February Newsgram, Part 1, 1997

Monthly Issues

More than 5,000 pro-lifers attended the Rally for Life in January

THE LEGAL, THE MORAL, THE ETHICAL

By Donald B. Widman

Marian Wright Edelman, head of the Children's Defense Fund was quoted in the Arizona Republic, September 15, 1996, as saying: "Never let us confuse what is legal with what is just..." That concept could be applied to the defense of all children including the pre-born, from the legal but morally indefensible attacks on their very lives.

An article by Daniel Chase, "The Legal, The Moral, and the Ethical," published in The Quaker Christian. Eighth month 1996, (quoted with the author's permission) effectively makes the same argument about court rulings and laws that allow the pre-born to become victims of a legal but unconstitutional violence.

Chase writes: "Of all the terms incorrectly used in the English language, none have more drastic consequences when interchanged than "legal," "moral" and "ethical." Many accept the notion that ethical and moral behavior is determined by the law of the land. In practice, many believe the three terms are synonymous.

"This is far from the truth --- these three words are very different. (The word) ethics comes from a Greek word which is rooted in the word "stall," meaning something static or constant. Traditionally, ethics is understood as a fixed objective standard by which we evaluate human behavior. It tells us what ought to be without regard to time.

" 'Morality' denotes the degree to which a particular behavior conforms to the universal standard. It is a descriptive term for an action at a particular moment in time. 'Laws' are simply a snapshot in time of what humans have said is acceptable or unacceptable behavior based on previous events. It does not necessarily take into account ethics -- the objective standard of right and wrong. Over the past 30 years mankind has decided that there is no absolute right or wrong, and thus man's laws do not try to take this into account.

"When we justify an action as being 'legal,' we have in affect tried to elevate man's laws over God's. A particular behavior may be both legal and immoral if man's laws do not take into account an objective right or wrong.

"A most tragic example is that of abortion. As it now stands, abortion is legal. Courts have ruled that until birth a fetus is not a human being. It is part of a woman's body. An individual has a right to do to her own body as she sees fit - there is no reference to, or consideration of, objective right and wrong in these rulings. Pro-abortion advocates do not hesitate to claim abortion as a moral action since it is legal.

"We should be wary of equating the legal with the moral and the ethical. Infanticide is in fact the next horror to be justified on those grounds. Lest we doubt that, consider partial-birth abortions or read what Peter Singer, an English pro-abortion 'ethicist' writing in 1985 says in part:

"Quite often a defect which would have warranted abortion during a pregnancy is not discovered until birth. Has the situation changed so critically that it is now horrific to contemplate ending a life which three months previously could have been ended with little controversy?....The mere location of the foetus or infant, whether inside or outside of the womb, [emphasis added] cannot make a crucial difference to its moral status. If a foetus at 24 1/2 weeks does not have a right to life, why should we attribute such a right to the newborn baby at the same gestational age?....

"In accepting abortion...we have already taken a major step away from the traditional principle of the sanctity of human life. We...place great weight on a boundary line -- the moment of birth -- that, while clear and precise, is not really crucial from the point of view of the moral status of the foetus or infant. The move to a less precise, but more significant boundary -- the point at which there is a self-awareness and a sense of the future -- is not as big a step as one might at first think. (Singer, Peter and Helga Kuhse, "Should the Baby Live?" Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 136-138). ' "

Chase thinks pro-abortion advocates will have a difficult time accepting abortion but denying Singer's argument for infanticide. I hope his assumption is correct.

With President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Ban Act, one form of infanticide becomes a legally acceptable practice. Euthanasia will (probably) be the next acceptable-because-it's-legal atrocity.

Chase concludes by saying that it is not too late. We can unify and declare our allegience to the Highest Standard of right and wrong, even when it is opposition to man's standard. An appropiate first step is to denounce abortion as immoral and unethical, even though it is legal.

Victory

By Katherine Sabelko

The U. S. Supreme Court struck down an 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stated pro-lifers were not allowed to come within 100 feet of an abortion mill in New York. The case, Schenck V. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York was referred to as a sister case to Sabelko/Barto V. City of Phoenix which was also at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On February 24, the Supreme Court responded to the Sebelko case, vacating the 9th Circuit's ruling on the same grounds as the Schenck case and returning it back to 9th Circuit for review.

This is definitely a victory for the pro-life movement and a blow to the pro-abortion City of Phoenix officials.

Though there is a 15 foot buffer area in the Schenck case that has no affect on the Sebelko case in which there was no 15 foot restriction. The 15 foot restriction was the result of an injunction that was effect due to an earlier rescue.

It should be noted that in the eight years of Children of the Rosary, there has never been trouble or violence - outside the abortion mill. The bubble zone that was in effect in Phoenix was strictly the result of pro-abortion politicians who were the puppets of Planned Parenthood and other baby-killing businesses.

We thank God for this victory and ask everyone to join us in prayerful thanks to God for this victory. Also please keep American Center For Law and Justice and our lawyer, Mr. Benjamin Bull in your prayers. This victory was in part from many hours of dedicated work by this dedicated man.

Letter To My Obstetrican

By Lisa M. Contini

Dear Doctor,

Lately I've found myself counting my blessings more than usual. Looking at my three beautiful children I can't help but thank God for giving them to me, for their good health, and for all the joy and knowledge I've gleaned as a mother. Considering the unusual circumstances surrounding all three of my labors, I also thank God for leading me to such excellent medical resources.

I first met you at about the mid-point of my third pregnancy. After two weeks of making phone calls in search of a pro-life obstetrician, I was very relieved to find your practice. Aside from my conviction against financially supporting an abortionist by utilizing the "legitimate services" in his practice, I can't bear the thought of his killing hands touching me.

Not only am I grateful for your pro-life position, but for your medical expertise as well. After carrying her for eight long months, I almost lost my second child, Vanna. She turned from a beautiful rosy pink, to blue, to gray, seconds after birth. Instead of placing her in my eager arms, the nurses whisked her away from me and tried to rouse her from death's sleep. Before I had a chance to fully comprehend the gravity of her condition, a specialist had arrived and carried her out of the room It was a good thing that his back was to me and that I wasn't able to see him performing infant CPR on her. Surely, I'd have followed him out of the delivery room, even though I still required medical attention.

Vanna tested positive for group-B strep, the bacteria that houses itself quietly in the host for years, but becomes life-threatening to the baby once the protective bag of water breaks. And, if you remember, unlike most women, my water breaks hours before my labor actually commences. Fortunately, Vanna was revived. She responded well to antibiotics and has filled my life with laughter and warmth ever since. Her doctor warned me that I was probably a carrier, and that this infection could be transmitted at birth to any other children I might bear.

Plagued with these memories, I was very fearful when I came to you in the midst of my third pregnancy. When I tested positive as a group-B strep carrier, my fear grew. It's awful living in fear. Due to the excellent care I received from you and your partner,

***********************************************

The term "birth control,"
no matter what method is employed,
always carries the same significance:
no births and no self-control.

***********************************************

my precious Gina was born in perfect health, even though my bag of water had ruptured hours before.

But I'm grateful to you for much more. Even though I was nervous and full of questions, you were always patient and kind. You never rushed through my appointment, so I always felt as though I were the only patient you had to see that day. You were encouraging, and positive, and warm. You told me to pray. Then, when it was time for Gina to be born, even though my water had broken, and I wasn't in labor, and I knew I carried the infection, the fear that had haunted me for months was gone. I'll never forget you for that.

I guess that's why, in the months preceding Gina's birth. I felt so hurt when asked three times by you and your staff if I wanted my tubes tied. All during my prenatal care, you always referred to the child growing in my womb as a baby. You always acknowledged her humanity. You're a father yourself. Your daughter is Vanna's age. You value human life.

And I know that you also value your Catholic faith, perhaps as much as I value mine. Aside from life itself and the life of His Son, the greatest gift bestowed on us by our Heavenly Father is the power to generate new life. Our individual freedom to choose doesn't give us the right to refuse and reject God's gift. The Catholic Church concurs. What if Mary had refused God's gift, and His will for her?

Sterilization is the ultimate in non-abortive artificial birth control. The term "birth control," no matter what method is employed, always carries the same significance: no births and no self-control. The "freedom" it offers allows us to use another human being to fulfill out sexual desires whenever we want with absolutely no discipline and no responsibility (when birth control fails we say it's the method's fault, not the fault of the parties who are actually responsible.) As the song goes, "What's love got to do with it?" We see it in relationships all the time, with married as well as unmarried partners. When one of them isn't getting all of his or her wants satisfied any more, the relationship is over. Birth control makes us self-centered because procreation, one of God's purposes for physical union between a man and a woman, is nullified.

Instead, our purpose becomes limited to self-gratifying physical pleasure. In this sense it truly cheapens the marriage bed. In fact, birth control and sterilization have widened the road to infidelity by making both parties in adultery "safe." But "safe" from what, Doctor? Safe from pregnancy. Birth control - I continue to include sterilization in this discourse - is the first step in treating pregnancy as a disease. We use birth control and sterilization as though they were preventive medicine. When a method fails (and sterilizations also fail), the pregnancy is further treated as a disease and is surgically extracted. Look what this has done. The promise of birth control was to eliminate the need for abortions. Yet, in this country alone abortion kills l.6 million preborn babies every year. In every country world-wide where birth control and sterilization are acceptable, the practice of abortion also flourishes. In Third World countries, Planned Parenthood is pushing uneducated, misinformed and under-informed indigent people into using birth control and into being sterilized as a means of population control. "Control" - there's that word again. Why can't we just leave control in the hands of God, where it belongs? In China, women are forced to have abortions if they become pregnant when they already have one child. The relationship between birth control (to include sterilization) and abortion cannot be ignored by anyone who professes to be pro-life. I'm hoping that in reading this, Doctor, you will examine that relationship. Perhaps you too are misinformed or under-informed. Please rest assured that if I didn't trust your commitment to life, or your sincerity, I wouldn't bother to write.

When my precious Gina was 14 months old, I found myself pregnant once again. I was thrilled and overjoyed to be nurturing a new life deep within me. But then, one night, only six weeks after I conceived, I started to bleed. The next morning you examined me and said there was a 50% chance that I would lose my baby. But you sent me home with much more. You assured me that if I did miscarry, it would be an act of nature and not something I could have caused. Of all the emotions I experienced during that time, I can't begin to tell you how grateful I am that I didn't have to deal with guilt. Again, you took plenty of time to answer my questions, even though my appointment was unscheduled. And, like all those other times, you were encouraging, positive, and kind. It was a horribly difficult time for me, and you really helped me through it.

Later that night, about 24 hours after the bleeding had started, I had a miscarriage.

I had three appointments with you after that. The first was the hardest. I brought the stillborn baby with me to help you determine what additional treatment I might need. I placed my baby in the center of your gloved hand, and I watched as you gazed thoughtfully through the intact amniotic sac. Finally, you extended your hand closer to me and very gently said, "Look, Lisa, you can see your baby in there."

No doubt you've uttered similar words to dozens of grieving women. Yet I can't help but wonder whether you've ever really considered the significance of those words. By saying "your baby" instead of "embryo," or "fetus," or anything else, you acknowledged the child's humanity. In a very real sense, you assured me that it was all right for me to grieve, even with all the twisted, confused emotions I was experiencing. If I had delivered anything except a baby, there would have been no life lost, and no reason to grieve.

A moment later I found myself weeping uncontrollably, and too ashamed of it to raise my gaze from the floor. You put your arm around me. Of all the people who tried to console me in the weeks that followed, of all the people who hurt for me, I believe that you were the only one who hurt with me.

In subsequent appointments, you continued to encourage and console me. You offered wise advice. You are blessed with the incredible gift of being able to say the right thing with very few words. I've found your wise counsel very powerful in my healing, slow though it was. No doubt I'll keep some of your words in my heart always.

I guess that's why my heart sank when you offered me artificial contraception. It seemed like such a contradiction coming from you. The baby I had just lost was a precious, cherished little life, yet a life that was meant to be, if only for a very short time. You acknowledged that. In contracepting, we snuff out life that is meant to be.

Had I accepted your offer, you would have given me any method of birth control I wanted, even an abortifacient such as the Pill, Norplant, or an IUD. I would have lost more babies - in "menstrual abortions," without my knowledge. When I suggested that you eliminate contraception from your practice, despite my apprehension about approaching you on such a sensitive issue, you were patient and kind. A less courageous man, or one who didn't value the truth as you do, would have asked me to leave.

At the time I had no idea how many lives were actually destroyed by abortifacient methods. From your response, I believe that you didn't know either. It doesn't matter how many, and in your heart you know that, too. But the truth is that every woman using the Pill for seven years will lose at least one baby. Using the lowest rate of breakthrough ovulation, experts estimate that oral contraceptives cause the death of at least 843,000 babies annually in the United States alone. The death rate is obviously higher with an IUD, which never prevents fertilization; it only interferes with implantation. Norplant fails to prevent ovulation from 11% to over 70% of the time; how many 'menstrucal abortions" per year is that?

I want you to rest assured, though that I don't doubt your sincerity or motives. Although the contraceptive mentality is wrong, it is understandable as a normal part of our socialization to day. Certainly in medical school, surrounded by accomplished

***********************************************

"I know the Church forbids it, but in this area my opinion, my choice, outweighs Church teaching."

*********************************

physicians and professors and their writings, all praising the benefits of contraception and sterilization, and all avoiding the ethical issue, it would be very difficult to avoid the infusion of this doctrine into your personal stock of values. If I were a doctor, I'd probably have accepted these teachings as well.

In fact, I did accept them, for a very long time. When I was a young girl, I was exposed to the contraceptive mentality, and accepted it as one of my values. My mother, a devout Catholic, used the Pill. Years later, as a matter of convenience, my father, also Catholic, was sterilized. The message of their activity, of their disobedience to the Church, rang loud, and clear: "I know the Church forbids it, but in this area my opinion, my choice, outweighs Church teaching." Unfortunately, I've contracepted, too.

In spite of my confusion and ignorance, I finally decided to make Natural Family Planning (NFP) a routine part of my life. My decision had nothing to do with Church teaching. I was scared to death of the Pill because my mother got so sick from it, and I was opposed to the IUD because I knew it was an abortifacient. Norplant wasn't available at the time. The other methods didn't really appeal to me, and, since I'm really a purist at heart anyway, I learned NFP. And it has worked. All four of my pregnancies were anticipated-not that it matters - but NFP really does work well.

NFP, when used properly, is not a method of birth control at all. It should be called "fertility awareness," for with it a couple can space the births of their children at reasonable intervals. Obviously, it does take some control to do this, as abstinence is required during those fertile times when delaying the birth of the next child is desirable. But NFP is not meant to exclude children.

I had absolutely no knowledge of the abortifacient effects of the Pill or Norplant until a few years ago. I've spoken to women who were using abortifacient methods but didn't know they were using abortifacients. Their doctors hadn't's told them. The pharmaceutical inserts don't exactly volunteer the facts either.

I'd been practicing NFP in my marriage for several years when I finally started to read some of the Church's teachings on the sanctity of human life, birth control, and sterilization. I couldn't help but admit that the Church has been absolutely right all these years. Knowledge overcomes ignorance, even confused ignorance like mine.

Despite all the abuses in medicine today, I do esteem, respect and appreciate good doctors like you. Not only are you among the most intelligent members of our population but, because of your commitment to healing, you continue to educate yourselves by reading and attending seminars. If Catholics were as well-read in matters of faith as Doctors are in matters of medicine, we'd all be good Catholics. Doctors don't claim confused ignorance on medical issues; they accept their responsibility to utilize the available medical literature. Catholics, as a rule, don't do the same. We don't seek to increase our knowledge of the faith by reading the available literature. If we did, we wouldn't contracept or be sterilized. and Catholic doctors wouldn't sterilize their patients or given them contraceptives.

My miscarriage forced me to acknowledge how quickly and unexpectedly death can come. Confronting the reality of my own death, anticipated or sudden, I must also face the reality of final judgement. There I'll be, alone with all my sins, floundering badly for a halfway decent answer to that one hard question: "Why?" I can't believe that pleading confused ignorance will keep me from the eternal fires of Hell: not when the information I needed to clarify the matter was always mine for the asking.

Doctor, I come to you as a sister in Christ, genuinely concerned about your salvation. Confront the reality of final judgement. If you were to die tonight, how would you answer the question "Why did you sterilize My daughters and give them contraceptives when you knew it was wrong?"

May God bless you and guide you in all your endeavors.

***********************

Reprinted with permission/Lisa Contini


The media surrounding His Excellency Thomas J. O'Brien, Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix during his address at the Families For Life - Life for All Rally in January.

End of Part 1 of the February Newsgram, 1997.

NewsGram, February, Part 2, 1997
Events
Newsletters and Newsgrams

E-Mail us at .

Copyright © 1997 Children of the Rosary