THIS BLOG IS A GOOD FRIEND OF KAREN MALEC, PRESIDENT AND COFOUNDER OF THE COALITION ON ABORTION/BREAST CANCER. SHE DOES GREAT WORK WITH THE COALITION, AND DOES NOT OFTEN ASK DIRECTLY FOR SUPPORT. IF ANYONE WHO VISITS THE SITE IS AS IMPRESSED AS I HAVE BEEN AT THE REPOSITORY OF LIFE-SAVING INFORMATION THERE, THEN I ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE COALITION’S WORK. THE FOLLOWING WAS IN MY EMAIL TODAY.
Dear Friends:
We are sharing with you four stories in our Abortion-Breast Cancer News Headlines (below) concerning the link between abortion and breast cancer. All but one discusses the latest findings from the study, Dolle et al. 2009, whose authors included National Cancer Institute branch chief Louise Brinton.
As our readers know, Jessica Dolle, Louise Brinton and their colleagues reported that “…abortion and oral contraceptive use were associated with increased breast cancer risk.” The increased risk for an aggressive, deadly form of breast cancer – triple-negative breast cancer – among users of oral contraceptives was astounding. Users under age 18 multiply their risk by 3.7 times. Recent users within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times.
Try finding a report concerning the study, Dolle et al. 2009, on the websites of the pro-hormonal steroids for women crowd. We could not find any mention of it. You know what groups I mean – those who talk a good talk about being “pro-woman” and “caring about women’s health,” like the Feminist Majority and the National Organization (supposedly) for Women.
We cannot find any mention of the study, Dolle et al. 2009, on the websites of the American Cancer Society (which downplays the link between oral contraceptives and breast cancer) and Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Nor do they display the least concern about the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s evident misconduct in covering up the abortion-breast cancer link at its infamous workshop in 2003.
Even though the agency’s position on the abortion-breast cancer link is clearly at odds with its branch chief’s (Louise Brinton’s) position. Even though the agency’s videocast shows that only studies showing no risk elevations for women with abortions were permitted to be examined at the workshop.
But wait, ladies! Be encouraged! Komen is teaming up with yet another new breast cancer foundation called the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Foundation. And guess what! Together, they will “fight” triple-negative breast cancer and “find a cure” by raising funds for “breakthrough, life-saving research.”
Research is necessary, but it would not be as necessary if they would just tell the truth about how to avoid highly carcinogenic exposures, such as abortion and use of oral contraceptives.
Our January 2010 press releases broke the news about the Dolle team’s findings, and they generated many news stories about it. If you want us to continue our important work of protecting women’s lives, then please send us a contribution today.
Don’t forget to read the news stories below.
Sincerely,
Karen Malec
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
ABORTION-BREAST CANCER NEWS HEADLINES
“Correcting the bs on the abortion-breast cancer link”
By Dennis Byrne
ChicagoNow
February 12, 2010
Available at: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/dennis-byrne-barbershop/2010/02/correcting-the-bs-on-the-abortion-breast-cancer-link.html
“Ignatieff’s abortion push unhealthy”
By Ian Gentles
Calgary Herald
February 15, 2010
Available at: http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Ignatieff+abortion+push+unhealthy/2565292/story.html
“Politically correcting the abortion-breast cancer link”
By Gerard M. Nadal, PhD
Headline Bistro
February 22, 2010
Available at: http://www.headlinebistro.com/en/columnists/nadal/index.html
“Medicine and the true cost of being in denial”
By Rev. Tad Pacholczyk, PhD
Director of Education, National Catholic Bioethics Center, http://www.ncbcenter.org
Colorado Catholic Herald
January 15, 2010
Available at: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/download/Medicine&truecostofdenialsm.pdf
I decided the best way to act on my principles, and on the information Dr. Nadal has provided on this subject, would be to look up NOW’s web site and leave them a message about it. Here is the text of my message:
For the past few months, I have participated in a number of discussions at the site of Dr. Gerard Nadal, captioned “Science in the service of the pro-life movement.” I have always been pro-choice, and I still am. I think it is important that people with differing viewpoints keep talking to each other, and when either side of the dialog has a valid point, to acknowledge it.
Recently, Dr. Nadal has posted what appears to be some solid, scientific evidence not only for statistical correlation between breast cancer and various hormonal changes, including those associated with abortion and oral contraception, but also the specific biological mechanism involved. It disturbs me that there appears to be no willingness to consider this evidence, or mechanism, on the part of many women’s organizations with a pro-choice viewpoint.
It is is true, it is true, no matter who may find it politically convenient or inconvenient. I see no reason that the links Dr. Nadal summarizes should lead to the reflexive conclusion “Let’s overturn Roe v. Wade.” Roe v. Wade was a sound, conservative decision, applying well establish legal principles to a specific set of facts.
Perhaps in some instances, a woman’s reasons for considering abortion would pale in consideration of the increased risk of breast cancer. On the other hand, for those who still believe abortion is the right choice, given all the circumstances they must consider, perhaps there are prophylactic treatments which could reduce the risk. It frankly wouldn’t be a bad idea if men, as well as women, took a sober look and said, well, let’s wait until we’re a little more mature and committed to engage in sexual intercourse, because terminating a pregnancy we’re not ready for really is not risk free.
Is it really a problem to consider ALL the evidence, and provide women a more complete and nuanced factual basis for making what is always a very serious and significant choice?
Fr.Tad is a highly respected bioethicist. I enjoy his articles very much.
Dear Siarlys-
Well done, friend. Your reaction as a pro-choice person to the evidence regarding breast cancer and abortion is so rare and refreshing, I am giving you a standing ovation.
I sincerely hope you will give the evidence regarding the effect of abortion on psychological health, life expectancies, fertility, miscarriage and premature labor in future pregnancies the same consideration.
I have appreciated our interactions so far, and I am still trying to understand the evidence that your beliefs about abortion are based upon.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as natural law?
Kind regards,
)
Michelle
SJ,
Great job!! The issue that I am driving at on this blog, as I continue to lay out the clinical data, is the issue of informed consent.
Only in abortion does the medical community get to practice a procedure that:
Increases the risk of breast cancer.
Is associated with higher maternal mortality rates in every country where it is legal.
Induces Post-traumatic stress disorder.
Increases future gynecological sequellae.
And the clinicians are not all trained in OB/GYN.
No informed consent is required prior to the procedure. No attempt is made to ascertain physical or psychological coercion (Is the patient electing surgery freely). In the case of legal minors parental consent is not required before, nor is notification required after for proper monitoring of potential complications such as hemorrhage.
We need to ask ourselves why the medical community both grants and receives a pass on informed consent and parental consent with this set of procedures. When we begin to circumvent the rules, it’s because we know that what we are doing could never withstand appropriate scrutiny.
It’s called dishonesty.
Why the dishonesty if abortion is such a fundamental good for women that it is enshrined as Constitutionally protected by the highest court in the land? That wasn’t conservative jurisprudence Siarlys. It was as rogue at the following decisions:
Dred Scott
Plessy v. Ferguson
Buck v. Bell
Koramatsu v. US
These cases also had commanding majorities. They also allowed for the brutalization of human beings. They represent the dark side of the American character and American history.
Roe is just one more in the Supreme Court Pantheon of Shame.
Isaiah 10
1 Woe to those who make unjust laws,
to those who issue oppressive decrees,
2 to deprive the poor of their rights
and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people,
making widows their prey
and robbing the fatherless.
“When we begin to circumvent the rules, it’s because we know that what we are doing could never withstand appropriate scrutiny.”
I think this is also why often on blogs, pertinent questions are never answered by people who support abortion rights.
The belief in abortion doesn’t pass scutiny and the research demonstrates that it is harmful to women and of course the baby who always dies.
Abortion is a major surgical/medical intervention for a condition that it is normal.
No consent is required for minors and incomplete disclosure is the norm for the doctor.
Perhaps this is one reason why law enforcement is so reluctant to pursuit charges when things go wrong and when clinics are dirty and medical practice is subpar.
You also bring up a good point Dr. Nadal about coercion.
Coercion is more than just dragging a woman to an abortuary.
But I also believe that for most women, the pregnancy is simply an inconvenience. Abortion offers a way to remove that inconvenience.
Education will never be enough. A change of heart is needed and women need to change their post-modern view of their bodies, their sexuality and what it means to truly be a woman.
I’m mostly going to respond to Michelle, who asked a number of serious and pointed questions. I appreciate the general tone of other comments, both the appreciative ones and those expressing the continued divergence of viewpoints. I will agree with Mary Catherine that a change in heart is always a legitimate goal — as I’ve said before, if Roe v. Wade remains on the books, and no woman seeks an abortion, that is their free choice, and nothing for anyone who calls themselves pro-choice to complain about.
Dr. Nadal, you will not be surprised that I am familiar with the cases you list, I abhor all of them, and I do not find Roe v. Wade consonant. But we can save that for another time — I think you understand I was laying a foundation for speaking as a pro-choice person on why the data concerning breast cancer should be given serious consideration by any sincerely pro-choice person or organization.
OK, Michelle asked what is the evidence that my pro-choice beliefs are based on. Let me begin at the opposite end of the telescope. There have been times and places in human history, some quite recent or contemporary, when the argument has been made that pregnancy and childbirth are a natural process, and/or a God-given process, which should not be subject to human interference in any way.
I reject that proposition — and I don’t believe anyone here would go quite so far either — because the entire history of humanity has reflected the ability, the desire, and the benefits, of subjecting natural processes to human control for the benefit of humanity. You can look at that as a matter of paleontology and history, or refer to Genesis, 1:28, “replenish the earth and subdue it.” Replenish and subdue are two different, although inter-related things; the former has a mandate for stewarship and care, to be accomplished through the latter.
We all know that our species has a marked capacity to use its unique endowments to subdue in a destructive way, including to subdue each other. This brings on the question of natural law. I believe that each individual person of our species is endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Human governments are on the one hand, the direct result of illegitimate attempts by some humans to rob other humans of these rights, and on the other hand, are necessary to prevent the strongest toughest gang on the block from dominating everyone else. It also reflects the fact that we don’t have enough room to live completely apart from each other, plus we reach our greatest fulfillment in community, not in isolation. Its a double-edged sword. I don’t believe it is possible or desirable to attempt to conform human law to God’s law, but we can try to conform human law to natural law. Human law is ultimately a matter of, what can most, if not all, of the members of a community or nation live with, so we can abide together without killing each other and stomping on each other, at least mostly. Human law will never be righteousness in all its purity, and we cause great harm when we pretend that it can be.
Life per se is not immune to human intervention. Most of us eat meat, when we can. We freely destroy any life form which poses a threat to our own lives, while learning that sometimes we have to balance our fear of, e.g., wolves, against being over-run by herds of cute deer that eat our gardens and spread hazardous diseases in our suburbs. But we have shown no mercy to the smallpox virus, nor should we.
Human life is indeed different. Although none of us knows exactly what it means that we are “made in the image of God,” we are. (I had a fascinating conversation with an atheist who posed rhetorical questions about whether God had sexual organs or a digestive system, and he actually backed down and expressed admiration for my replies — based on what I’ve been told about the original Hebrew. In short, when the Bible said God “moved with a mighty hand,” it means there is an attribute of the infinite deity which is analagous to a hand, not that his omnipresence requires a humanoid shape. He is Spirit, does not reproduce, and does not need to eat.)
So back to human life. At the time Roe v. Wade was decided, abortion had been hotly debated, and for that matter, so had contraception, which many states up to the 1950s criminalized even for married couples in their own bedroom. There has always been a Christian argument against abortion as destructive of an innocent and individual human life, but that had, for many centuries, been intertwined with an undisguised desired to use the instrument of the state to intervene in private decisions. So, we have a very close balance of lives and liberties here.
When may we intervene in our own reproductive process? It is a natural process, it is God-given. It is also prone to error and random events. I’ve argued what some of these are, so I wont’ go into them in detail again. We have made great progress in overcoming the high statistical incidence of death in childbirth, partly by increased understanding of anatomy, surgical techniques, and the natal process, partly by such once-controversial methods as teaching doctors to wash their hands before delivery. All of us are agreed that surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy is legitimate, and if another condition does truly threaten the life of the pregnant woman, that a therapeutic abortion would then be legitimate. (There are times and places when some authorities have argued that it would not, but that does not appear to be on the pro-life agenda now.)
What I look for, is the boundary between a random and autonomic biological process, in which we may intervene, and the emergence of a unique individual, who has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, equal to the mother who carries the new life. I know you have all rejected that question as illegitimate after a human zygote has been formed. I do look to criteria such as metabolic independence, and self-awareness.
I have no objection whatsoever to a person or organization who is pro-life offering a pregnant woman reasons to carry her pregnancy to term. I know some people who call themselves pro-choice are offended by it, but if you shut off one side of the dialog, its not a free choice any more. On the other hand, if pro-life rallies attempt to physically shut off access to a clinic, that isn’t free exercise of choice either.
My deepest sticking point over criminalization of abortion is that a person or persons, who are NOT carrying the pregnancy, are dictating to a woman who IS doing all the work, YOU must do this as I say. The fact that the fetus cannot live outside the womb, that another cannot take responsibility for carrying the fetus, biases me against allowing that person to interfere. I believe that when one person interferes in a situation, the person intervening should take full responsibility for the consequences — not unlike the complaints from states against unfunded federal mandates. If you’re going to mandate, pay for it. If you’re going to ban abortion, carry the fetus to term yourself. Only, that is physically impossible. I once heard a pro-life man say if he could, he would.
I think the evidence is quite firm that abortion can have a negative impact on the “psychological health, life expectancies, fertility, miscarriage and premature labor in future pregnancies.” Although the number of women who deeply, bitterly and publicly regret their abortions is statistically small, compared to the total number of abortions performed, there are tens of thousands, and for each of them, it is 100 percent. I suspect that these are precisely the women most likely to say no, if they see a sonogram, or other similar information, and they absolutely should see it. If that is how they are going to respond, they are a totally inappropriate candidate for abortion. Would some women not quite so deeply affected also change their mind? Probably. That’s their free choice.
I am distinctly opposed to the idea that abortion is a positive good. Sometimes amputation of a limb can be the best course available, but it definitely has harmful effects. Baryatric surgery has a certain fatality rate, but some do chooose to try it. Before anyone else says it, no, abortion does not merely remove a limb. It terminates the natural process of growing a new human baby. But there are circumstances I believe make it acceptable, and, I believe the pregnant woman (and her husband or male companion to the extent she wishes to consult them) are the ones who should make the ultimate decision.
I believe that Roe v. Wade is a sound framework for intervention by the police power of the state — and it leaves room for more intervention than what appears to be happening right now. I dont think I would want to live under such a legal framework without a pro-life movement. Pro-life organizations also put pressure on women in ways I don’t entirely approve of, and I find some of the billboards laughable, but, our politics as well as our courts is basically an adversarial one. A lot of important data wouldn’t be presented if someone weren’t motivated to present it. The seriousness of a decision to abort, the reasons for caution, might well be submerged or overlooked. I will, however, always oppose criminal penalties prior to around week 23, with some room for discussion of where to draw the line.
“It terminates the natural process of growing a new human baby. But there are circumstances I believe make it acceptable, and, I believe the pregnant woman (and her husband or male companion to the extent she wishes to consult them) are the ones who should make the ultimate decision.”
only to save the life of mother without the intention of harming the fetus.
this follows the Hippocratic principle of doing no harm which seems to be largely lost upon most obstetricians these days….
(example: removing her uterus due to uncontrolled bleeding while every attempt is made to save the unborn baby.)
Wow, Siarlys. You have given me a lot of fodder to chew on. I’ll tackle a few ideas, and ask a lot more questions, that immediately struck me tonight though there will probably be more that will have to wait until later. I am quite tired and it is really hot here tonight so I apologize now if this is a rambly and incoherent response to your last post.
You talked on another thread about your church membership, and in this post you have used several sound Biblical principles as foundational portions of your point of view. How do you feel that Scripture as a whole aligns with your perspective on abortion? There are many key texts, but one in particular that I have been wrestling with a lot lately is the beginning of the Gospel of Luke. What do you think that Dr Luke was trying to tell us when he described fetal John the Baptist’s reaction to the presence of embryonic Jesus?
“When may we intervene in our own reproductive process? It is a natural process, it is God-given. It is also prone to error and random events.”
Do you believe that we as human beings have the ability to control our sexual behaviour?
Over 99% of abortions are performed on unborn children that were created by the consensual actions of both their parents. It is not the absence of abortion that “forces” women to have babies, because pregnancy is the natural consequence of sex. Sex is one of the most powerful drives we have been given- and it produces powerful effects, including creating new human beings.
I really don’t want to get fat. But no matter how much I don’t want to be fat, and no matter how many pills and potions I consume to try to avoid getting fat, if I eat more than I burn off, I will gain weight. Will I then be “forced” to be fat because I can’t afford liposuction?
“I believe that when one person interferes in a situation, the person intervening should take full responsibility for the consequences”
I agree. If you are not prepared to complete a pregnancy and parent that child or find someone else who will, even if you are taking measures to decrease the likelihood of pregnancy, then don’t have sex. Otherwise, you will be making someone else, your child, bear the consequences of your choices.
“I think the evidence is quite firm that abortion can have a negative impact on the “psychological health, life expectancies, fertility, miscarriage and premature labor in future pregnancies.””
I appreciate that you are willing to admit that there are further repercussions from abortion than just the death of an unborn child, but I note that the remainder of your paragraph only tackles one from that list- psychological health.
I could post for an hour or two on that one alone. For every woman you hear publicly speak of her abortion pain and regret, there are thousands more weeping inside but still putting on a brave public face. There are many, many more who show symptoms but have not connected the dots yet. I challenge you to have a look at the links between abortion and drug and alcohol abuse, eating disorders, self-harming behaviors (eg cutting), relationship dysfunction, depression, and suicide. This is a much bigger mess than anyone can possibly grasp.
Then have a look at the studies regarding death from all causes in the months and years following abortion. Again, it’s not good for the abortive woman.
Then research the link between risks to future pregnancies after an abortion. Do you have any thoughts for the child who dies or struggles for months in a NICU because his mother had a prior abortion that damaged her ability to carry him to term? I’m not talking about embryos or fetuses here, but born, independently living infants.
Do you believe that we have the right to interfere in our reproductive process even when it may cost the life of another? What if the life that is lost is the mother’s, or another viable child from a future pregnancy?
There will be more, I am sure, but finally, for now- I am continually offended by the accusation that pro-life people are seeking to keep women subjugated by denying them abortions. It is a lie straight from the pits of hell. I challenge you to do some research on the early feminist movement, the women who secured voting rights for us in the early 1900s. I challenge you to identify even one of them who felt that women need abortion to be equal to men.
It is abortion that subjugates women, in a thousand different ways. I see it every day. Women do not choose abortion freely because abortion and bearing a child are not equal choices for anyone.
If the pro-choice movement is seeking to protect women’s autonomy, then why do you feel we need the pro-life movement to make sure women are given the opportunity to give informed consent? I see a lot of examples of abortionists taking advantage of women, hiding information, lying, manipulating and much more. Their actions prove they are not motivated by helping women- so what are they in it for?
Michelle, it makes perfect sense to me that a man and a woman who are not prepared for the possibility of pregnancy should abstain from sexual intercourse. On the other hand, we both know that sex is indeed one of the most powerful biological drives our bodies are imbued with. In every generation since the dawn of time, whatever the moral code or criminal laws and penalties of their culture, young people have indulged that passion without waiting. The benefits of abstinence and faithfulness are a point many of us have been able to agree on here. But my view as to abortion does not turn on the notion that a woman should be denied abortion on the ground that she “should have” controlled herself.
On the other hand, there are sound reasons NOT to rely on abortion as a method of contraception. It does have all kinds of risks and hazards — not certain risk, but certainly not risk free. It is, at the least, like skipping an oral antibiotic until draining an abcess requires major surgery.
For all the very real risks that abortion poses, my basic sense is that these are risks a woman should be thoroughly informed of, but not reasons the law should bind her decision. It is unavoidably banal to make comparisons to any other form of surgery, but most surgery has risks, and in most cases, we allow the patient to decide to take those risks due to the benefits and the painful alternatives. The constitutional issue is, who has jurisdiction to decide, the individual concerned, or the state; what choice is the right choice is a separate question.
The ONLY claim which could legitimately trump a woman’s right to make that choice for herself is the independent identity of the life she is carrying. Roe v. Wade itself acknowledges that if the fetus is an independent person from conception, then the plaintiff’s claims would fail. But, there was no legal precedent at all considering a fetus to be a person, so in a sense, Roe itself created a limited personhood for the fetus, at a certain point in pregnancy, which had not previously existed.
We don’t of course know the exact circumstances of the fetal recognition between John the Baptist and Jesus. Perhaps their mothers were in the eighth month of pregnancy. But if not, the mutual recognition was of such a unique supernatural nature, that I don’t think it really illuminates the more mundane issue of normal human gestation.
I definitely don’t consider abortion to be liberating. I suspect that one reason we have had such continued political furor since Roe v. Wade is that a certain small by vociferous group of women reacted with a gleeful “It’s legal! Have one anytime! Kids are a drag anyway!” To me, the issue is not about how good abortion is, but about allowing the woman concerned to make the ultimate decision, not the state.
If I could reorganize the medical profession to suit my own motion of propriety, there would be few or no clinics specializing in abortion services — and what there were would be limited to first trimester. Every woman would have a primary care physician, and a regular gynecologist and obstetrician (some doctors combine the two). Every gynecologist and obstetrician would be trained in doing abortion — with a conscience exception for those who would never perform one, or only in very limited circumstances. Doctors in practice would openly post and notify their patients and potential patients as to any conscientious objection limiting their practice. IF in the course of pregnancy, a circumstance occured which motivated a patient to consider abortion, or a doctor to recommend it, the ob/gyn would perform it, upon patient consent, after considering all relevant factors.
That may be utopian — whether we can get closer to that pattern I don’t know. The fact that many hospitals simply won’t allow it, and its not always safe to perform on an outpatient basis in a private practice office, is a limiting factor.
Your last question assumes, at least rhetorically, that there are two movement, within each of which everyone thinks more or less alike. I obviously have some differences of opinion with the leading talking heads of the pro-choice movement. I might more accurately have said that informed consent is most available when a variety of viewpoints are freely available. I’ve said before that there are not two sides, but three or five or more. These include:
1) Pro-life — abortion should be punished by severe criminal penalties unless the mother’s life is in danger. (Variant — some may also be willing to consider it in case of rape, others are not.)
2) Pro-choice / Pro-life. That is, oppose recriminalization, at least during early stages, but believe abortion is morally and rationally the wrong choice in most circumstances. (This is where I see a perfectly logical basis for pro-choice Catholics, not pro-abortion, but pro-choice). Many such people are quite active in pro-life activities to encourage adoption, provide support to pregnant women.
3) Pro-choice (my version). Support the legal framework of Roe v. Wade. Consider abortion a rational and morally supportable choice under many circumstances, but with significant risks which women should be informed of and carefully consider. Accept legal prohibition based on metabolic independence and self-awareness, unless the mother’s life is in danger.
4) Pro-choice, leaning toward pro-abortion. Generally accept almost any reason for abortion, and promote the idea that it is a low-risk procedure.
5) Abortion is liberating — and lucrative. The more the merrier. Kids are a drag anyway. Well, no, not really, did I say that? I mean, I have kids, I love them. But they can be a real pain. Unless they arrive at the right time, they are an obstacle to a fulfilling life.
I’m reasonably certain there are facilities which depend on abortion for a significant part of their revenue which lie to women. If it is true that a doctor told a woman “don’t be silly, it’s just blood,” that is an obvious lie. Which is why I am happy to have people in the world strongly motivated to offer the information which many women don’t have. I just don’t agree that we should reinstitute criminal legislation.
SJ,
It isn’t that the woman should have controlled herself, it’s that she needs to accept the consequences of her behavior, as does the father of the baby.
Continence and responsibility tend to travel together.
Promiscuity and responsibility much less so.
Again, Siarlys, thanks for continuing the dialog.
Regarding the Scriptural story I asked you about- Dr Luke says that Mary got up immediately-hurried- to Elizabeth’s house after she had agreed to be Jesus’ mother. It also says that Elizabeth was in her 6th month of pregnancy. Elizabeth’s house was a few day’s walk from Mary’s house, so we can accurately surmise that Jesus at the time of the story was a microscopic embryo, barely skimming the lining of Mary’s endometrium, not even implanted yet. Mary would not have missed a period yet, or had any other physical confirmation of her pregnancy. The only information she had was what Gabriel told her, and she agreed and trusted, and then acted by going to her cousin who was also experiencing a miraculous pregnancy.
I bring this up, not because I believe that you must be a Christian in order to be pro-life, but because I am genuinely curious how a Christian such as yourself views this passage. I see in it a clear message that Jesus, our Lord, fully human yet fully God, had all those attributes from the very beginning of his earthly existence. Yes, something supernatural definitely happened- an fetus reacted to the presence of an embryo- but why do we need to know about it? Why does Dr Luke include this detail in the story of the birth of Christ?
On a slight tangent- do you realise that there is no such thing as an “embryo” or a “fetus” in Scripture? The word Luke uses to describe unborn John (brephos) is the very same word he uses to describe newborn Jesus as he is placed in the manger. Unborn children in scripture are consistently described as real people, with real futures.
You have been quite honest that your views about the morality of abortion are your personal opinion, and have not offered any scientific or scriptural evidences for forming them, as far as I can see. How do you correlate your opinions with what scripture and science teach us about unborn life?
The vision you have for the medical system sounds very much like what is already in place in several western European nations (eg Finland, Denmark). They have an abortion rate lower than the US, though not substantially lower. They still have high psychological complication rates (the study that shows women post-abortion are six times more likely to commit suicide than women who give birth is from Finland.) I agree with you that the way that US abortion practices run is problematic and biased towards pushing women into unwanted abortions but regardless of how abortion is offered and regulated, children will still die, and women will still suffer, because of the very nature of abortion itself. No amount of regulation and information can whitewash the death of children and how that affects all of us, their mothers most of all.
I should let you know before this conversation goes much further, that I am not currently residing in the US, but I have in the past, for over a decade, and during that time, worked in the pregnancy support field. I am currently overseas, working as the director of a large pregnancy support agency. I am one of those people you describe as providing support for women with life-affirming alternatives to abortion.
However, I am absolutely 100% pro-life and believe abortion should be a criminal act, with more severe punishments for the abortion provider than the mother. I find it interesting that you put me in two different categories. My experience working in the pregnancy support field is that it is flooded with people who want abortion to be illegal, yet are willing to give countless hours and dollars towards helping women in pregnancy distress. My experience is that people who fall into the ideological bent of your second category are actually less committed to helping women than those in the first group.
“3) Pro-choice (my version). Support the legal framework of Roe v. Wade. Consider abortion a rational and morally supportable choice under many circumstances, but with significant risks which women should be informed of and carefully consider. Accept legal prohibition based on metabolic independence and self-awareness, unless the mother’s life is in danger.”
More questions:
-Are you prepared for women who justify their abortions and do not seek further information about risks or alternatives simply because they believe that if the government allows it, and doctors do it, abortion must be ok? What role does the law play in encouraging healthy, wise behavior of its citizens?
-Who gets to decide what information women must be offered before a woman’s consent can be considered informed? (My local Health Department claims there is NO evidence that abortion harms women physically or psychologically and specifically calls out the breast-cancer link as untrue….)
-When does a newborn become self-aware? (I have read opinions ranging from before birth to after birth to 15 months of age….) And once that person is proved to be self-aware, and then they lose that ability, are they no longer a human worthy of protection?
Thanks for the dialog! I am really enjoying picking your brain. “As iron sharpens iron…”
)
SJ, I pulled down your post containing the link claiming that it is open to debate whether the embryo is a distinct individual or maternal tissue.
It is not open to debate. I have posted here Embryology’s pronouncement that at fertilization a new organism exists, distinct from the mother or father.
There are a million sites, including Alexandria that tolerate and even welcome such truth denial. Keep the flat earth stupidity there.
I will not permit it here.
This is a site where the truth of science is published. On something so fundamental, I simply will not publish arguments that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that HIV is not the causal agent of AIDS, or that embryos are maternal tissue and not separate and distinct human beings undergoing their genetic program of development.
I will not edit out the comment or link and leave the rest of the post standing. That’s an inducement to cut the crap.
Well Gerard, now I understand a little better the mindset of people who reflexively deny that there could possibly be any link between abortion and breast cancer, because you have responded with a very similar mindset.
If you are confident of the truth, you are not afraid of people reading contrary viewpoints. An informed reader will be able to tell the difference.
If you are confident of your convictions, you have no fear of the possibility that some fact or other might make a good tactical talking point for your opposition.
I am not afraid of the possibility that there might indeed be a relevant link between abortion and breast cancer, but you don’t want people even skimming the thoughts of someone who offers their own considered opinion that the data on embryology does not mean exactly what you believe it means.
What are you afraid of, my good man?
SJ,
I pulled your last post as well. The embryology texts cited here speak with unequivocal voices about the unique organismal identity of the early embryo beginning in the zygotic stage.
There is no interpretation.
I’m speaking as a doctor. We are no longer having threads derailed by meandering into dead-end conversations that run counter to scientific pronouncement.
Alexandria is the place for self-delusion. Here we traffic in truth. Get with the framework of the debate, which I establish here.
We operate within the parameters of scientific truth. If you can’t handle that, or if you think all of science is a big question mark, then this isn’t the place for you.
I’m out of patience with this kind of prattle. In the collective hundreds of thousands of years of scientific research, we have come upon some hard and fast realities. If you can’t live with that, Alexandria beckons.
Your Call.
You are setting me up with a golden opportunity to be holier than thou, even though I don’t really believe I am holier than anyone.
Anyone who looks up my last post at Alexandria on this subject will see that you have been freely allowed to post there, including a link to one of your articles that I have critiqued here. I, however, am NOT pulling your comment, because I have no fear at all of readers following your link and reading material I personally disagree with. If they are impressed by your argument, they eventually would have been anyway. If your argument is as invalid as I found it to be, that should be obvious on reading it. Why should I try to divert them from what you’ve written? Let it stand or fall on its own merits.
It doesn’t much matter whether anyone else reads my last post or not. It was primarily a response to you and to your reasoning, not an attempt to embarrass you in public. Your patent and palpable fear that someone who reads a challenge to your stated position might find merit in the challenge speaks rather poorly of both the integrity of your argument, and your confidence in its ability to persuade. You have retreated into the ultimate resort of totalitarians, suppressing any competing viewpoint. Like the Central Committee of the CPSU endorsing Lysenko, you have decreed science to conform to your political line. Fortunately, this is not the public square. It is your private property, so you are free to evict anyone you choose. The public square remains open to free, vigorous and confident debate.
I just realized: this is the SAME POST where you warmly congratulated me for suggesting to N.O.W. that they are burying their heads in the sand over some substantial hard data pointing to a serious health risk which should be given due consideration, regardless of whether they find it politically convenient, or whether it made a convenient talking point for their political adversaries. Now, at the other end of the SAME discussion, you cut off any discussion which contains the slightest hint that on a distinct issue equally important to you, I don’t see it your way. You should be heartily ashamed of yourself sir, but I doubt very much that you will be.
SJ,
Correct. I am not at all ashamed of myself. The organismal identity of the early embryo IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!!!
Case Closed.
I will not permit a flat earth mentality to take root here. You don’t want that identity to be so unequivocal because it is YOU who have an agenda. YOU are the one who has an a priori position, and so you torture definitive issues in science in order to preserve your advocacy of abortion rights.
Then you pull typical liberal tactics by accusing me of that for which you yourself are guilty.
What I posted at Alexandria is all factual. Brinton’s papers and NCI workshop are historical records for all the world to see. By lining them up in chronological order, I do not opine that she has engaged in scientific misconduct, I present the evidence which speaks for itself.
Take my post down if you will. However, you will not be permitted the freedom to deny scientific truth on this blog. Here you MUST argue from what has been definitively taught. That’s how science is done. I’ve spent two months wasting my time monitoring B.S. thread derailments as people argued with you in circles over what is factual material in the science of embryology. I’m through wasting my time. I have better things to do than police this kind of foolishness and dishonesty.
SJ,
A further word. My posting on Alexandria was my first ever if memory serves. You have been given wide latitude here, VERY wide latitude. No reader of this blog can claim that you have not been given ample opportunity to present your point of view.
On many threads, you have gone round and round with others. So you can be as smug as you like, but the reality is that I have not set word limits on the comboxes as others do, and have allowed every consideration for you to explicate your beliefs and argue them against the science.
However, this blog is meant to take the discussion forward. That hasn’t happened in large part because you reject the fundamental predicates, definitively taught by science. That they are not to your liking is ultimately a matter of your personal disappointment.
In bioethics, we discuss the rights due various kinds of organisms based upon the KIND of thing that it is, and not based upon its relative function. Embryology tells us the KIND of thing the zygote is: A new human ORGANISM. It is a human being. That may present itself as an inconvenient truth for you Siarlys, but we start with scientific truth, not your wishful thinking about disembodied spirits pleading with their mothers to abort what you cannot accept as the organism.
From this day forward, this blog will no longer be bogged down in fruitless argumentation over what is scientific fact. Truth deniers are welcome here as readers. If they wish to participate in discussions, denial of truth will simply not be tolerated as legitimate discourse. I’ve permitted that discussion for two months.
It’s enough.
We are in the mess that we have been in for 37 years because 7 men in black robes declared war on the unborn in spite of what embryology was saying. There are ample quarters in society where radicalized autonomy trumps science.
Not here.
The train has left the station.
Au contraire Gerard, you are welcome to post at Alexandria anytime. I wish you would drop by more often. Erin Manning has an open invitation to become a regular contributor, although its clear that her busy life allows her only so much time even for her own site at redcardigan.
I have indeed received wide latitude, in the sense that you have permitted a contrary viewpoint, mine, to appear. That’s the essence of an open discussion. The alternative is, you can have a mutual admiration society of those who already agree with you. But then, I wouldn’t have written that letter to NOW, because I wouldn’t have been around to find that I agree on some points, even if I disagree on others.
It is true that I question a fundamental premise of your presentations. That is in the nature of differing about premises. For now, I think this comment I received from another might answer you better than my own words could:
“Having attended a Catholic college, what I learned about the abortion debate is that it comes down to the definition of personhood. On the key question in the debate – i.e., at what point an embryo/fetus/baby/etc. becomes a legal “person” entitled to the protection of the law – prolifers & prochoicers differ on where to draw the line. More importantly, from the standpoint of science, the question of what makes an entity a “person” is _not_ a scientific question. Science can tell us lots about human development, but not about where to draw that line. That question ultimately boils down to competing definitions, which in turn boil down to differences in personal beliefs.
“I tend to analogize to axioms in mathematics: They’re the presumptions in which math is rooted, but they aren’t themselves susceptible to proof. You either accept them or you don’t. And depending on what axioms you choose (e.g., whether or not parallel lines ever meet), you end up with different systems of thought. So it is w/ the abortion debate. “Personhood begins at conception” and “Personhood begins at birth [or the onset of brainwave activity]” are mutually-incompatible axioms, from which incompatible conclusions flow.”
SJ,
In order to discuss bioethics, one must first identify the formal object of consideration. Our formal object is the human embryo.
You claim it is maternal tissue. Embryology tells us that at fertilization the egg ceases to be maternal tissue and becomes an individual organism, separate and distinct from either of its parents.
Here, we start with the scientific assessment of the identity of our formal object. If people lack the fundamental capacity to accept what embryology teaches us, then I would be happy for them to go elsewhere.
I didn’t go through two master degrees and a Ph.D. to have nonscientists tell me that science gets it wrong because the nonscientist says so. I don’t traffic in that ignorance.
You’ve had two months to have it explained to you ad nauseum. It is what it is.
The train has left the station.
Cameron Todd Willingham.
Oh, I see the problem. You think I’m describing the zygote as “maternal tissue.” No, it is genetically distinct. I merely said that being genetically distinct doesn’t make it a human being yet.