President Obama,
I've read the highlights on your commencement address regarding abortion at the Notre Dame graduation ceremony. You spoke of how our differences are "irreconcilable" but hoping we can somehow come together partially. I have some suggestions.
First, just to state what I want, and what the pro life movement wants, is not only for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, but abortion banned in all 50 states. But given that that is not likely to happen any time soon, how about the following.

No taxpayer dollars at all going to Planned Parenthood.
No taxpayer dollars going toward any international effort that involves assistance to women obtaining an abortion. (e.g. Mexico City Policy)
Continue the ban on partial birth abortion.
Allow for states to require parental notification for minors obtaining an abortion.
Allow for states to require abortion centers to provide minimal medical information (i.e. warnings of possible complications, depression, etc.) and sonograms to women seeking an abortion.

I believe the above is a very good bridge to bring lots of abortion supporters and pro life people together. I will still want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and the full ban on abortion, but what the above list will do, is free those of us who are pro life from participating in the abortion process through our tax dollars. The tax dollars that are saved in this process can then, as you suggested, go toward financial help for women to either keep and raise their babies, or place them for adoption.

So how about it?

Ok, the Republican party is on a "Listening tour" to try and rebuild the party. Here are some of my thoughts on problems and solutions.

Conservative issues (not in any particular order):
Abortion
Same sex "marriage"
Embryonic stem cell research
Activist judiciary
Illegal Immigration
Lower taxes
Strong National Defense
Onerous environmental regulation
Tort Reform
Gun Ownership Rights
Tough on crime

Most who identify themselves as conservative have similar thinking on the above issues, however there is much division on what they are passionate about. Different sub groups of conservatives concentrate on one or a few of the above issues.

The Republican Party has basically become the "Conservative" party, however has had difficulty in handling being a "big tent" party and allowing for candidates with more liberal views on some of the above issues, or following strict adherence to a conservative position on all or most all of the above issues.

Conservatives who are passionate about one or a few of the above issues should not give up their passion and should not mute their view. However, they also should not totally give up on the Republican party. Sure, focus your energy and donations toward specific groups dealing with the issues you care about (pro-life, anti-tax, Church, etc.). But pay attention to the primaries. Contribute to out of district/state candidates who reflect your values. Ultimately vote for who will do the least harm if that's all you can do with your vote. It's not a compromise. I'd like a million dollars on my paycheck, but I'll take what I get for now.

The Republican party can be a "big tent" party. It should probably speak up more boldly that that's what it is, and sometimes it will have to run candidates who are more liberal on some of the above issues in order to hope to win. But if a candidate wants higher taxes, more judicial activism, or more appeasement with hostile governments, he should probably be directed to the Democratic party.

Additionally, the Republican party needs to beat it over the heads of all its candidates and all its leaders, DO NOT join the liberal attack machine, and join them in condemning any conservative or conservative political group. For instance, a Republican candidate who is more liberal on the marriage issue, if asked about some other Republican who spoke of homosexuality being a sin, just say something like "I don't believe that, but we're a big ten party, and we have various views. What my constituents care about, and what I care about is getting this economy going ..." and just leave it at that. Condemning other conservatives is only going to lose him more votes that will be gained. If he doesn't follow this advice, send him a "stupid" sign.
 

My kids were asking me recently what proof there is that Jesus Christ wasn't a crazy guy, or perhaps a leader of some cult. Coming from a background of being a confirmed agnostic for many years prior to accepting on faith that Jesus is Lord, I have definitely thought about that. I decided this is a good blog entry so that I can write it down.
Their concern is very understandable to me. When I was an agnostic, I could not see any verifiable proof of miracles. There were, and still are, many religious groups and cults that claim all sorts of miracles that other groups deny happening. Many of these various groups, even claim to be Christian.
What I answer with are two main points. First, they don't call it faith for nothing. While I personally believe I have experienced answers to prayers, thus a miraculous event, I don't claim any to be some spectacular event that couldn't be explained some other way, like coincidence. So part of believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for our sins, was born to a virgin, and rose from the dead, is just that. Believing. A big hang up going from agnosticism/atheism to a believer is dealing with a sense that it is like believing in Santa Clause. There are all these kid’s Christmas shows with characters being asked to just believe in all that north pole stuff. A major part of being Christian is being honest, so I acknowledge that a part of my belief in Christ is just a choosing to believe.
Secondly, and what helps to back up the first, is that there are many logical basis for our faith. One of the common arguments used by Christian apologists deals with the question of what happened to Christ’s body if he did not rise from the dead. My kids asked about other competing faith groups out there, and the possibility that Christ was just another religious cult leader. While there are many followers of what I consider to be false faiths, I look at the phenomenal growth of Christianity following his death and resurrection (or supposed resurrection if you still lack faith in this) and compare that with what was the message. I look at Islam, and they had a leader who took on a military mission to wage war against the infidels. This inspired people to join a winning military campaign. A more recent group, the Mormons, started off claiming to be the chosen ones, and that after gathering at some place, God would appear and start a new kingdom on earth. Naturally, a lot of people fell for this. Also, they built upon Christianity. Buddhism has a huge following, but much of their focus is on living well. It’s much like so many people joining health clubs. Many people who are disillusioned join Buddhism and just sort of settle in.
What were the early Christians following? Some guy said “follow me”, but then was arrested and executed. Ok, he rose from the dead, but then after appearing to some people, just disappeared. These followers weren’t being lead on some conquering mission. Living a more healthy lifestyle and living longer wasn’t the major theme. But yet, so many people decided to place their faith in this guy, Jesus Christ. Our year is derived from Him. So thus, a logical basis for my faith.

I've never thought much about Miss America Pageants, and pretty much didn't watch them. Ok, when I get a chance, which now means the wife is in another room, I watch the swimsuit competition. But this year, the question and answer part got interesting. Miss California expressed her view that marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman. And she's sticking to her opinion.  
It would be funny if it weren't so sad to see even her own pageant organizers try and distance themselves from her remarks in order to ingratiate themselves with all the Hollywood liberals.
And it all just shows the extreme intolerance of the radical gays and liberals in their condemnation of Miss California, given that all she expressed was her opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I would have been ok if she said homosexuality is wrong and a sin, but she didn't say that. The radicals in this country do not want any opinion expressed publicly that they don't approve of.

I've said it before, but in light of President Obama's recent decision to have memos released discussing the interrogation methods used on terrorist enemy combatants we have captured, it is worth repeating.
Their platform is:
Helping terrorists
Killing Babies
Raising Taxes

Why is the Democratic Party more concerned with the methods we use to get information from terrorists in order to save lives, and less concerned with innocent life in the womb?

Being Catholic, I encounter quite a number of people of faith who are fairly liberal on many issues. They don’t understand why us conservative Christians focus so much on abortion and same sex marriage, and other social issues, rather than on poverty and injustice.
Well, now we are in this severe economic meltdown, and the liberal party, the Democratic party is in charge. So those issues are being addressed. Stimulus bill after stimulus bill is being passed or proposed, adding billions of dollars to “help” the poor and working middle class. The “tax cuts for the rich” are going to go away. Bills like the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act that “protect” consumers were passed (actually passed when George Bush was President, but with a majority Democrats in Congress). And so what has been the result. The stock market has crashed, wiping out Americans’ savings and retirement accounts. Unemployment has risen. Our government is demonstrating a hostility to the investor class, a willingness to expand government intrusion in our lives, and encouragement to unions and trial lawyers.
The Democrats talk romantically about the New Deal policies, but unemployment rose, after it was implemented, through much of the 1930s, just like it’s doing today.
So why don’t conservative Christians focus much on the economy, and instead on moral issues? It’s because we want Churches and charity organizations to help the poor. We don’t want the government to do anything to try to help the poor, because every time they try, it only makes it worse. We actually care about the poor and working middle class. We want economic prosperity, with everyone having an opportunity for a job and for success.
One last paragraph here. I addressed this to liberal Christians. What about liberal Jews? Well in keeping with policies of “helping” the poor, and avoiding war, Obama and the Democrats are considering funneling millions of dollars to the Palestinians in the Gaza and West Bank, which means of course, the terrorist group Hamas. Most conservative Christians and Jews prefer a strong national defense and standing strong against terrorists as a means to protect lives. Appeasement doesn’t work.

In general I agree with those who have been passionately fighting to stem/stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country. But (ok, I know. Laura Ingraham would call me a butt monkey) I have a strong reluctance to join in with them in the fight. I don’t think it’s racist to want our country to defend the borders, but I do think that amongst some of those who get passionate about this issue, are those that are motivated by prejudice or isolationism. I really don’t want to get too close to them for that reason.
Now I’m Catholic, and there is a liberal political bent in my Church, so there is that influence on me. But I have no problem saying we should express outrage when the Mexican government condemns us when we sentence a Mexican national to death when the criminal has committed a vicious murder. Mexico should instead send us thanks for helping them out and taking care of one of their problems. Where I take issue with my fellow conservatives who focus on this issue, I think is the tone. Yes, I want to protect my family and fellow countrymen, and if the crime situation in Mexico keeps disintegrating, then just like Israel, we have to build a wall to keep the criminals out. But to fully embrace the idea that all we should care about is us, protecting “good ol ‘Americans” and deciding to heck with the Mexicans (“let ‘em kill each other off”) is wrong. I’m patriotic, I’m not a one world government person, but we should care for, pray for, and seek to help all people of the world. Yes, I know, Obama’s idea is to pour billions of dollars into worthless programs (or harmful ones like population control), and not standing up to our enemies like Chaves and Castro. But I don’t support isolationism. It sort of reminds me of those back during the cold war who just thought we should drop the “big one” on them because the people over there were never going to get rid of communism.
As for illegals who have come over, just for work and haven’t broken the law otherwise, basically I admire them. They want to support their families. For many years, it was an overall win win situation. We needed more workers, they had a high unemployment rate. So we became lax defending our borders, and a stampede started. It overwhelmed our resources, so it is perfectly reasonable to want to get strict, and enforce the laws. Plus we have to prevent terrorists from getting over. I just want to make sure and not demonize those who are just here for work.

Mike Gallagher, radio talk show host, has really been on a tear, encouraging the idea that the Republican Party should endorse the establishment of government recognition of civil unions for gay couples. I’ve heard him three times, starting with Michael Steel, head of the Republican Party, suggest endorsement of civil unions. To Michael Steel’s credit, he turned the idea down flatly. Gallagher’s idea is that this is a way for the Republican part to not seem so hard line, while at the same time fighting for preservation for marriage.
This is a really bad idea. First off, yes I’m opposed to the establishment of civil unions. I don’t mean to convey an attitude of “how dare you support civil unions” toward fellow conservatives. But us religious conservatives are still an important block of the conservative movement, and this idea is an affront to us.
For conservatives who are open to the idea of government recognition of civil unions, let me explain. Those of us with a traditional Christian view of homosexuality, view that behavior as destructive, disordered behavior, and those engaged in that lifestyle are committing a grave sin. I know there are some whacky groups out there who go around picketing events with signs that God hates f**s, but the overwhelming body of Christianity also instructs us not to hate, and to treat everyone with respect.
So here’s the thing with civil unions. They are meant as something that will help gay couples in certain legal situations. I’m not out to harm anyone, but I don’t want to help them in their lifestyle. I accept that there are people out there who consider themselves gay, and think there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle, but I don’t agree that it’s a good thing, and I don’t feel obligated to help them carry on that lifestyle. While civil unions aren’t as bad as abortion, there is a similarity in this sense. It goes against my religious beliefs to support something that will aid in the termination of an innocent life. It also goes against my religious beliefs to support something that will aid in destructive and sinful behavior.
So what do I think  the Republican Party should or should not do. Given that the Republican Party follows the big tent strategy, and a good many people with moderate to conservative views on other issues are supportive of recognizing civil unions, So I understand the party will probably be reluctant to outright oppose them. So my recommendation is for the Republican party to oppose judicial activism that could force recognition of civil unions, and call for allowing it to be a state issue. Let the people, either directly, or through their state legislature, vote it in.
At the same time, given the votes against same sex marriage in the last election, the party should still take an outright stand against changing the definition of marriage from being a union of one man and one woman.

There’s a great political division in the Catholic Church, largely reflecting the division of the recent Obama/McCain election. A bit less than half, 46% voted for McCain, or maybe against Obama. The Catholic vote was about the same.
Recently there has been news about Catholic Bishops and Priests speaking out against Obama and putting him on notice that his pro-abortion policies will be resisted. A few Priests, maybe 1 or 2, have suggested that Catholics who voted for Obama should refrain from Communion given his radical pro-abortion stances. Obama has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if Congress passes it which will remove the laws against Partial Birth Abortion and prevent states from enacting restrictions on abortion.
Liberals in the Catholic Church have complained about statements and homilies speaking out against Obama. For the most part, the Church is very careful in crafting statements on political issues.
What I think the Church needs to do (to a large extent it is doing this, but I’m pushing for clarity) is to very emphatically state that it WILL take a political stance on some issues. Right now, the two main issues are Pro-Life, meaning against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and Pro-Traditional Marriage, meaning against official recognition of same sex marriages. The Church WILL speak out and express its views on those positions and encourage and assist in support for its positions on those issues.
The Church WILL allow for petitioning after Mass if the petition works against abortion and same sex marriage, and WILL speak out against politicians when they promote abortion or same sex marriage.
I’m not suggesting the Church limit itself to those two issues, however  the problem with so many other issues, regards taking a position on their solution. For instance, the Church supports helping the poor, and an end to wars. How do we help the poor. Many think more government spending and taxing the rich is the right thing to do. But many others, including myself, want lower taxes, and lower spending to encourage business growth and therefore job growth, thus helping the poor. Many think we should cut back on defense spending and try more diplomacy. But many others, including myself, want a strong national defense to deter other countries from acting aggressively. If I, or another Catholic express a Scrooge like opinion that the poor should get on with dieing and decrease the surplus population, or say that war and killing in a war is good, then that certainly goes against Church beliefs. Church officials may have their opinions on solutions to these problems, but should not make it the Church’s.
Now, what about Catholics who vote for candidates who are pro-abortion and/or pro-same sex marriage. And what about Catholics who disagree with the Church on its anti-abortion and anti-same sex marriage positions. Many Catholics say that they support the Church’s position, but just don’t see the banning of it happening, or much if any restrictions. So they feel justified in ignoring a candidate’s pro-abortion position, focusing on other issues. When I hear a Catholic state this view, I’ll be honest and say I strongly suspect they aren’t being honest, and basically don’t regard the abortion and/or same sex marriage issue as important, maybe even supporting one or both. But I nor anyone in the Church can read minds. While it’s only been a very few Priests or Bishops that have suggested Catholic Obama supporters should refrain from Communion, it is right that the Church tell those Priests or Bishops to tone it down. However, when it occurs that Obama or any other politician promotes abortion, same sex marriage, or embryonic stem cell research, it is right that the Church state its opposition, even directly referring to the politician.
Catholics who openly work for promoting abortion or same sex marriage, are going against the Church, and it is right that the Church tell them that they are not in Communion. Maybe in some cases they should be excommunicated, such as when they continue to identify themselves publicly as Catholic when told not to do so. But overall, the Church does not  want to drive over half the members out. The Church must speak out on some issues even if it makes some members uncomfortable, and even leave the Church, but there will continue to be both conservative and liberal Catholics and each side, overall, should be glad that we are all together as Catholics.

The Right to Life: Every Human’s Right

Final Paper

English Composition II

April 20, 2008

One of the most controversial political topics today is the issue of abortion. Both sides have been very vocal. The pro-choice side portrays itself as championing women’s rights and freeing women from the burden of unwanted pregnancies. The pro-life movement argues that it’s protecting the lives of innocent children. On the surface, both seem like worthy causes. Unfortunately, one can’t support both. They are intrinsically contradictory, but choosing the wrong side to support could mean choosing death for an innocent population of human beings. However, with careful study and consideration, one can see that the pro-life side has the most logical arguments.

An article on the NARAL Pro-Choice America website demonstrates the pro-choice view most clearly. The President of NARAL tells us how she believes that we should have the freedom to decide what we want to do. Women are fully able to make decisions concerning their reproductive health. The government has no right to interfere in someone’s privacy – politicians have no business interfering in a woman’s pregnancy. (Keenan, “About Us”) Proponents of choice usually believe that women should be in charge of their reproductive lives and that they should never be forced to carry a child they don’t want or don’t have time for.

            However, pro-choice advocates tend to vary as to whether or not the fetus is human. A perfect example can be seen on the National Abortion Federation website in the article “I’m pregnant, what are my options?” The website lists three options: abortion, parenthood, and adoption. (NAF, “I’m Pregnant”) The article on abortion describes this option as ending a pregnancy. (NAF, “Abortion”) However, a link leads to another website which lists a number of stories from parents who have lost their children. Some of the parents had abortions, others miscarriages; but as one story shows, the parents considered the fetus a child. Some even named their babies. (Luis’ Mum, “Our Lives Have Changed Forever”) Others however seem to gloss over the issue, never stating if they believe the fetus is a child or not.

The pro-life movement doesn’t see the fetus as just tissue or a potential human. In the pro-life view, it’s an actual, tiny human being. They have the potential to look, think, and act like humans because they are humans, not because they’re something else. (Pacholczyk, “Acorns and Embryos”) From my experience, this is the heart of the pro-life movement: embryos are human beings. Pro-lifers believe that unborn children have full rights, just like born children and adults. Unborn children are human beings, not masses of tissue. If they’re destroyed, it’s murder.

So, many pro-life and pro-choice advocates agree that the fetus is human, or at least something like a human. However, those same proponents of reproductive choice believe that abortion is a valid option, at least in some cases. Many people, especially politicians overcome this moral dilemma by saying something like this: I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t believe in imposing my views on others. This is seen as the easy way out – the politician agrees with the pro-life side, but will allow the pro-choice advocates to have their way. However, this does not fly morally. Most people are personally opposed to murder, slavery, and drunk driving. (ALL, “I’m Opposed to Abortion”)

             By the above argument, those of us who oppose these crimes shouldn’t impose their views on others. Obviously, however, one wouldn’t oppose something unless it is wrong. And if it’s wrong, why shouldn’t it be outlawed? (ALL, “I’m Opposed to Abortion”) The crux of the matter still is the “personhood” of the fetus. Is it a human? Is it a mass of tissue? Is it somehow in between – a potential human, an eventual person? If it is alive and if it is a human, it cannot be killed. Killing it would be murder.

            Before we can show that it’s a human, we must show that the fetus is alive. For this, we must turn to science. A living creature must meet certain requirements: according to one source, it must be organized, it must acquire energy and nutrients from an outside source, it must respond to and interact with its environment, it must reproduce and/or develop, and it must be capable of adapting to changes. (Mader, pgs. 2-5) A fetus is indeed organized according to the scientific definition. It’s made up of atoms, which build molecules, which build cells – the building blocks of living tissue. (Mader, pg. 58). A fetus also acquires energy and nutrients from its environment – its mother’s uterus. The placenta, an organ which is attached to the fetus by the umbilical cord, transfers nutrients from the mother’s blood to the fetus’s blood (American Pregnancy Association, The Fetal Life-Support System). The fetus also responds to its environment. It’s very unclear as to whether, or when, the fetus begins to feel pain, although most nerve endings and brain centers are in place by the time it is 26 weeks old. (Derbyshire, “Can Fetuses Feel Pain?”) (This article concludes that there is evidence that fetuses cannot feel pain; the author also “served as an unpaid consultant for Planned Parenthood of Virginia, USA, and Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, USA, and for the Pro-Choice Forum, United Kingdom.”) However, the development of the fetus can be affected by factors in the mother’s diet, especially if the mother consumes alcohol during the pregnancy. One source suggests that only 20% of birth defects are hereditary. Lack of proper nutrition can cause spina bifida. If a pregnant woman has an X-ray, the fetus can develop other birth defects and leukemia. (Mader, pg. 812)

The fetus obviously reproduces and develops. It begins as a single cell, the combination of the father’s sperm and mother’s egg. By the end of the second week, the embryo has become a mass called the embryonic disk, complete with two layers of cells. (Mader, pg. 809) It continues to grow, and by the eighth week, it begins to look like a human, and all its organ systems are developed. (Mader, pg. 810) At the end of nine months of course, those little cells have become a baby. Lastly, the fetus certainly adapts to changes in its environment. After conception, it travels to the uterus. During the second week, it secretes enzymes that actually “digest” the membranes on the wall of the uterus so it can implant. (Mader, pg. 808) It’s also able to adapt to the shock of leaving its mother’s body, quickly beginning to breathe on its own.

So, to all scientific intents and purposes, the fetus is alive from the time it’s conceived. Now we move to the question of its humanity. Some Greek philosopher long ago defined humans as featherless bipeds. By this definition, the fetus isn’t human until it develops two legs, but it would also make gorillas human, so this philosophical definition obviously isn’t specific enough. The human we see on the streets ranges from only about a foot high to over seven feet. Its skin can be many shades, as can its hair, which can be long, short, curly, straight, or even absent. The appearance of humans can be so varied; it’s not hard to suggest that humans can also look like the fetus. Science clinches the question by going to the DNA level. Humans have 46 chromosomes in every cell. Unborn fetuses also have 46 chromosomes in every cell. The tiny cell formed at the beginning of gestation will grow and become a human – never a chimpanzee, a goldfish, or a toucan. Perhaps the question should be, “If it’s not a human, what is it? It’s alive, it has the scientific characteristics of a human, so if it’s not a human, what is it?”

Many people believe that abortion should at least be legal in the case of rape or incest. At first glance, this argument seems reasonable. Why should a woman be forced to carry a child conceived in traumatic circumstances? Her pregnancy will be a daily reminder of a horrible crime. However, abortion after rape is an injustice to that living creature with those human characteristics in its mother’s womb. Let’s put it this way. Imagine that John Smith committed some horrible crime, such as rape. Imagine then that he went to trial, and the court declared that in punishment, his 15 year old daughter Janie Smith would be killed. Is that just or fair? The answer is no. What if Janie is only five? Is it just to kill her now? No. What if Janie is a newborn baby? The answer is still no. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”) Obviously, John Smith’s crime is still horrible, and justice should be served. However, no one would consider it justice that an innocent child, even the rapist’s child, should be punished instead. That child conceived in rape is innocent. It didn’t ask to be conceived. Offering abortion to a woman victimized by rape may seem like a compassionate response, but it is unjust and unethical. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”).

What about the mother? Isn’t it unjust that she would have to carry an unplanned child, conceived through assault, for nine months? According to a nine year study by the Elliot Institute and Fortress International, the majority of women who conceived through rape believed that abortion often led to further trauma. All the women in the study who carried their unborn children to term expressed no regret that they had not chosen abortion. (Pacholczyk, “Sexual Assault and Abortion”).

Proponents of choice also argue that it’s better to abort an unwanted child, or a child that the mother can’t afford. This is an example of committing an evil act for a good cause. In a perfect world, every family would be able to afford every child, and no baby would be unwanted. However, this will never happen, and it’s no excuse to end the life of these unwanted children. What would happen if a couple had a ten year old son, and because they lost their jobs, they couldn’t afford to feed him, care for him, or educate him, and they decided to kill him so he wouldn’t suffer from poverty? It’s unlikely that many people would support the parents. We don’t have the right to take the life from an innocent person. In the same way, it’s not fair to take the life of an unborn child simply because it might suffer poverty or neglect.

But what if the unborn child is going to suffer terribly? What if it’s going to die a painful death from a birth defect? This is a very difficult question to answer, since it leads to a separate question – the morality of euthanasia. Many people believe that it’s an act of mercy to end the life of someone who’s suffering or appears to have a poor quality of life. This attitude carries over into the issue of abortion. Isn’t it merciful to prevent a child that’s going to suffer from coming into the world? However, everyone suffers to some degree in life. Who’s to decide how much suffering is too much? By American standards, many people in some Third World countries have a very poor quality of life. Would it be just to murder all those people simply because we have decided that they have no quality of life and would be better off dead? Of course not. The same principle applies to unborn children as well. If they are human beings, no one has a right to end their lives. We do have a duty to stand by them and care for them in their suffering. (Pacholczyk, “Feeding Our Loved Ones”)

Pro-choice advocates often bring up another difficult question: what if the pregnancy is endangering the mother’s health, even her life? For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the embryo implants in the mother’s fallopian tubes instead of in the uterus. If left untreated, the tube will rupture, causing severe injury or even death to the mother. (APA, “Ectopic Pregnancy”) There are truly only two options: allow the mother to die or end the pregnancy, resulting in the death of the child.

However, there are several options for how to end the pregnancy. The drug methotrexate will cause all the tissues from the pregnancy (including the fetus) to be absorbed, surgery can remove the fetus, or the fallopian tube itself may be removed, along with the fetus. (APA, “Ectopic Pregnancy”) Each of these options should be analyzed as to its intention, the means, and the end. The intention is good – the doctor wants to save the mother’s life. The means, however, in two of the cases is unjust to the unborn child – its life is directly ended, as a way to save the mother. However, in one case, the fetus is not killed, but dies as a result of the fallopian tube being removed. The end result is the same (the mother is saved, the unborn child loses its life) but the child is not killed. (Howard, “The Moral Management of Ectopic Pregnancies”) An ectopic pregnancy is a terribly tragic event, but we can’t lose sight of the fact that there are two lives involved, not just one. In the end, someone loses a life, but even though that end is inevitable, we can’t just take the life of the child, anymore than we would murder the mother as she lies there in the hospital.

Lastly, there’s evidence that the pro-choice movement may have a more chilling motive than protecting women’s reproductive freedoms. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote a treatise on sterilization – the sterilization, that is, of those with so-called “objectionable” traits. While Planned Parenthood today may or may not believe in aborting those with the wrong genes, it’s disturbing to see that its founder believed in eugenics. (Richmond, “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika”) Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also decried Planned Parenthood as a racist organization and pointed out that while only African-Americans make up only 12% of the US population, they account for 37% of abortions. Planned Parenthood also locates 78% of its clinics in African-American neighborhoods. (Sheffrin, “Alveda King Calls Abortion ‘Racist’”)

            In the end, it’s only fair that every human being have equal rights to life. Yes, there are many difficult and even tragic situations. Most mothers who choose abortion aren’t cruel people; they are just women who believe they need to make this terrible choice because of assault, birth defects, shame, or poverty. But as Susan Rezzonico, director of Social Concerns and Public Policy for the diocese of Colorado Springs, points out, abortion always takes a life. We should do our best to discourage abortions by reminding society and individuals of this fact. Those mothers who are considering abortion should never be condemned; instead, we should help them to see the beauty of life and offer them any help that they need. Ms. Rezzonico also brought attention to the fact that abortion has hurt our society horribly. Not only have we lost our respect for all stages of human life, but we’ve lost so many family members. All those unborn children who were never given a chance could have been athletes, politicians, soldiers, Nobel prize winners, great scientists. One of those children could have found the cure for cancer. One of them might have saved someone’s life. Sadly, we’ll never know what we lost. (Personal/telephone communication; (719) 866 - 6441/srezzonico@ccharitiescs.org)

Abortion is a tragedy. It’s a terrible misfortune for the unborn child and for the entire human species. That’s why we can’t choose abortion. It means choosing death instead of life.

Bibliography

Keenan, Nancy. (2008) “About Us” Retrieved April 4^th, 2008 from the NARAL Pro-Choice America website:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/

National Abortion Federation (No Date) “I’m Pregnant. What Are My Options?” Retrieved April 15^th, 2008 from the National Abortion Federation website: http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/options/index.html

National Abortion Federation (No Date) “Abortion” Retrieved April 15^th, 2008 from the National Abortion Federation website:

http://www.prochoice.org/pregnant/options/abortion.html

Luis’ Mum. (No Date, after 2006) “Our Lives Have Changed Forever” Retrieved April 18, 2008 from “A Heartbreaking Choice” website:

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/Luissb.html

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published May 1, 2007) “Acorns and Embryos” Retrieved March 21^st, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_23.asp

American Life League (ALL). (Published October 12^th, 2005) “I’m Opposed to Abortion” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Life League website:

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10185&search=personally%20opposed

Mader, Sylvia S. (2007) “Biology” (9^th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill Companies

“The Fetal Life-Support System: Placenta, Umbilical Cord, and Amniotic Sac” (Last updated July 2007) Retrieved April 11^th, 2008 from the American Pregnancy Association:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetallifesupportsystem.html

Derbyshire, Stuart W G. (2006) “Can Fetuses Feel Pain?” Retrieved April 11^th, 2008 from the BMJ website:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/909

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published January 1, 2007) “Sexual Assault and Abortion” Retrieved April 12^th, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_19.asp

Rev. Pacholczyk, Tadeusz, Ph. D (Published January 1, 2008) “Feeding Our Loved Ones: The Modern Anathema of Living with Brain Damage” Retrieved April 16^th, 2008 from the National Catholic Bioethics Center website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/FrTad_MSOOB_31.asp

The American Pregnancy Association (Last updated 01/2007) “Ectopic Pregnancy” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Pregnancy Association website: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/ectopicpregnancy.html

Fr. Joseph C. Howard, Jr., M. Div. (Published November 28^th, 2005) “The Moral Management of Ectopic Pregnancies” Retrieved April 19^th, 2008 from the American Life League website:

http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10335

Richmond, Mike. (No Date) “Margaret Sanger, Sterilization, and the Swastika” Retrieved April 20^th, 2008 from the Ethical Spectacle website: http://www.spectacle.org/997/richmond.html

Sheffrin, Alexander J. (Published April 15^th, 2008) “Alveda King Calls Abortion ‘Racist’” Retrieved April 20^th, 2008 from the Christian Post website:

http://christianpost.com/article/20080415/31951_Alveda_King_Calls_Abortion_%5C'Racist%5C'.htm