormons
(Jimmy Akin)
It's this kind of performance that will make pro-lifers wonder just how pro-life Romney really is.
(NOTE: The most revealing exchanges are in the off-the-air portion of the interview)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (64)
August 03, 2007
Go, Arkansas!
(Jimmy Akin)
CNS reports:
Staten Island, Aug 2, 2007 / 11:06 am (CNA).- Abortion clinics nationwide should be required to post a sign stating that women cannot be forced into having an abortion, say the founders of the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, the nation's largest network of women hurt by abortion.
Co-founders Georgette Forney and Janet Morana, believe the law should be based on a newly adopted measure in Arkansas, which requires abortion businesses to post a sign stating that women cannot be forced to have an abortion.
"I can't tell you how many women I know who've been pressured into aborting by a boyfriend, husband, or parent," said Forney.
"This Arkansas statute is really just a gentle reminder to women that no one has the right to threaten or intimidate us into terminating our children,” she continued. “Everyone in every state should support this type of legislation. After all, how could someone who says he's pro-choice oppose a law that tells a woman she has a choice?"
Janet Morana said the law is needed because abortion clinics have a financial interest in women having abortions and would not post such a sign on their own.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (13)
July 11, 2007
The Don't Show Me State
(Jimmy Akin)
Missouri has just passed a law banning Planned Parenthood and other pro-abort groups from participating in classroom sex ed programs.
The law also re-classifies abortion clinics as ambulatory surgery centers.
EXCERPT:
Planned Parenthood of Missouri complained that the new law will require them to spend up to $2 million to refit their abortion centers to meet the new standards.
Paula Gianino, president of Planned Parenthood for the St. Louis Region, said the new law could leave only one abortion facility in the state.
And Missouri's governor, who signed the bill, lived up to his last name:
"I say if they can't meet the same basic requirements that other (medical) providers do, then they should shut down," [Matt] Blunt stated.
Go Missouri!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (24)
July 03, 2007
Wired Writer Gets Points For Trying
(Jimmy Akin)
Unfortunately, I can't give him full marks, because while he's trying to think through the stem cell problem in a careful way that is open to the perspective of faith, he makes some wrong turns as he weaves his way through the issue.
First,
It concerns whether stem cells generated from unfertilized ova would have souls.
The short answer is: It depends on whether the technique involved produces a human being. A human being is a living human organism.
It's clear that the embryos are living (and growing), so that criterion is met.
Are the embryos in this case human? Well, they have at least half of a human genetic code. It wasn't clear to me from the scientific paper the author linked whether the embryos the researchers produced were the result of fusing two ova or if they were produced from single ova. If the former then they have a full human genetic code and are undeniably human, so let's assume the latter case--that they somehow stimulated a single ovum into becoming an embryo--which is the harder case since the embryo would have only half a human genetic code. How much of a human genetic code you need to qualify as a human isn't yet clear, so it isn't clear if the human criteria is fulfilled, meaning the Deerhunter Principle is involved (see below).
Are they organisms? If they develop into blastocysts--as the ones in this case do--then yes, they're organisms. They're not just a mass of cells but groups of cells that shows the developmental organization that the cells of an organism do.
So we've got a living organism that may or may not qualify as a human, given its limited genetic code.
Thus the Deerhunter Principle applies.
What's that?
If you're out hunting deer and you see something in the woods that might be a deer but might be a human you are not allowed to shoot it.
You can only shoot it if you are certain it is not a human being.
Same principle applies whenever you have something that you're not sure if it's a human.
So the stem cell procedure must be presumed to be objectively immoral and thus impermissible until such time (if ever) that we know more about how much human DNA something needs to qualify as human.
That addresses the central question of the piece. Now let's look at how the author (Brandon Keim) wrestles through it:
[Fr. Tad] Pacholczyk, of course, doesn't speak for all Catholics, but the essence of his argument is doctrinaire: life begins at the moment of conception. That the conception didn't involve fusion with another cell is irrelevant, as the potential for full life is there: so-called parthenogetic or virgin births have been observed in nature, most recently in sharks (and wouldn't it be a kicker if it happened, say, at one other highly fortuitous moment in Middle Eastern history?)
The label "doctrinaire" is pejorative, but perhaps the author merely used the wrong word and meant something like "based on doctrine" or "doctrinal."
BTW, Fr. Pacholczyk nailed the issue in the story.
The bit about Jesus having a naturally parthenogenic birth is offensive to pious sensibilities and also is a non-starter, because a naturally parthenogenic birth will not produce a Y chromosome, which we must presume Jesus (as a man) had (quibbles on this point notwithstanding).
The question, then, resolves around the meaning of life, of Pacholczyk's "human being." The blastocyst -- the scientific term for the group of cells descended from a fertilized egg at four to five days of age -- contains about one hundred cells. It has nothing resembling a brain; but even if this is not considered a privileged locus of personhood, neither does the blastocyst have anything resembling ... well, anything. The basis of its moral value, in Christian eyes, must reside in the cells and their potential to become a sentient being.
No. It is the fact that the organism is a member of a species that, under normal conditions, acquires sentience as part of its natural development. It is not the case that each member of that species must have this potential. A person with a genetic defect that will cause them to be significantly retarded is not thereby deprived of the status of a person who must be treated with respect and compassion and whose right to life must be honored.
And what is this basis? It must be the soul.
More properly, the basis of human dignity is the rational soul. Other types of organisms have non-rational souls, but we need not be further detained by this on the understanding that wherever the author says "soul" he means "rational soul."
Belief in the soul is, of course, an article of faith, and not an easily shaken one. Nor, perhaps, should it be; wrongs have been committed under a perversion of Christian values, but acts of courage and kindness have also been inspired by a system of beliefs that treats life as sacred. How these wrongs and rights balance is another question altogether, but faith in the soul would surely be a sorely felt price to pay for stem cell therapies -- and not, perhaps, a reasonable one.
Here the author gets points for trying.
My only comment would be that it is not necessary to believe in the soul to believe that killing human beings is morally impermissible. You are more likely to believe that killing human beings is morally impermissible if you believe in a soul, but this belief is not required. Many soul-disbelievers are also murder-opposers, though not quite as many (which is why the great atheistic dictatorships of the 20th century killed so many of their own subjects).
But even granting the soul -- does harvesting stem cells really destroy it?
Uh . . . that would be a no, from a Christian perspective. In no case are souls destroyed. They're immortal. The question is whether they are embodied or not, and the answer to that question vis-a-vis stem cells, is whether so many stem cells have been removed that there is no longer an organism or so many that the organism dies. In that case you've got a dead organism and a separated immortal soul. Causing this condition to come about deliberately on an innocent human being is what constitutes murder.
From the Christian view, a soul comes into being at the moment of conception. A single fertilized egg cell, if it divides into two cells, can be said to have had a soul.
True, though division is not a necessary condition. A one cell human that dies is still a human.
So do the cells that form after.
Yes, if this statement is taken in the sense that the organism composed of the cells--that is to say, the cells as a whole--has a soul.
Soul-ness is thus innate to the process of growth, the sustenance of life. That it isn't yet sentient doesn't matter; and neither does it matter if some cells fail to divide, at five days or fifty years.
I'm not sure what the author means by saying that having a soul is innate to the process of growth. It would be true if he means that souls are the principle of life and thus involved in the process of growth, since life normally involves growth. He's got the fact down, though, that how long it takes before cell division stops occurring is not an indicator of whether a soul was ever present.
If that's the case, then it follows that a stem cell line derived from a few cells plucked out of the blastocyst also has a soul. After all, it's engaged in the process of life through cell division, and is descended in a continuous line from the original fertilized egg. The cells left behind in the process shouldn't be lamented any more than a single cell that stopped dividing or a skin cell flaking from an adult.
The author's reasoning here is notably unclear, but part of what he is saying is clearly false. Life and cell division are not sufficient conditions for the presence of a soul. Remember: A human being is a living human organism. If you've got living human cells that are dividing, that doesn't make them an organism. If they're dividing chaotically, what you've got is a cancer. If you're causing skin cells to divide in a petri dish, what you've got are skin cells, not an organism, and thus not a human being. Thus a human stem cell line would not have a soul (or souls) unless there is a living human organism (or organisms) in it, just as skin cells flaking off an adult do not have souls and are not human beings (nor did they have souls when they were alive, before they flaked off).
As for the continuing life of the stem cells, it's clear that their soul is not equivalent to that of a mature person, or even a baby within the womb.
In terms of the right to life, it is equivalent. Souls can't be ranked by developmental stages in this way. All human beings--regardless of their age or state of development--have the same right to life. You can't murder any of them.
This doesn't necessarily mean that's it's worth less -- merely that it's at a different stage, with different characteristics. Might it be said that, in a hypothetical stem cell therapy, as stem cells mature and replace damaged tissue, the soul of the cells fuses with the soul of their recipient? And that the soul of those cells, their life potential, isn't lost, but instead is preserved?
Stem cells do not have rational souls because they are not organisms. Putting stem cells into a person thus does not cause their soul to merge with somebody elses any more than putting blood cells or bone marrow cells (which, incidentally, contain stem cells) into another person causes their souls to merge.
Think of souls as the equivalent of persons. If you take my blood cells out of my veins, what you have is not a person. Putting my blood cells in your body does not merge a person into your person.
That the immortal essence of a soul can become part of another soul through deliverance in a fragmentary vessel is has a precedent in Catholic tradition. It's the basis of Communion, when bread and wine -- the body and blood of Christ -- are consumed.
Okay, #1, they aren't bread and wine any more. Transubstantiation = Real Presence of Christ + real absence of bread and wine.
#2 Christ's human soul does not merge with ours in Communion. We are united to him in a mystical manner, but our souls remain distinct from his soul, which is why he can be in heaven while we might be in heaven or hell.
Souls do not divide or merge. They are a quantum phenomenon. (Okay, there's one for Tim Powers.)
I don't know whether this line of reasoning would hold up to theological scrutiny, but it's certainly worth trying to figure out how to debate embryos and stem cells without bluntly categorizing them as either inertly utilitarian material or fully human beings.
The author's line of reasoning does not stand up to theological scrutiny, but he deserves credit for trying to think the issue through in the way he does. He's also right that it's worth trying to figure out how to debate embryonic stem cells for those who do not accept the fact that embryos are human beings. They are human beings, an undeniably so from a scientific perspective (keeping the question of souls entirely out of it; they're undeniably living human organisms), but if someone who rejects this fact can be convinced that--even from their position--embryos should not be treated in a utilitarian manner then it'll at least help stop murders.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (41)
May 25, 2007
Public Funding Of Abortion Axed In Oklahoma
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (281)
April 27, 2007
Archbishop Burke Stands Up For Life
(Jimmy Akin)
MORE FROM ED PETERS.
AND MARK BRUMLEY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (81)
April 19, 2007
Some Drudge Headlines
(Jimmy Akin)
Let's also remember what we're talking about:
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (239)
April 18, 2007
YES!
(Jimmy Akin)
GET THE STORY!
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (240)
February 13, 2007
Stupid, Evil Prime Minister
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (52)
January 29, 2007
Abortion & Excommunication
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Recently I fell into grave sin. I had sex with a woman who I am not married to. Soon after that I repented and went to confession. I confessed having contraceptive sex with a woman I was not married to. We used a condom, but she was also on the pill at the time. Since condoms don't always work, and the pill could potentially cause an abortion, or fail completely, she could have potentially conceived, and the baby could have been killed. The thought of this happening crossed my mind before going through with it. Also, I doubt the woman is pro-life at all, and if the baby was conceived and survived, she could have gone and had an abortion without me even knowing.
Since I knew that this sin could potentially cause an abortion, am I now excommunicated? I hadn't thought of this until recently, and it's really affecting me. Do I need to go to confession again and explain this aspect of it? Thank you.
First, I want to offer thanksgiving that you cooperated with God's grace and were willing to recognize the moral character of this course of action and to repent of it and seek reconciliation. This is a cause for rejoicing, and Jesus was clear on the joy that there is in heaven when someone returns to God from a state of sin. We should share in that joy.
Regarding the excommunication that canon law provides for procured abortion ("A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication," can. 1398), I am pleased to say that you have not incurred it. There are several reasons for this:
1) Canon law presupposes that the fact of the abortion is verifiable, or at least knowable. In the case of her suffering an early miscarriage following a double-contraceptive failure, this would happen at such an early stage of pregnancy (a week after conception) that it would be completely unverifiable and unknowable. It also is very unlikely to occur. In these circumstances, you cannot be said to have procured an abortion in the sense envisioned by canon 1398. As a canon that establishes a penalty, 1398 is subject to the interpretive norm of canon 18, which is that "Laws which establish a penalty . . . are subject to strict interpretation." 1398 is simply not intended to apply to unverifiable, unknowable abortions that are unlikely to occur in the first place.
2) In addition, your actions do not fall under 1398 because you did not intend to procure an abortion. You may have foreseen that an abortion would result spontaneously, but that is not the same thing as deliberately procuring one. What you intended was to have sexual relations with the woman. That was the object of your action--what you were intending to do. To procure an abortion the abortion has to be sought as a means or an end, and this is not what was happening here. Once again, canon 18's requirement of strict interpretation applies.
There are other reasons why you are not excommunicated as well, but the reasons why get rather technical and go beyond what can reasonably be done in a blog post. The bottom line, though, is that you simply aren't excommunicated. 1398 is simply not intended to cover the kind of situation that you describe concerning an unknowable, unintended early miscarriage following double contraceptive failure.
1398 is designed, however, to cover abortions procured by going to an abortionist, so we have to consider that case. What would the effects be for you if she did--against high odds--become pregnant and then decide to go to an abortionist without your knowing?
You would not be affected canonically. You do not support her action. You have to be more than just the father of a baby that someone else chooses to abort (can. 18). Specifically, you would have to cooperate directly in the procurement of the abortion itself, which would mean something like driving her down to the abortion clinic or giving her the money for the abortion. Just being the father isn't enough.
As to what should be done in confession, there is an argument that what you have already said is sufficient, but to be safe I would do the following: The next time you go to confession, simply say "I have previously confessed that I had sex with a woman I am not married to, but I neglected to mention that before I did so the thought that the act might lead to an abortion crossed my mind and I did it anyway. I wish to confess this circumstance as well for the additional moral coloring it gave to the act."
And that (or an approximation of it) is all you need to say.
Let's pray that an abortion does not result from this (and it's the vast likelihood that it will not). Let's also not forget to pray for the woman in question. And let us rejoice that you have cooperated with God's grace and been reconciled with him.
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (12)
January 09, 2007
H.R. 3
(Jimmy Akin)
Catholic grandmother Nanci Pelosi has established a "first hundred hours" agenda for her party to pursue now that it is in control of Congress.
One of her highest priorities in the first hundred hours is working to pass a bill--H.R. 3--in order to kill tens or hundres of thousands of children so that they can be experimented upon medically.
The National Catholic Bioethics Center writes:
Please Contact your Member of the House of Representatives, asking him/her to oppose H.R. 3: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research, and to request that they support ethical alternative stem cell research methods that do not require the killing of human embryos. Urgent Action Needed Before January 11, 2007
The National Catholic Bioethics Center has provided the attached written testimony in opposition to H.R. 3, which would fund embryonic stem cell research, requiring the destruction of conceived human embryos. On Thursday, January 11, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on H.R. 3. A similar bill passed both houses of Congress last year and was vetoed by President Bush, because it would fund research which required the killing of human embryos. A vote in the Senate is expected on such legislation at some time in the future. Please contact your member of the House of Representatives asking the Congressperson to oppose H.R. 3 and to support ethical alternative stem cell research proposals which do not require the killing of human embryos. Contact information on your Congressperson can be found at http://www.visi.com/juan
/congress/
Meanwhile, the National Family Council's Tony Perkins writes:
Embryonic Research, a Tough "Cell" for New Leadership
New research from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine may pose a substantial threat to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "100 Hours" agenda. According to reports, scientists there have discovered yet another alternative to embryonic stem cell research (ESC) that increases the promise of treatment without destroying human life. Stem cells found in the rich amniotic fluid that sustains a baby in the womb have the ability to grow into brain, muscle, and other tissues to fight and treat disease. Not only does the research lack the controversy of ESC, but it also hasn't generated the tumors that have so often been the result of embryonic experimentation. The news should deliver a crippling blow to the agenda of House Democrats, who hope to pass legislation that directs more taxpayer dollars to ESC as one of the hallmarks of their leadership. Regrettably, politicians have used embryos as a political football, endorsing science that has done far more harm to life than good to patients. As viable and ethical alternatives to destructive embryonic stem cell research grow, so too should opposition on Capitol Hill to taxpayer-funded research that destroys human embryos. As we continue to meet with House members this week, our goal is to hold them accountable to fund only methods that don't jeopardize human life. And, as science would have it, these ethical methods are the techniques producing results. Last week, the new House leadership talked a lot about ethics. If they truly care about setting ethical standards, then they should abandon their quest to subsidize unethical research and concentrate on research that cures without killing.
Register for this Event Now
Blogs for Life ConferenceAdditional Resources
Scientists Discover New, Readily Available Source of Stem CellsOrder Your Copy Now
Adult Stem Cell Treatments- 9 Faces of Success
Stem Cell Research, Cloning and Human Embryos
MORE ON THE NEW STEM CELL SOURCE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (81)
December 15, 2006
Ramesh Dusts Off His Crystal Ball
(Jimmy Akin)
In the FRC Blogger Briefing with Ramesh Ponnuru one of the subjects that came up was what we are likely to see politically in the next two years on the subject of abortion.
His basic prediction was that we will have a number of significant battles as Democratic lawmakers try to reverse gains made by pro-lifers. Specifically, he thought that they are likely to try to reverse the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits US foreign aid being given to nongovernmental organizations that perform or promote abortion, to allow abortions on military bases again, and to patent human embryos.
This was interesting to me. In light of the Democrats' realization that abortion is hurting them, it would be shrewd of them to keep the abortion genie in its bottle until after the 2008 elections. It was sounding less strident on the subject that helped them gain control of Congress, and if they immediately go all shrill on the subject again then it will remind voters of their recent weddedness to abortion and put them at a disadvantage come 2008.
So in the question period of the briefing, I asked Ramesh about this.
He said that he didn't think that the Democrats would lead with the subject of abortion--that they wouldn't put it on the front burner when they take control of Congress in January.
He acknowledged that this is "a potentially explosive issue in their caucus" and described a struggle in the party between those Democrats who were elected as pro-lifers (or pretending to be pro-lifers), saying that they wouldn't want to have to "choose between the values of their districts and the values of Nancy Pelosi." But other Democrats would say, "Look, on these narrow abortion-related issues, the polling is good and we can win." He also could see DailyKos and similar folks weighing in in favor of taking up abortion.
Ultimately, he said, he didn't think that the Democrats would be able to keep the pro-abortion wing of the party bottled up, saying that you are already seeing some on the left stating that the Mexico City Policy is a terrible, inhuman thing, that it's killing people, and that if Nancy Pelosi doesn't take it on then she's spineless--a wimp.
I also asked Ramesh whether, if the Democrats do push the abortion issue, it is likely to give pro-lifers and opportunity to expose the insincerity of some Democratic politicians who try to present themselves as more pro-life than they are (what you might call PLINOs).
He said it absolutely would create such an opportunity and, if I understood him correctly, he thought that it would be of general benefit to the pro-life cause. One of the problems with the recent elections, he said, was that values voters didn't have a lot to vote on. Abortion was not a central issue this election, and so many social conservatives ended up voting not on the values issues but on matters where they felt more in tune with the Democrats, such as the War or economic issues. If the values issues took center stage again, it would help pro-lifers.
He also addressed at some length the "common ground" tactic that some pro-aborts are using at present, saying that we should seek common ground by trying to reduce the number of abortions through things such as contraception.
Now, I would point out--and I'm speaking for myself rather than summarizing what Ramesh said at this point--that this common ground initiative is a sign of weakness on the part of pro-abort forces. It's an attempt to shift the spotlight off of abortion, which hurts them politically, onto other issues on which they think they can win--or at least sound less extreme to voters. It's also disingenuous, because the initiatives that they recommend we undertake (more contraception, more sex-ed, etc.) would not do diddly-do to decrease abortions. In fact, they would increase the number of abortions. That's been the experience of the last thirty-five years, and that's what would replicate in the future if these initiatives were pushed further than they have been.
Yet there is a politically shrewd side to this approach because contraception is widely supported by the American public. Even most in the Catholic and Evangelical communities support it, though orthodox Catholics don't and many Evangelicals are coming around on it. As a result, not only do pro-lifers lose support from non-values voters if the issue is framed in this way (i.e., on contraception rather than abortion) but a split develops in pro-life ranks on the question as well.
Ramesh's solution to this problem was to suggest that pro-lifers refuse to allow the issue to be defined in these terms and to suggest counter-proposals on how to limit abortion, such as new regulations on third-trimester abortions and cutting tax-payer funding for abortions. He cited the latter in particular--refusing to subsidize abortion with public funds--as a historically-proven way of reducing the number of abortions.
He also, in a somewhat different context, suggested revising the tax code to remove the disproportionate burden that is placed on families with children--a burden that he said has grown in recent years compared to the burden on tax-payers without children. This would help people invest more in children, which (in my opinion) is certainly something that American society needs to do for its long-term health.
Overall, Ramesh thought that "This is a pretty hopeful moment to be a pro-lifer." In spite of the recent elections, abortion is still a losing issue and pro-lifers can take the offensive and gain more ground.
Apologies, again, if I've mischaracterized anything, Ramesh. Just lemme know by e-mail or combox if I have. In the meantime, for more of his thought,
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (15)
Ramesh Ponnuru On Pro-Life Issues
(Jimmy Akin)
I recently participated in a telephone Blogger Briefing put on by the Family Research Council (FRC). The event was organized by Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost, who works at FRC. His idea is to help pro-life/socially conservative bloggers connect with figures in Washington (lawmakers, think tank types, commentators) who thus far haven't been as available to the pro-life part of the blogosphere.
I think the briefing is a great idea, and I want to publicly thank Joe and the FRC for it and wish them the best of success.
For the initial installment of the briefing, the guest was Ramesh Ponnuru (pictured), senior editor and commentator for National Review and the author of the book The Party of Death (BTW, Ramesh, I still owe you a review of the book; my apologies!).
The conversation began with Ramesh summarizing the recent history of abortion in American politics and what he thinks is likely to happen with it in the future.
In covering this ground, he addressed one of the questions that I have been fascinated by for a long time. It's no secret that the Democratic Party used to be the more conservative party and the Republicans the more liberal party. That clearly was the case, for example, at the time of the Civil War, and much, much more recently as well.
The Republicans are still the more liberal party economically, which to say that they are the more free-market party (i.e., they are more supportive of classical liberal economic policies, as opposed to more conservative, protectionist ones). But on social issues, the parties have changed places.
The timing and the mechanics of how that happened are things I'm quite interested in.
In the blogger briefing, Ramesh cited 1972 as a key year in the social transformation of the two parties. In his book, I'm sure he goes into the background that the late 1960s played in setting up the events of 1972, but he cites the campaign of George McGovern in that year as the point at which the elite of the Democratic Party was taken over by socially liberal secular activists. The rank and file of the party still had a lot of socially conservative working-class Catholics, Evangelicals, and Southerners, but that was when the elite switched sides.
Two things then happened: The rank and file Democrats--being socially conservative--started to find Republican candidates more attractive, and social liberals in the Republican Party started finding Democratic candidates more attractive. A period thus followed in which members of each party found themselves being more attracted by and voting for candidates of the opposite party, and eventually a general realignment of the two took place. The Democrats became a smaller, more liberal party, with more of the most wealthy supporting it, while the Republicans ceased to be the party of the affluent and became larger and more conservative socially.
Democratic politicians also found that, even though they might represent pro-life districts and had historically been pro-life themselves, with the party elite in the control of secularists they had to switch and become pro-aborts if they wanted to make headway nationally in the party.
For a time, Ramesh said, it was not obvious to either Democrats or Republicans whether this strategy was a wise one politically. For a time it seemed that American support for abortion was growing, but eventually it became clear to Democrats that the strategy wasn't working, and pro-lifers began to gain ground. Many Democrats (particularly Catholic ones) tried to say, "I'm personally opposed, but . . . " yet this strategy did not prove effective in the long run.
The point we are at now, he suggested, is one in which the leadership of the Democratic Party recognizes that the fact they have been wedded to abortion is hurting them more than it is helping them, and this explains why some Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, have tried other forms of "window dressing," such as saying "I'm very interested in finding common ground between the two positions" and simply hoping that they will not be called on the fact that their voting record is solidly pro-abort (something the MSM is quite willing to not call attention to).
It also explains why Democrats were willing to run pro-life or nominally pro-life candidates in some races in the 2006 elections, and why Democrats were able to pick up as many seats as they were.
This was a bad year for pro-lifers as well as Republicans, but there was a difference between the two. If I caught the numbers Ramesh cited correctly, Republicans lost about thirty seats, while pro-life candidates only lost twenty seats, depending on how they are counted.
What this shift in the approach Democrats are taking will mean in the future is something that also came up in the call, and it'll be the subject of my next blog post.
In the meantime, I want to thank Ramesh for taking the time to discuss matters with us, and my apologies if I have mischaracterized anything he said. Also,
CHECK OUT HIS BOOK.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (11)
November 22, 2006
This Is Not An Elephant!
(Jimmy Akin)
And this is not a dolphin!
Why not?
Because they're both still in their mothers' wombs. These are in utero pictures.
Yet if the "Out of sight, you don't count" logic of pro-aborts were applied to animals the way it is to humans, these wouldn't count as an elephant and a dolphin. They're just "blobs of cells" or "tissue."
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (31)
November 09, 2006
Why 2004 Was Important
(Jimmy Akin)
The supreme court just heard a case involving whether partial-birth abortion can be banned without a health exception.
Six years ago, they heard a smiliar case involving a Nebraska law, and five of the injustices voted that it was unconstitutional: Darth Breyer, Darth Ginsburgh, Darth Souter, Darth Stephens, and Darth O'Conner.
But Darth O'Connor ain't there no mo.
Now there's Justice Alito.
And also Justice Roberts.
Will they vote with Justices Scalia and Thomas--and even Darth Kennedy?--who voted in favor of upholding the Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion in an apparent rare moment of being torn between the Light Side and the Dark Side.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (20)
October 13, 2006
Catholic University Invites Member Of Babykilling Criminal Underground To Address Students
(Jimmy Akin)
John over at Generations for Life writes:
I thought you might be interested in an entry I recently posted on the Generations for Life blog.
Last week, Judith Arcana, a member of the group "Jane," which claimed to have performed over 11,000 illegal abortions in Chicago in the years prior to Roe v. Wade, spoke at Loyola University Chicago at the invitation of the school's Women's Studies Department.
In the post, John quotes a former speech in which the babykiller explained how her underground murder syndicate worked:
Women joined the Service through periodic orientation meetings, and learned the necessary tasks from those who had come before them. Once their counseling skills had been developed in new recruits, and the group had come to trust them, they could learn more – doing everything from basic record keeping to becoming a medic, one who performed abortions.
Ultimately, we learned to do abortions in all three trimesters. Although we did only a handful in the third, as you may imagine, there were many in the second, no doubt because illegality forced women and girls to take so much time searching for abortionists and saving up money. The methods that we learned, we primarily learned from one man. He was not a doctor, but he was the best. Once we understood that many of the people doing abortions at that time were not doctors, we realized that we could do it too. This would mean women would not have to be charged a lot of money, could even come through the Service free.
So we pressed this man to teach us, as he had been taught. He was an extraordinary man in many ways, had been doing this work, and maybe other illegal work, virtually all of his life.
He also quotes her as saying
I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.
following which, he trenchantly notes
It’s bad enough when a Catholic university gives a platform to a pro-abortion politician or other public figure — that in itself is prohibited by the U. S. Catholic Bishops. Loyola, like so many other Catholic universities, has done that before.
But the fact that a Catholic university has given a platform to someone who actually facilitated abortions, has no regrets about having done so, and who, by her own admission, understands that abortion is the taking of a baby’s life — takes the word “scandal” to a whole new level.
Indeed!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (75)
September 21, 2006
Chicago Pro-Life Conference Tomorrow & Saturday
(Jimmy Akin)
CHICAGO, September 21, 2006 - "Contrary to popular belief, contraception is not the answer to reducing the number of abortions," said Joseph M. Scheidler, National Director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. "And it is not the solution to teen pregnancy."
On September 22 and 23, the Pro-Life Action League will host a national conference to highlight the fact that the contraception theory is a lie. Speakers at the two-day conference, entitled "Contraception Is Not the Answer," will focus on the impact that contraception has had on our culture - its effects on women, on men, on marriage, and on the culture.
Presenters include Dr. Lionel Tiger, the Charles Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, author of Smart Sex: How to Find Life-Long Love in a Hook-Up World, and demographer Andrew Pollard, director of EMP Intelligence Service in Northampton, England.
"Contraception Is Not the Answer" opens Friday, September 22 at 6:00 p.m. at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Rosemont, IL, with a presentation on the failure of "comprehensive" sex education programs, and an analysis of the Protestant embrace of contraception in the twentieth century.
A press conference will be held Saturday, September 23 at 8:00 a.m. in Ballroom One of the Crowne Plaza, prior to the presentations scheduled for the day. Dr. Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center, Dr. Janet Smith, professor of theology at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Damon Clarke Owens, director of Joy-Filled Marriage, and Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, will join Dr. Tiger, Dr. Morse and Prof. Pollard to answer questions from the media.
"I believe this is exactly the right time to confront the common misconceptions about the effects of contraception," said Scheidler. "This conference will prove to be historic."
For further information see www.prolifeaction.org/cinta or call 773-777-2900. A brief preview of several of the conference presentations can be accessed on the Pro-Life Action League website at www.prolifeaction.org/cinta/teleseminars.htm.
-30-
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (7)
August 23, 2006
The Roe Effect In Action
(Jimmy Akin)
We've commented before on the fact that Roe is doomed for the simple reason that those who favor abortion have a higher rate of using it and therefore produce fewer children, meaning that those who don't favor abotion will eventually outpopulate them and have the strength to get rid of abortion in America (which will be a long and messy process).
HERE'S AN ARTICLE THAT--WITHOUT AN ABORTION-SPECIFIC APPLICATION--MAKES A PARALLEL POINT.
EXCERPTS:
According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today's problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020--and all for no other reason than babies.
That, of course, is not only assuming that current trends hold but also that nothing else is affecting the situation.
But there is something that can affect it: Immigration.
If you aren't making enough new voters on your own, importing them is always a possibility, and since liberals tend to do better with newly immigrated voters (for at least a few generations), there is a strong incentive on the part of political liberals to want to encourage as much immigration as possible--legally and otherwise. This also explains the efforts on the part of some political liberals to create situations in which even illegal aliens can vote in American elections.
While large-scale immigration can slow the ending of abortion, it can't stop it, however. The United States cannot absorb an unlimited number of new immigrants, and at some point the current massive influx we are seeing will stop. When that happens, the ordinary consequences of the Roe Effect will act in an unimpeded manner and lead to those who disfavor abortion outpopulating those who favor it.
Abortion's still doomed. It's just a question of how many babies have to get killed before it ends.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (44)
July 27, 2006
More Credit Where Credit Is Due
(Jimmy Akin)
Despite problems I also have with certain recent votes taken by the U.S. Senate, I also want to give them credit when it is due to them (EXCERPTS):
The Senate voted yesterday to make it a crime to take a pregnant minor to another state to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge, handing a long-sought victory to the Bush administration and abortion opponents.
The bill would help about three dozen states enforce laws that require minors to notify or obtain the consent of their parents before having an abortion. It would bar people -- including clergy members and grandparents -- from helping a girl cross state lines to avoid parental-involvement laws. Violations could result in a year in prison.
Most states have passed such laws, but courts have invalidated at least nine of them, advocacy groups say. Maryland and Virginia have parental-notification laws; the District does not. The Senate voted 65 to 34 to approve the bill, which is similar to one the House has approved before, including last year.
The White House said the measure would "protect the health and safety of minors" and "protect the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters consistent with the widespread belief among authorities in the field that it is the parents of a pregnant minor who are best suited to provide her counsel, guidance and support."
The administration urged House and Senate negotiators to reconcile their differences and send Bush a bill to sign. Unlike the Senate version, the House measure would penalize physicians who knowingly perform abortions for minors who circumvented parental-involvement laws.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (10)
July 21, 2006
The Baby Harvesters Vs. The Baby Heroes
(Jimmy Akin)
The following is a list of U.S. Senators who voted in favor of harvesting babies currently frozen in order to get at their stem cells:
Now here is a list of those senators who voted to defend the babies against being harvested in order to steal their stem cells:
Kindly remember which individuals stood up for the babies and which voted to kill them for medical experimentation.
(CHT: Southern Appeal)
If you'd like to look up how your state's two U.S. senators voted, CLICK HERE.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (93)
July 20, 2006
Credit Where Credit Is Due
(Jimmy Akin)
President Bush has used the first veto of his presidency to kill a stem cell bill that would have led to the death of many children.
EXCERPTS:
"It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect, so I vetoed it," Bush said at the White House.
"We must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value," Bush said in his comments to specially invited families at the White House.
"Some people argue that finding new cures for disease requires the destruction of human embryos," Bush said, before adding: "I disagree.
"I believe that with the right techniques and the right policies we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities."
Shame on all those in the House and Senate--including members of the Republican majority in both houses--who voted in favor of the bill.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (34)
July 03, 2006
Telegraph Sends Faulty Message
(Jimmy Akin)
The British "newspaper" The Telegraph has run a story headlined "Vatican vows to expel stem cell scientists from Church" and illustrated yet again why the secular press is too incompetent to keep its job when it comes to reporting religion stories.
According to the story:
Scientists who carry out embryonic stem cell research and politicians who pass laws permitting the practice will be excommunicated, the Vatican said yesterday.
"Destroying human embryos is equivalent to an abortion. It is the same thing," said Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family.
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
The Telegraph needs to hold its horses on this one.
First, the fact that the head of a pontifical council said something in a magazine interview--even in a magazine published by the Vatican--does not ammount ot a statement of Vatican policy, so it is completely misrepresents the situation to take the cardinals interview remarks and pitch them as "Vatican vows" to do anything. The Vatican doesn't make policy statements in magazine interviews.
Second, we're talking about the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, here. While he's a great guy, it is not within his brief to make binding statements regarding the extent to which canonical matters like excommunication apply to particular situations. He's certainly entitled to express his opinions on the matters (and ED PETERS THINKS HE'S RIGHT REGARDING EMBRYO DESTROYERS) but the good cardinal is not empowered to move beyond the realm of offering an opinion and into making binding interpretations of canon law. So one more reason why this ain't a "Vatican vow."
Third, we're not talking about all stem cell scientists--just those who destroy embryos. As JAMIE BEU POINTS OUT, only stem cell research involving embryos is in question, not adult stem cell research.
Fourth, even confining outselves to embryonic stem cell research, it ain't all scientists who do this research that the cardinal was addressing--just those who destroy embryos. If a scientist is doing experiments on a cell line derived from embryos who were killed in the past, he's not performing an abortion and thus he's not whacked by the sentence of excommunication. Regardless of whether he's engaging in a moral activity in doing such experiments, he's not aborting embryos and thus does not incur excommunication for procuring or assisting in the procurement of an abortion.
Fifth, excommunication does not "expel [one] from [the] Church"! It just doesn't! Not under current canon law. The canonical effects of excommunication are enumerated in CANON 1331 and being expelled from the Church ain't one of 'em.
So any way you slice it, The Telegraph staff responsible for this story have done a flatly incompetent job--at that before we even get past the headline!
It's not even clear from the way the story is written how far its incompetence goes.
For example, note this statement:
"Excommunication will be applied to the women, doctors and researchers who eliminate embryos [and to the] politicians that approve the law," he said in an interview with Famiglia Christiana, an official Vatican magazine.
Since I don't have a copy of Famiglia Christiana (or a translation of it), I have to rely on The Telegraph that the material from the cardinal is being quoted accurately and in context, but there is a question in my mind about that because of the inserted "[and to the]" which bridges an elipsis in the cardinal's remarks.
There is a question in my mind about whether this insertion and elipsis distorts what the cardinal said because there would be notable canonical problems with the assertion that politicians would be excommunicated.
Penal laws are subject to narrow interpretation (Canon 18), and the Church has not historically interpreted the abortion excommunication politicians who vote in favor of laws that allow abortion as being excommunicated. Those directly involved in the abortion are, but not those who established the legal framework allowing abortion to take place.
Further, John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae 73 that in certain situations Catholic politicians can vote for laws that allow abortion if there is no practical way to get the abortion-allowing provisions out of the laws.
If Cardinal Trujillo did say that the abortion excommunication applies to politicians (and I don't know what is meant by "approve"--whether it is morally approve or approve in the sense of voting, either one of which would have canonical hurdles for such excommunications to take effect) then that is his opinion, but it is once again not an authentic (i.e., authoritative) interpretation of canon law.
Unfortunately, I can't even be sure what the cardinal said or meant from the incompetent way that The Telegraph's staff has handled this story.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (24)
June 27, 2006
Licensed To Choose Life
(Michelle Arnold)
Bishop Fulton Sheen once pointed out that the reasons people give for their opposition to something sometimes don't match up to why they're really opposed. He told the story of giving instruction in the Catholic faith to a young woman who became violently upset when he started telling her about confession. She ranted that she would never join the Church because of its position on confession. Sheen looked at her and told her that the violence of her objection in no way correlated to what he had said about confession and asked if she had had an abortion. She hung her head and admitted that she had.
I was reminded of this story when I read about the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case of abortion rights groups petitioning to disallow states from issuing Choose Life license plates. On the face of it, the abortion rights cadre didn't like the idea that the state legislature decided who would get the money made off the plates. That didn't make sense, so I looked at the article more closely.
"About a dozen states allow drivers to pay extra for the specialty car tags to show the car owner's opposition to abortion.
"Justices said they would not look at tag laws in Louisiana and Tennessee.
"Abortion opponents contend they have a free-speech right to broadcast their own views on their car tags. Proposals to offer car owners an alternative 'Choose Choice' plate failed in both state Legislatures."
Ah, now there we have it. If pro-abortionists cannot ram their "Choose Choice" plates through the state legislatures then they'll make sure that pro-lifers cannot display their adherence to life on their license plates either. I'd say that such an attitude is childish, but in this context that would be obscene.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (23)
June 26, 2006
Hentoff On Abortion
(Jimmy Akin)
Nat Hentoff is an interesting fella. According to Wikipedia,
Nat Hentoff (born June 10, 1925) is an American civil libertarian, free speech absolutist, pro-life advocate, anti-death penalty advocate, jazz critic, historian, biographer and anecdotist, and columnist for the Village Voice, Legal Times, Washington Times, The Progressive, Editor & Publisher, Free Inquiry and Jewish World Review. He was named as one of six 2004 NEA Jazz Masters, the first non-musician to win this prestigious award [SOURCE].
He's also a critic of both the ACLU and the Bush administration.
One of the things that makes Hentoff interesting is that he came from and is subsantially aligned with the American "Left," but he came to hold pro-life views and has been forthright in stating them.
in which he shares some interesting thoughts regarding Jesse Jackson, the Hemlock Society, and a 9-year old boy's insights on abortion.
It's worthwhile reading.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (22)
June 20, 2006
Crashing The Party
(Michelle Arnold)
When the Colorado House of Representatives decided to honor the ninetieth anniversary of Planned Parenthood's presence in the Rocky Mountains, one pro-life representative decided to bring along a special guest for the occasion. State Representative Ted Harvey asked Gianna Jessen (pictured at left), a singer, pro-life activist, advocate for those with cerebral palsy, and -- oh, yes -- an abortion survivor, to help him mark the event. Harvey first introduced Ms. Jessen, told the House of her victory over her disability, had her sing, then lowered the boom by telling "the rest of the story":
[Harvey said to the House]: "The cause of Gianna's cerebral palsy is not because of some biological freak of nature, but rather the choice of her mother.
"You see when her biological mother was 17-years-old and 7-and-a-half months pregnant, she went to a Planned Parenthood clinic to seek a late-term abortion. The abortionist performed a saline abortion on this 17-year-old girl. This procedure requires the injection of a high concentration of saline into the mother's womb, which the fetus is then bathed in and swallows, which results in the fetus being burned to death, inside and out. Within 24 hours the results are normally an induced, still-born abortion.
"As Gianna can testify, the procedure is not always 100 percent effective. Gianna is an aborted late-term fetus who was born alive. The high concentration of saline in the womb for 24 hours resulted in a lack of oxygen to her brain and is the cause of her cerebral palsy.
"Members, today, we are going to recognize the 90th anniversary of Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood…"
BANG! The gavel came down.
(In the Giving-Credit-Where-Credit-Is-Due Department, nod to The Sacred Weblog of the Universal Inquisition for the link.)
For more information about Gianna Jessen, CLICK HERE.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (40)
June 09, 2006
Remember Byron?
(Jimmy Akin)
Kathleen Parker has a nice piece on abortion and some of the absurd reasons that people are using to justify having them.
For example: having a clubbed foot.
She writes:
The week before, in what could have been a prequel to the child-actor story, Britain's Sunday Times reported that more than 20 babies had been aborted in advanced stages of gestation between 1996 and 2004 in England because scans showed they had clubfeet.
She goes on to point out that, had such abortions been performed in the past, a number of very prominent individuals would have been aborted and that having a clubfoot did not stop these individuals from going on to notable successes in life.
Among them were the poet Byron, the commedian Dudley Moore, and the figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi--in fact the latter not only won her fame with her feet, but she began figure skating as treatment for her clubbed feet.
What makes the abortion of such individuals even more appalling is that having clubfoot is a treatable and often fixable disorder.
Parker writes:
While it may be intellectually easier to justify aborting a fetus in cases of severe abnormalities, terminating a pregnancy because of easily corrected imperfections should disturb our sleep.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (21)
May 24, 2006
McPlannedParenthood
(Michelle Arnold)
Coming soon to a strip mall near you: A "quick-service" Planned Parenthood clinic. Next thing you know there'll be one on every corner. Right next door to the local Starbucks, no doubt.
"Planned Parenthood wants to expand its services to more areas, and the organization's leaders hope a plush fast-service clinic coming to this well-heeled St. Paul suburb [Woodbury, MN] next month will attract a new group of women who value convenience and can afford to pay full price.
"It could be to reproductive health care what companies like MinuteClinic and RediClinic are to strep tests and ear infections. Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit, but its leaders hope the new clinic will make enough money to help subsidize the rest of its operations."
One these franchise PPs get going, I wonder what the tagline will be. Perhaps "Over 45 million killed"?
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (7)
April 25, 2006
How Abortion Dies
(Jimmy Akin)
You're looking at a picture of the death of abrtion (click to enlarge).
This is a map prepared by USA Today of what would happen in the immediate aftermath of The Evil Decision being overturned.
The light colored states (think: those on the Side of Light) would be expected based on their current laws to move to curb abortion sharply. Some even have trigger laws in place that would kick in as soon as The Evil Decision is overturned.
The dark colored states (think: those on the Dark Side) would move to protect it.
Those in the middle are well, in the middle.
But it's still the beginning of the end for abortion. This is the lay of the land in the immediate aftermath of when we can drive a stake thorugh the heart of Roe.
But the map won't stay this way forever.
The light states will get lighter. Because they will have fewer abortions, the Roe Effect will intensify and their populations will rise. They will therefore acquire more legal representatives and have more pro-life folks in them at the same time.
The states in the middle will also get lighter, because the Roe Effect will continue in them, and they may even pass some modest abortion curbing measures that would intensify the effect.
Eventually, the dark states will not be able to compete with a move to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and one will get added, ending abortion in the United States. They also may get lighter due to cross-pollenation from the light states and because even in the heart of darkness the Roe Effect will continue to work.
Make no mistake: This battle will be messy, there will be advances and losses, and it will take decades.
But what you're looking at is . . . the Beginning of the End for abortion.
Bring it on, baby! Bring it on!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (43)
April 21, 2006
Isn't That Special
(Jimmy Akin)
According to the Cincinnati Enquirer (NOT the National Enquirer),
A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
Witnesses reported "a group of females of various ages" committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU's literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
"I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to," Jacobsen said.
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, "I have no comment."
And why is she cagey on her own involvement in the vandalism?
NKU President James Votruba said any evidence of criminal conduct in the incident will be turned over to prosecutors. He said he appreciated the emotional nature of the abortion debate and was glad that diverse viewpoints are represented at the school, but he condemned the destruction of the crosses.
"Freedom-of-speech rights end where you infringe on someone else's freedom of speech," Votruba said.
"I don't buy the claim that this is an act of freedom of speech, to destroy property."
GET THE STORY.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed.)
So . . . abortion advocates turn to violence.
Isn't this a "Dog Bites Man!" story?
PRE-PUBLICATION UPDATE: Instapundit reports that Professor Jacobsen is being removed from her position.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (21)
March 10, 2006
A Small Rebel Force...
(Michelle Arnold)
Just as pro-lifers begin to find themselves tempted to despair over the Empire of Death that is ever more quickly strangling our society comes a message of hope from the Rebel Alliance for Life:
"A seven-month pregnant woman -- her belly vast -- was at a supper with a friend. He, being of the family type, told her she was very lucky to be expecting a baby. He was the first person who had said such a thing, she told him.
"It's a jarring anecdote because it so sharply puts into focus how pregnancy has become the occasion not for congratulations, but for anxious questions about childcare, leave and work. Watch how the announcement of a pregnancy among women is followed within minutes by the 'What are you going to do?' question. We've replaced the age-old anxiety around life-threatening childbirth with a new -- and sometimes it appears just as vast -- cargo of anxiety around who is going to care.
[...]
"The painful paradox is that while women have liberated themselves from being defined by their biology -- the fate of the girl in many African and Asian societies who is not truly a woman until she has given birth -- mothers have ended up relegated to the status of constant abject failure in a culture driven by consumerism and workaholism. There is no kudos in being a mum, only in being other things -- such as thin, or the boss -- despite being a mum. Motherhood is a form of handicap.
"The fact that we still have as many births in the UK as we do is extraordinary. Some cynics would say it's the triumph of biology over culture -- we are programmed to reproduce regardless. I prefer a more romantic notion: that it's a form of popular rebellion by which the prevailing anti-natalist mores of a manipulative consumer capitalism are trumped by the innate understanding of millions of women (and men) of what really constitutes love and fulfilment -- dependence, commitment, the pleasure of guiding enthusiasm and, above all, the privilege of nurturing innocence."
(Nod to the reader who sent the link.)
"It's a ... popular rebellion by which the prevailing anti-natalist mores ... are trumped by the innate understanding of millions of women (and men) of what really constitutes love and fulfilment."
I like that. Now I just have to find the rebel base so I can join the alliance being formed to restore the culture of life.... Oh, wait! I've already found it.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Abortion | Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Ectopic Abortion
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I recently had a relative who had an ectopic pregnancy that was terminated by using the drug Methotrexate. Everything that I have read says that ectopic pregnancy cannot deliver the baby alive.
I believe that from reading the Catechism that this was an abortion and that this person has excommunicated herself by submitting to the abortion? I have not spoken to her and do not know how or if I should bring up the subject of what happened and what it means to her relationship with God. I have prayed much for her and her aborted baby, but any advise you could offer would be greatly helpful. This is a horrible situation for any mother to be in.
It is indeed. Discovering that you are experiencing an ectopic pregnancy is horiffic.
First, some (partial) good news: Your relative may well not be excommunicated.
Although canon law provides an automatic excommunication for procured abortion, it also includes a number of exceptions which keep this excommunication from being triggered.
Among those exceptions is not knowing that a particular action would incur a canonical penalty. If your relative did not know that procured abortion carries a penalty under canon law then she is not excommunicated.
There are also several other exceptions that might pertain to her state and keep the excommunication from being triggered.
In view of this, I would not raise the possibility of excommunication to her, especially at this time, when she is still recovering emotionally from the ectopic pregnancy.
Now: What about the use of the Methotrexate?
I assume from the way that you present the matter that this drug was used while the child was still alive.
That may not be the case, however. If the child was already dead then its use would not have been immoral. If they knew that the child was dead then it would have been morally legitimate to use this drug to remove the child's body from the mother.
If you address this situation with your relative then you should first verify that the child was still alive before telling your relative that what she did was wrong. (I'd also verify that Methotrexate was used. Always verify your facts rigorously before accusing someone of a grave sin.)
Now: What if the child was alive?
In that case, what she did was a procured abortion and it was gravely immoral.
Although there are ways of dealing with ectopic pregnancies that many orthodox Catholic moral theologians regard as morally licit, use of an abortifacient drug like Methotrexate is not one of them. The reason is that Methotrexate directly kills the child, and it is never morally permissible to directly take the life of an innocent.
If the child was alive then this was an abortion. It's too bad your relative did not know about or did not pursue methods of dealing with her situation that are potentially morally licit.
Given what happened, it would in principle be a spiritual work of mercy to alert your relative to the moral character of the act she performed so that she knows that she can take the appropriate steps to deal with it (going to confession).
Your job in delivering such a message to her would be to do it in the way that has the best chance of actually prompting repentance, meaning not only using the best words but also doing it at the best time possible.
When and whether such a time might be, I can't say. I don't know how long ago this occurred, what your relative's state of mind is at present regarding the abortion, or what your relationship with her is.
Ultimately, the decision of when and how to broach the subject is a judgment call, and you just have to make the best decision that you can and trust God with the results.
(You also do not have to assume that you are the only instrument God has to work with your relative. He's got lots. So don't think this all hinges on you. In fact, depending on what your relationship with your relative is, you may simply be the wrong person to deliver this message. That's something that has to be considered.)
If you do decide that it is opportune to discuss this with your relative, what words should you use?
Myself, I tend to be direct about the evil involved, while trying to frame the subject in as compassionate way as possible.
If I were in your position and decided that the moment to talk about it had come, I would probably say something like:
<massively compassionate tone of voice>I just wanted to let you know that I feel really horrible about what happend. Having an ectopic pregnancy is a nightmare that no woman should have to go through. It must have hurt you tremendously to have to go through that, and I want you to know that you and your baby are in my prayers.
That being said, I understand that you used Methotrexate to deal with the situation. While it's understandable that you felt the need to do something, and while there are potentially moral ways to handle an ectopic pregnancy, this was not one of them. Methotrexate directly brings about the death of the child, and it is never morally licit to directly bring about the death of an innocent.
I don't know how much you understood about all this at the time. I'm not judging you AT ALL. I know this was a horribly shattering experience for you, and I don't want to do anything but offer my support for you.
I also don't want to pry into this matter. I respect your privacy. But I hope that you'll consider going to the sacrament of reconciliation to make sure that you're square with God about this. He loves you even more than I do, and I know that you will find healing and relief in the sacrament.</massively compassionate tone of voice>.
That's what I'd be inclined to say, but others may be able to propose better words.
(NOTE: Exhortations to approach the relative before she had a chance to recover from the event emotionally and exhortations to read the relative the riot act will be deleted.)
I'd also be prepared to answer questions about what alternatives to the use of Methotrexate that she could have used.
You could also e-mail her that link if she wants rather than try to explain these things in the discussion.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Abortion |