jump to navigation

The Abortion and Reproductive Rights Hoax August 3, 2010

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

A New York-based law firm, the Center for Reproductive Rights, has released a paper blaming the Philippines’ pro-life laws criminalizing abortion for endangering women. The group alleges that current laws force women to turn to illegal abortions that can result in complications and — in around 1000 cases annually — even death. The report basically ties the laws against abortion to what it says are human rights violations.

This is nothing new. Pro-abortion forces used the same deceptive tactic to get abortion legalized in the U.S. The deception lies on many levels, some of which we will examine.

Who’s rights?

Given a Choice, They’d Want a Chance. | Abort73.comThe CRR sees access to abortion as a human right, and in their view the denial of such is effectively a violation of a woman’s rights. This claim, however, is extremely ironic because abortion is itself a violation of human rights: it is a denial of the unborn child’s right to life. Since the situation therefore involves the alleged “rights” of a woman over the right to life of an innocent child, we must ask: whatever rights a woman may have regarding choices about having children, can these be more important than the right to life itself?

Life is the most paramount right. Without it no other rights can be exercised. Therefore, even if choosing an abortion is part of a woman’s rights — as claimed by the CRR — it is necessarily a lesser right than the right to life, a right which will be denied to the victim of an abortion, the unborn child.

Human life

To get around this dilemma, many pro-abortion groups sinply deny that unboirn children are people. Doing so, however, requires ignoring basic biology and scientific evidence. Once a human egg is fertilized, it can naturally develop only into a human being. It will not become a dog or a cat. It is definitively a human being. Furthermore, science tells us that the 46 chromosomes that define a unique human individual come together at fertilization. The fertilized ovum will become only a specific human individual and not another. It is clearly then a human person.

Aside from the scientific evidence, those that deny that the unborn are people have to face another problem: if the unborn are not human, then when do they become human? Obviously, birth is just an arbitrary defining point since the transfer of location and physically parting from another person (which is what a birth involves) does not define humanity. Other changes in the embryo or fetus are also not sufficient defining points since these are simply stages in the development of a unique individual already defined at fertilization. Even born human beings are still undergoing development. An infant is physically different from an adult. Later stages in development of an already unique individual cannot therefore define the beginning of human life and personhood.

The price of “safe” abortion

There are many laws that result in difficulty and hardship. Enforcing our laws against murder, for example, often result in shootouts and great expenditures to catch murderers. Enforcing our laws against drug trafficking also results in many deaths and a host of other problems. Does that mean we should legalize murder and drug trafficking? Of course not. We should not legalize these because thyey are wrong and the hardship entailed in enforcing our laws is nothing compared to the greater evils that will befall our nation should these crimes be legalized.

In the same way, abortion is in itself a great evil, a crime against the unborn, and a violation of human rights. If indeed continued criminalization of abortion can lead to other hardships. these are little compared to the mass butchery and massive moral degradation that would occur should abortion be made legal.

We must also note that there are other ways to alleviate the alleged plight of women who find themsleves turning to abortion. There are alternatives such as adoption, pregnancy crisis centers, and even foster homes for expectant mothers. There are also other measures that can be implemented by the government that can help, as we shall see.

(more…)

A Position Paper Against HB 5043 December 6, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Catholicism, Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Position Paper: Catholic Alumni United for Life

http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf

We, concerned alumni of Catholic Universities, have united to express our stand against the anti-life, abortion-promoting Reproductive Health Bill authored by Edcel Lagman et al, now also known as HB (House Bill) 5043.

As graduates of Catholic universities well-known for their spiritual and moral values and academic excellence, we are also deeply dismayed that certain faculty members in some of our own respective alma maters have aired support for the said Bill despite the clear guidelines of our Catholic Faith.

We have therefore chosen to release this position paper in response to the confusion and scandal caused by the actions of those who have made the false claim that one can support HB 5043 and still be consistent with the teachings of our Faith.

HB 5043 uses wrong means to achieve questionable ends

Not all means to an end are justified. HB 5043’s supporters may think it has admirable, good ends, such as lowering the incidence of “unwanted” pregnancies, abortion, maternal death, and poverty, but they are mistaken. HB 5043 will not achieve these; and even if it could, there are more acceptable — and more effective — means of achieving these ends.

HB 5043 has provisions that will have morally questionable consequences. Some of these are as follows.

HB 5043 promotes abortion through abortifacients

The proponents of HB 5043 have ignored the fact that it promotes abortifacient contraceptives. The Position Paper of the 14 Ateneo faculty members, for example, dismisses this possibility, assuming that health authorities have declared modern contraceptives as non-abortifacient. Yet many studies show that such a dismissal is unjustified, and that these contraceptives can prevent the implantation of a newly- conceived human being.[1]

We also note that other contraceptives, like the IUD, are even more abortifacient than oral contraceptives, especially when used as “emergency” contraceptives. Their abortifacient mechanism of action is well-known and documented.[2]

Any contraceptive that prevents the fertilized egg from implanting, or otherwise causing it to be eventually destroyed, is an abortifacient. HB 5043, however, explicitly promotes and funds such abortifacients.[3]

It may be argued that the abortifacient mechanism of some oral contraceptives has not been conclusively proven to occur in human beings, or that if it does occur then this occurrence is very rare. To the first argument we would reply that even if there really were any doubt that a contraceptive is abortifacient, the grave stakes involved (the death of a human being) means that the burden of proof is on those who would deny that these are abortifacients. In other words, they must prove that these contraceptives are in fact non-abortifacient. Until such a conclusive determination is achieved we must err on the side of caution and not place the lives of the unborn at risk.

We also note that this imperative to avoid the questionable methods promoted by HB 5043 becomes especially more compelling since there is a safe, modern, and effective alternative: Natural Family Planning.

(more…)

Time for Integrity July 20, 2008

Posted by Maddog in Politics and Law, Prolife Issues, Religion and Social Issues.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

The newspapers, and especially their columnists, are having a field day writing about Ozamis Archbishop Jesus A. Dosado’s decision to deny Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion and pro-artificial contraception the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Some writers caution of a backlash, warning that decision appears too confrontational, and others seem sympathetic to the affected legislators, as if they were the underdogs. Some would even praise them for taking a principled stand.

But just how principled a stand is that of these politicians? And are the other considerations even relevant? Let’s examine the situation at hand.

Integrity

We are all sinners and are guilty of not living up to all our beliefs. It would seem, however, that these Catholic politicians have radically disconnected their faith from their actions. They claim membership in a Church that emphatically teaches one very fundamental tenet, and then openly announce their support for — and will work to bring about — the opposite. It’s one thing to be privately inconsistent with one’s beliefs, but to do so repeatedly, publicly, without remorse, and to claim that it is right, is another thing altogether. It’s a scandal.

What does that say about their integrity?

Here are the definitions of “integrity” from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
2: an unimpaired condition
3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided

“Firm adherence” and “complete or undivided” all imply consistency in belief, word, and deed, don’t they? To have integrity means to behave in accordance with declared and freely held belief.

It’s obvious that these arrogant politicians want to have their cake and it it too. They want to advocate and pass coercive laws that promote and condone abortion and abortifacient contraceptives, while at the same time demand that they be considered Catholics in good standing!

What kind of chicanery is this? A Catholic “in good standing” is one who tries his best to follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church. What kind a Catholic is someone who refuses to believe in Catholic doctrine? Can such a person even be a Catholic except in name only? A How then, can one be in “good standing” with the Church when one promotes laws that are directly contrary to the Catholic doctrine?

Atty. Jose C. Sison, in his article “A bishop’s courageous stand” (July 18, Philippine Star) hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

So Catholic politicians in Congress or in city councils who sponsored and supported these pro abortion measures should not complain if they are denied the Sacraments; or try to sway public opinion against the Church for their predicament. They “should have the integrity to acknowledge” that their stand is contrary to their Faith, and voluntarily refrain from receiving the Sacraments “until they have a change of heart”, as Archbishop Dosado admonished.

Can we expect integrity from these politicians? If we cannot expect such, then why elect them? They will have their day of reckoning.

(more…)