The Language of Abortion

A friend pointed me to Aggie Catholics where they have this great pro-life commercial by Signal Hill. I've written before, in "What's another word for 'thesaurus'?" about how human beings are dehumanized by language, and in particular the claim that calling human beings "human beings" is too vague.

Signal Hill is an advocate for human rights that provides information on life issues, women's health, and family support. Signal Hill's position is grounded in the conviction that the life of human beings ought to be understood as a fundamental human right and protected from conception until natural end.

Signal Hill undertakes in-depth research and provides leadership in the fields of life issues, women's health and human rights. We provide resources for counseling, outreach, support and understanding for women and families struggling with issues surrounding pregnancy, abortion and other life-related issues. We are non-judgmental, compassionate and caring. Signal Hill faces today's most challenging issues with maturity, dignity and academic excellence. Everyone has the right to make informed decisions and it is our mission to make certain that education is provided with clarity and individual support.

There is a large amount of educational and helpful material available on the site. I wish we had a similar site in the US (or maybe we do - please post if you know of one). I know about Option Line, but they don't have the same depth of informational materials as Signal Hill.

Read More

Bigot (part 2)

In my previous post, Bigot, I spoke about the lack of evidence of any "rights" that are denied homosexual couples under current law, and therefore the lack of a reason to change the definition of marriage. In this post I intended to talk about reasons not to change the definition of marriage, but it occurs to me that I should first ask the question "why marriage?".

I was going to start with Merriam-Webster again, then discovered that they recently changed their definition from

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1 : the institution under which a man and a woman become legally united on a permanent basis

to

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

which is a poor definition for reasons that will become clear later in this post (not the least of which is that a dictionary is supposed to record the definition of a word as commonly used, not attempt to introduce new usage). So for now let's start with the Oxford dictionary, which has not changed its definition.

marriage :/ˈmarɪdʒ/ noun
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

So, my question about this definition is "why?". Why does the law recognize this union? What interest does the state have in who I hang out with, or live with, or sleep with?

My pro-SSM friends will argue that it has to recognize this union for the purpose of property rights. However, I find this unconvincing. First off, the state recognizes shared property rights without a marriage. Secondly the state doesn't intrude in property rights for partnerships other than marriages. It is pretty clear from looking at the structure of family court that the state's interest in marriage is ensuring that children are cared for. And that's a noble goal. After all, children are human beings.

Children have rights, and one of those rights is the right to their father and mother. The father and mother, in turn, have the responsibility to care for and educate their child to produce a citizen. In recognizing marriage, the state recognizes an institution that is far older than itself, and in fact is the basis of society and government; the family.

In other words, marriage is an institution not for the "rights" of parents to have children if they want, but for the rights of children to have their own parents care for them. This is common sense. Clearly marriage is not necessary to get together and have children. But it is a commitment to stay together to raise those children.

The Catholic Church has always recognized this, and indeed every religion and government recognized this throughout all of history until the last century. I won't get into how and why this changed for some organizations because that would be another entire series of posts. But let's look at the Catholic perspective on marriage.

If you wish to be married in the Catholic Church you are required to post banns of marriage - that is, state your intent to marry publicly for a period of time. You must receive instructions on what marriage is. You must promise that you will have whatever children God gives you. You must promise to raise those children and educate them in the Catholic faith. These are requirements for marriage.

What about people who don't want to have children? They should not be married, and in fact cannot be married as Catholics. What about people who can't have children? They can be married. Isn't that a contradiction? No. Nobody can predict what will happen, we can only say what we want to happen and what we promise to do in that situation.

Why is the Catholic Church so hung up on sex? We're not. We're hung up on life. Marriage is about bringing life into the world, and the Catholic Church is one of the few organizations that not only talks the talk but walks the walk.

But what about same sex couples? Can't they have children and raise them and educate them? No, they can't. If you have read a biology book (or even if you haven't) you should realize it takes both sexes to produce a child. Hence no need for marriage, because they are not going to produce children with each other.

What about adoption? Adoption exists again not for the "rights" of adults to get children they want, but for the rights of children to get the parents they need. It is not a matter of "ownership" of a child, but of meeting the needs of children. If a child loses one or both parents for some reason (including abandonment), adoption gives that child the benefit of a mother and father (and usually brothers and sisters as well). Adoption by two people of the same sex does not give that child any benefit. Two "mommies" (or two "daddies") does not make a mother and father, regardless of what role playing goes on.

Of course, many pro-SSM people will disagree with this definition of marriage. To them I offer the following observation and question. First off, whether they like it or not, this is the definition of marriage by the Church today and by everyone since before recorded history. I did not invent this, and neither did the Church. Secondly, if marriage is something else, what is it that makes it distinct from any other thing (such as a contract, for instance)?

Next, see Bigot Part 3.

Read More

IVF is...

Sometimes I'm slow. A friend sent me a link to a CNN report on military wives supplementing their income by becoming surrogate mothers for couples using IVF. It suddenly struck me. That's prostitution! Think about it. I'll let a stranger have the use of my reproductive organs for money.  What's the difference between that and prostitution? The ends? The intention? Haven't you heard that "the end does not justify the means"? Ever wonder where that came from? The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
- the object chosen;
- the end in view or the intention;
- the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

Of course, I'm going to hear the usual flak about how the Catholic church doesn't know everything (or anything) and that I am a mindless robot to read this crap. Thank you. Now open your eyes and your mind and consider the rest of this post.

My realization of this aspect of IVF isn't new or original, nor is it the only problem with IVF. A recent interview with a doctor I heard mentioned that including pre-implantation "selection" and post-implantation "selection" (aka eugenic abortion) ten babies are killed for every one delivered using IVF. So we have parents who want a baby so badly they will kill ten of their own children to have one. As a society we are shifting to a mentality where a baby is not a person for whose life you are responsible, but a possession whose purpose is to give you pleasure. IVF is slavery.

Some other things I found out about IVF. Outsourcing Baby-making in India (HT SHS) speaks of the suffering caused by "biological colonialism" or "reproductive tourism".  Another term for that is human trafficking.

There are also numerous IVF "errors", the worst of which we sometimes hear of in the media. In the case mentioned the couple decided to keep the baby (possibly because the only known difference was the blood type). Many do not, adding to the killing. IVF is eugenics.

Finally, I came across this article on research demonstrating that IVF is a factor in cerebral palsy (not associated with, but a cause). From the article:

IVF could more than double the rate of cerebral palsy, according to research from Denmark. In an article in the journal Human Reproduction, epidemiologist Jin Lieang Zhu says that the association between IVF and the disorder is well-known. But it was not clear whether the real cause was the underlying infertility or IVF procedures. His research, based on 90,000 children born between 1997 and 2003, demonstrates that something about IVF itself must be the reason. [emphasis mine]

IVF is dangerous.

I would hope that if you are considering IVF or know someone who is and you got this far you will actually read the articles above first, and consider whether it is worth so many lives and risks to have a baby that's (partly) "yours" instead of adopting a baby that needs them. For that matter, if you do not want to try adoption, consider NFP fertility methods rather than IVF. NFP is 100% natural (no drugs or surgery), can be extremely effective and has no side effects. Why doesn't your doctor suggest it? Why does she disparage it when it can help you? Because she doesn't make any money from it.

Read More

Octaconta-dad!

Think you have a big family? Here's an amazing story about a Vietnamese man who saves babies from abortion by adopting them. He has devoted his entire savings to saving children from abortion. How many has he adopted? Over 80. Yes, that's not a typo. Thirty of them have been taken back by their mothers, and he and his wife are raising the remaining fifty plus children as their own, unless/until their mothers want them back. When he can't save a life, he asks the abortuary for the corpse, which he buries in a private cemetery. His cemetery has over 9,000 tiny graves.



To me (and the children he has saved) this man is a hero. I wish I had the fortitude to do what he does. The next time I feel like complaining about how hectic my life is, I will shut up and offer it up.

H/T Divine Ripples.

Read More

Targeting CPCs

Every have one of those days where things get you mad? I'm having one. One of the major reasons is this article on Life Site News: "Federal bill Puts Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the Crosshairs." A quick read of the bill itself makes it sound innocuous enough. The bill purports to prohibit "advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services."

Makes sense, right? Advertising a service that is not being offered is deceptive advertising. So here's the big question. Why write this bill at all? False advertising is already covered under law. Shouldn't we just appeal to existing law? For that matter, if you feel deceptive advertising isn't covered by the law, why not make this bill generic. Take out the word "abortion" and the bill reads just fine.

The reason the bill was written, and the reason it mentions abortion is because it is meant to be broadly interpreted in order to put crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) out of business. We have already seen this happen at the local level, in Baltimore. Rather than passively prosecuting false advertising, the law was used to force CPCs to post large prominent disclaimers discouraging women from entering.

But maybe this law is different. Let's hear what the bill's sponsor has to say about it. Carolyn Maloney's web site has a post "Maloney Cracks Down on Deceptive Anti-abortion Centers". From the article:

“New York City has seen firsthand how crisis pregnancy centers deliberately confuse women by establishing themselves near legitimate reproductive health care centers.  These fake clinics have opened in close proximity to our Brooklyn and Bronx centers, misleading clients seeking the unbiased care that Planned Parenthood provides."

And so we see that being in the same neighborhood as a Planned Parenthood clinic is considered "deceptive advertising". Let's see what unbiased care Panned Parenthood provides. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the US. Abortion is its single largest source of income. It does not derive any income from women who choose adoption. This sets up an inherent conflict of interest. In 2007, Planned Parenthood performed 305,310 abortions, and made just 4,912 adoption referrals. Since 2007 Planned Parenthood has not released any information on how many adoption referrals they have provided.

As for unbiased, medically accurate information, check out Live Action's web site for numerous documented examples of what Planned Parenthood provides. The fact is, if Planned Parenthood were actually interested in women getting all the information they can to make an important life or death choice, they would welcome CPCs, which have no financial interest in the decision the mother makes.

In short, this bill is nothing but an attempt by Planned Parenthood to eliminate any alternative source of information about pregnancy, which they see as potentially cutting into their lucrative abortion business.

Read More

Round about the Internet

So what to blog about? Well, the health care bill, for one. But so many people are writing such excellent posts about it I have little to add that you can't read more eloquently elsewhere. Plus I have had lots to do this year, and have had little time for composing posts that require a lot of research. So I was thinking...

I follow blogs. Lots of blogs. I don't get to keep up with them all the time, but when I do I often get ideas for posts of my own that I don't have time to write. So I thought I would occasionally post something with just links or a short blurb about articles on the internet that I found interesting. I hope you will find them interesting too. But what about a clever name?

When I was in high school I had a friend who had a shortwave radio. We used to sit up nights and listen to stations from around the world. The two shows we listened to a lot were "The Father Bill Ayers Show" on HCJB (Heralding Christ Jesus' Blessings) in Quito Ecuador, and "Round About the Soviet Union" on Radio Kiev. "Round About..." had a variety of short segments on various topics, usually about similarities between the US and USSR, or the wonderful improvements tat Communism had brought to the Soviet states. So I decided to crib the name, in case you were wondering. Anyway, without further ado, some actual content.

This week I was reading a blog post of Jill Stanek's on using google labs to show the world depopulation crisis. It has some interesting visualizations of the depopulation of the world due to decreased birth rates and ineffectiveness of contraception use in preventing HIV. Sadly, I know many people who will look at all sorts of graphs, scientific papers and peer reviewed research and say "yes, but the world is overpopulated" or "yes, but we need to distribute condoms to fight HIV", and then call me ignorant for not seeing the obvious "facts" that these things are "true".

In a surprise ruling, Catholic Care won a suit against a law in the UK which would have forced them to either give up their faith or their adoption agency. I say surprising, because I would have thought such a ruling less likely in the UK than the US and I can't see it happening in the US. So a big "good for you" to our cousins in the UK!

The "Our Sunday Visitor" blog has a piece about someone in St. Peter's Square calling for the Pope to excommunicate Pelosi and Biden for supporting abortion. While inappropriate, I would like to see some definitive guidance on how the Church should approach these matters. At least from my view our stance seems to be uncoordinated and rules are not being applied consistently. I realize that this is under the authority of different bishops, who have different opinions on these matters, but I like consistency.

The Archidiocese of Washington has a piece on what Jesus might have looked like. For those who don't have time to read it, the answer is the image at right (although the article is filled with caveats about speculation, especially as it pertains to the Shroud of Turin). It also features a cool YouTube video "The many faces and titles of Christ".

From "The Economist" a frightening story on "Gendercide":

XINRAN XUE, a Chinese writer, describes visiting a peasant family in the Yimeng area of Shandong province. The wife was giving birth. “We had scarcely sat down in the kitchen”, she writes (see article), “when we heard a moan of pain from the bedroom next door…The cries from the inner room grew louder—and abruptly stopped. There was a low sob, and then a man’s gruff voice said accusingly: ‘Useless thing!’

“Suddenly, I thought I heard a slight movement in the slops pail behind me,” Miss Xinran remembers. “To my absolute horror, I saw a tiny foot poking out of the pail. The midwife must have dropped that tiny baby alive into the slops pail! I nearly threw myself at it, but the two policemen [who had accompanied me] held my shoulders in a firm grip. ‘Don’t move, you can’t save it, it’s too late.’

“‘But that’s...murder...and you’re the police!’ The little foot was still now. The policemen held on to me for a few more minutes. ‘Doing a baby girl is not a big thing around here,’ [an] older woman said comfortingly. ‘That’s a living child,’ I said in a shaking voice, pointing at the slops pail. ‘It’s not a child,’ she corrected me. ‘It’s a girl baby, and we can’t keep it. Around these parts, you can’t get by without a son. Girl babies don’t count.’”

So many pro-aborts (like Hillary Clinton) insist on a woman's "right" to an abortion, yet condemn women who have abortions for gender selection. If you believe the woman had that right, what a hypocrite to then condemn her for making it!

"Vocal Minority" has this interesting graphic on "Democracy Denied" showing how the Obama administration is getting around the legislative branch of our government. Of course, the Judicial branch has been doing this for years as well.

The Department of Homeland Security has an article, and no, this is not a spoof site, but the real thing, on "Could Airborne, Parachuting Bears Catch Bin Laden?" From the article:

“Overnight, Parachute some bears into areas [bin Laden] might be,” the innovator wrote. “Attempt to train bears to take off parachutes after landing, or use parachutes that self-destruct after landing.”

And that's all I have for now. If people like this I'll try to make it a regular thing. Please let me know what you think.

Read More

When Adoption is Wrong

A dear friend and I had a discussion today about the Catholic Church's position on reproductive techonolgy. She had read this article and was surprised to hear that the church would be against adoption. Of course, the church isn't against adoption of children but is against embryo adoption. I understand why but still have some questions.

First, IVF itself. My friend was curious as to why the church, which places such a high value on human life, would be against technology to allow a couple to have children. When a couple loves each other, and wants to share that love with a child, and we have the capability to give them one, why would we not want to do that? This is a child that would be loved and cherished, and clearly the couple has the financial means to give it a good life (or they couldn't afford IVF in the first place).

Very good questions. Let's consider what IVF is. Wikipedia says:

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb, in vitro. IVF is a major treatment in infertility when other methods of assisted reproductive technology have failed. The process involves hormonally controlling the ovulatory process, removing ova (eggs) from the woman's ovaries and letting sperm fertilise them in a fluid medium. The fertilised egg (zygote) is then transferred to the patient's uterus with the intent to establish a successful pregnancy.

Aside from the issues surrounding the morality of removing eggs and sperm, and bypassing the relationship and act of love between man and wife, it sounds OK until you get into the method. Eggs are removed from the woman, sperm from the man, and the eggs are fertilized in a petri dish or some other medium outside the body. About 10 to 30 eggs are removed and fertilized at a time. After two to five days, the embryos are "selected" and several are implanted into the woman's uterus.

The selection process is one were the embryologist choose which children will live or die based on criteria. Can you say eugenics? If you can select a child based on these criteria, why not add criteria such as eye color, sex, etc.? We're looking at the precursor to Gattaca.

Then there's the pregnancy rate of 35% and live birth rate of 27%. Of course, there is a high risk of multiple births, so we will want to further cull the embryos by aborting all but one. We've killed enough of our own children already, so what's one more?

Of course, the alternative to this procedure for infertile couple is adopting an already born child. That procedure is extremely risky and has moral questions, like...oh wait! There isn't any risk or any moral dilemma associated with live adoption.

So, rather than thinking of a couple who wants to share their beautiful love, the image in reality is a couple who is so vain that they would ignore the option of sharing their love with a child who needs them, create 10-30 children of their own, kill most of their own children, and risk the lives of the ones they don't intentionally kill, in order to have a "perfect" baby (where "perfect" means having their genetic characteristics). We're not talking about an act of love, but an act of supreme selfishness.

As for being "wanted", whether or not we "want" or even like a person does not affect their basic human dignity and rights.

Back to adoption of embryos. As mentioned, IVF creates 10-30 embryos. The ones which are not used may be destroyed outright or may be frozen and stored. After all, if the couple wants to have another child, it will be cheaper to use a frozen one than to start the process all over again. If the couple doesn't want another child, we can use these for medical experiments. Who cares about them?

Well, some people do, and want to do something about it. But what? One possibility is to "adopt" an embryo. Have it implanted in a woman and grow until birth. It is this "embryo adoption" that the Church teaches us is immoral. Again, one can ask "why?" Here is the case of a technology to allow a couple to have children. When a couple loves each other, and wants to share that love with a child, and we have the capability to give them one, why would we not want to do that? This is a child that would be loved and cherished.

First of all, we have some of the same arguments as before. We would have an embryologist "selecting" which embryo to implant, and we would be putting those children "in harm's way" given the expected number of them that would die. But of course you could make the argument that they are already at risk, when they might be used for medical research or destroyed.

My understanding is that the Church's position is that taking an embryo that is not your own and implanting it in your womb is a form of adultery. Yet, adopting that same child after it has been born is not. At first glance that sounds a little too much like making a distinction between a person who is born and one who is not. However, it is not the state of the embryo that makes the difference, but the intimacy with the mother's body that makes it adultery.

Since it is not valid to perform an evil act even if we intend a good outcome (the end never justifies the means), this means that a couple can't adopt an embryo as it would constitute an evil act (adultery) even if the intended outcome was good (the preservation of the life of the embryo). However, there are certain cases where an unintended evil must be accepted - in the case of ectopic pregnancy, for example.

Could one not make the argument that the implantation of the embryo would be an unfortunate but acceptable evil in order to try to save the life of the embryo? I would argue not, since the implantation could not be done without intention. Thus it doesn't meet the criteria outlined in the ectopic pregnancy case. Hence the Church's term "moral dilemma" in the article.

I'm still not sure I understand this issue entirely. If you have more information or opinion on the subject please let me know.

Read More