Do We Value Life?

The man who shot one hundred sled dogs in Whistler last year has been charged with causing undue suffering to the animals. The dogs were used for tourism sledding and after the 2010 Winter Olympics business declined. The dogs were killed because the company could not afford to keep them any longer. People world-wide were upset that the dogs were killed for economic reasons and without trying to find homes for them. A great fuss arose. Of course, no one wants to see healthy animals destroyed for no reason. No doubt there would have been those who would have taken the dogs and raised them. However, does anyone think about the thousands of unborn babies who are killed each year in countries around the world? Often, they are killed for economic reasons or just because they are not wanted by the couple. Perhaps the woman is single and the father does not want to take responsibility. Perhaps a baby would disrupt life too much by interrupting studies or a career. It is believed that these babies suffer pain when they are killed. Those who have been present at abortions have noticed the baby trying to 'escape' the probe as seen on the screen. According to Nationmaster (www.nationmaster.com) the most recent available statistics for legal abortions in the following countries are: Russia - over 2 million babies legally aborted in one year USA - over 1 million babies legally aborted in one year India - 596,345 babies legally aborted in one year Japan - 343,026 babies legally aborted in one year Canada - 70,549 babies legally aborted in one year This is just a sample of countries. Look on the Nationmaster site to check on how many babies were aborted in your country. Yes, it is legal but it is moral? The excuse is used - a foetus is not a person. But when one considers how upset people were about dogs being killed, why are they not upset about a foetus being killed? If you don't like the word 'killed' here say 'terminated their life'. It means the same thing. Pre-born babies are human beings that have their own DNA; for example,they may have a different blood group than their mother. They are separate little beings that if not interfered with will come into the world, grow into children and then adults. Just think - if your mother would have had an abortion when she was pregnant with you, you would not be alive now.

St. Chiara: Historical Romance

St. Chiara: Historical Romance

Historical Romance

Now available from Amazon.com and CreateSpace eStore

Captain James Marsh returns from WWII and leases a house in the English countryside. The cleaning staff find a mysterious cameo brooch. When trying to find the owner, Captain Marsh learns about an English girl on the Grand Tour in 19th century Italy and how she is brought face to face with the real Catholic Church. Listen to an interview with the author on Salt and Light Radio, February, 2012 http://saltandlighttv.org/radio/

'It's a Girl' - could be a death sentence: A Controversial Editorial in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

CBC News, Vancouver at 6 pm January 16, 2012 reported that a ‘controversial’ editorial has been written in the CMAJ by the editor-in-chief (interim), Dr. Rajinder Kale. Controversial? You bet! Dr. Kale advocates that the results of the child’s gender from an ultrasound should be withheld from the parents until the very late stages of the pregnancy. In his editorial, entitled, “It’s a Girl - Could Be a Death Sentence” (online www.cmaj.ca January 16, 2012) he states that a considerable number of Canadians in the South Asian and Chinese communities use these ultrasound results to choose boys over girls. In other words, if the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl, an abortion is done. Boys are preferred over girls because girls prove very expensive before marriage when a dowry must be paid to the groom. He claims that this type of abortion “is the worst form of discrimination against women.” Dr. Kale cautions against painting all South Asians or Chinese with the same brush as some are against such practices. But he adds “...postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. ...If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?” It, is of course, what people in the pro-life movement have been saying all along. But now we have a medical doctor who has written that abortion should not be used as a means of selecting boys over girls. But the implication in the editorial is more than that isn’t it? For if the ‘foetus’ is a boy or a girl, it is not just a ‘growth’ or a ‘blob of tissue’ that the mother has a right to do away with. Another medical doctor, Dr. Parghit Singh was also interviewed on the CBC report and he said that the practice of aborting female babies is ‘barbaric’. He actually said ‘female babies’! These two are not those radical,hated fundamentalists or Catholics who go marching around abortion clinics. Here are two doctors from South Asian cultures themselves who recognize that aborting female babies, for sex-selection at least, is wrong. It is a step in the right direction and perhaps soon people will realize that aborting babies of any gender is ending the life of not just ‘a foetus’ but a real, human life, ‘a baby’. It’s discrimination all right - against both male and female babies. And is it a barbaric custom.

A Wise Doctor

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to do as she asked. Then, he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body, if you choose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The Abortion Dilemma Part II

When I was training as a medical laboratory technologist (a long time ago), the term ‘foetus’ (or in the US ‘fetus’) was only used in the medical field. Ordinary people spoke about ‘unborn babies’ or ‘the baby’. Someone might ask expectant parents, “What are you going to name the baby?” or ask the expectant mother, “How is the baby?” She might answer, “This baby is very active. He is kicking me all the time.” or something similar. Have you seen an expectant mother wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing down to her stomach and a sign which says, “Baby here.” ? Did you ever see the UNESCO poster a while back, with a baby in utero, and the comment, “This might be the only home this baby will ever know.” ? Notice how the unborn baby is not called a ‘foetus’ in ordinary conversation. Only when one is talking about abortion is the word ‘foetus’ used. This is a clever move. We picture a ‘baby’ as something with big eyes, dimples, a cute smile, an innocent and very lovable being. A ‘foetus’ , on the other hand, does not sound all that human. It is not a ‘cute’ word. By using the word ‘foetus’ we can disassociate what we know as babies from the abortion discussion.
Maybe we should examine our use of language in this case. When do we use ‘foetus’ and when do we use ‘baby’? If an unborn child is ‘a baby’ how does it affect our feeling about abortion?
There is a newly released book, ‘Unplanned’ by Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in the US. I suggest you read it. I haven’t read it yet, but have seen an interview on Focus on the Family and plan to read it soon.

The Abortion Dilemma

Are you 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'? Do you know what these terms mean? Have you really thought about why you believe as you do? Or are you, like many, really not sure what to think about it all?
Many people, if asked, would say they were 'pro-choice'. This has a good ring to it in our modern world. Why should the government tell women what to do with their bodies? We, especially in the West, like to feel that we are free to do what we want, especially with our own bodies.
When thinking about abortion the questions we must ask are:
Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
Is a foetus a 'part of the woman's body' or is the foetus an 'individual being'?
What defines a person? Is a foetus a person?
When is it right to end the life of another person? When are we allowed to kill?

In this first 'edition' I will discuss the first four questions:

Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
There are two clear cases that I can think of when a person cannot do what they want with their own bodies. The first is illegal substance use. The law in Canada (and in many other countries) says you cannot have an illegal substance in your possession – either to sell, give to others or presumably, to use yourself. You cannot use a drug yourself without having it in your possession and that is illegal. The second case is that we must use a seat belt when driving or riding in a vehicle. Not using a seat belt, when it saves a life, saves only the life of the person using the seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt will not endanger anyone else. You may be able to think of other things that we do with our own bodies that are illegal. Self-imposed suicide is not illegal as the person cannot be charged with a crime if the suicide is successful. Attempted suicide used to be illegal but now a person who has attempted suicide is more likely to have access to counselling and is not charged with any offense. Assisting in someone else's suicide is illegal in Canada and most states of the US but this does not fit into our search for 'what we are not free to do with their own bodies.'
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
There are areas in which the government passes laws which help us to make the right choices for our bodies. Legislation against smoking in public places may be more to do with bothering others than in preventing cancer for the smoker. As it stands people are free to smoke as long as it is not in a public place or a place which causes danger to others (e.g. where oxygen tanks are in use in a hospital). Some provinces are trying to encourage people to eat healthier by making the use of saturated fats for frying fast foods illegal. This has not been widely done yet. Also some countries have tried to make wearing clothing that completely covers the face and the body illegal. One cannot understand why a simple head-covering should be a problem (as it does no harm to anyone) but a garment that completely covers the face and body could be used to hide dangerous weapons or explosives, or be used to smuggle goods into a country or make illegal entry possible as it masks the identity of the person. We can see that legislation for what we can do with our own bodies is a tricky business.

Governments Legislation and Our Bodies?

In 1859 John Stuart Mill, a British political writer, wrote On Liberty. In this work he discussed what role collective society should have over the individual. In other words: Can society (and the government) tell individuals what to do? His conclusions were:
•An individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.
•For those actions which harm or hurt the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subject to social or legal punishment if society agrees on this action.
Many of our governments in the Western world operate under these guidelines.

Is a Foetus 'part of the mother's body' or is the Foetus 'an individual being'?

This is now a crucial question if we accept Mill's propositions. For if the foetus is only a part of the woman's body if she has an abortion she does harm to no one but herself. She is, therefore, not accountable to society for her actions. If, however, the foetus is an individual being, then an abortion does harm to another being and the mother (and those who have performed the abortion) are accountable to society.

Is a Foetus A Person?

Many have concentrated on whether or not a foetus is a 'person' under the law. Personhood has been defined in various ways: a person can make decisions, a person can own property, a person can feel pain. Some of these definitions raise problems as an infant cannot own property and would therefore not be a person according to that definition. No one thinks it is right to kill an infant. An interesting point is that women, before the 19th century in many countries, were not considered 'persons' under the law and yet to kill them would still have carried a penalty.
Margaret Sommerville, is an ethicist and founder of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, Quebec, Canada . She defines a person as anyone belonging to the species Homo sapiens or, in other words, any human. Sommerville elaborates by saying that no member of any other species is a person. So when we kill an animal we are not breaking any law but if we kill a human being then we are breaking a law. (Of course, there are those who would disagree and say that killing animals should be illegal. But that does not concern us here. ) The question, 'Is a foetus a person?' would have to be answered in the affirmative if we accept Margaret Sommerville's definition, for a foetus belongs to the species Homo sapiens. Not everyone agrees with her definition, however.
The foetus has a different genetic make-up than his/her mother having inherited genes from both his/her mother and his/her father. In other words, a foetus can have a different blood type or eye colour than the mother. Can we say, then, that a foetus is just a 'growth' or part of the woman's body? Is a foetus not a separate entity? A separate person?

These are the questions we must consider if we want to claim we are either 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. We cannot just glibly say we are 'pro-choice' because we want to be in control. This is not the issue. The issue is, 'Are we killing a human being when we have an abortion?'