Abortion Doula - Killing With Compassion

Several times during my discussions with abortion rights supporters on Twitter I heard the term "abortion doula". I had never heard the term before, and didn't know what it was. Earlier today I came across a post on the Jill Stanek blog about abortion doulas. The post provided a link to an article on the New York Observer web site called "The Rise of the Abortion Doula". After reading the article, I discovered that abortion doulas work at abortion clinics, attempting to provide comfort and support to women who are in the process of aborting their unborn child, or who have just had an abortion. The abortion doula tries to convince the women that they made the right decision when they decided to kill their unborn child via abortion. The article doesn't use the terms "killing an unborn child" when referring to an abortion, however, but instead refers to abortion as "choosing not to take a pregnancy to term". It sounds much nicer that way, doesn't it?


Anyone who is pro-life who reads the article has to wonder how anyone can consider abortion doula work or any other work related to abortion a good thing, but it is obvious that some people do. The article features a class that trains people on how to become an abortion doula, and the training includes instruction on how to respond to a woman who has had an abortion who remorsefully says something like "I just killed my baby." The trainees are told to tell the woman that the abortion procedure is legal because "the fetus is not a baby, it just has the potential to be one." That statement pretty much sums up how people can justify abortion. They justify it by denying that the unborn is a baby, a living and distinct human being.


As I said in a previous post, people can refer to the unborn as a "potential human being", a "clump of cells", or whatever they want, but the undeniable fact remains that if a pregnancy is not terminated, a human being will be born. That "clump of cells" or "potential human being", if allowed to continue to develop, will be born a human being. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy via abortion prevents a human being from being born. People can sugar coat it as much as they want, but the fact remains that abortion ends the life of an innocent human being. The killing of innocent human beings can never be justified, is not a good thing, and should be illegal.

A Wealth of Inspiration

Yesterday I participated in a 40 Days for Life prayer vigil at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic not too far from where I live. When I arrived at the clinic at 7 AM, no other vigil participants were present. I prayed by myself outside the clinic for about an hour. During this time a few people arrived at the clinic. I couldn't tell for sure why they were there, but I suspect that they might have been clinic employees. One lady was dropped off by a man who flipped me off as he drove by on the way out of the clinic parking lot. Nice.  


About an hour after I arrived at the clinic, a woman appeared across the clinic parking lot carrying some sort of abortion protest sign. She spotted me, and gave me a friendly wave. I waved back in a show of pro-life solidarity. After praying a while longer, I decided to join her and some other vigil participants who had gathered with her. As I approached, I could see that she had several signs with pro-life messages, and a knapsack slung over her shoulder, bulging with various pamphlets of information. Everyone in the group took a few minutes to introduce themselves. The woman with the knapsack said that her name was Joy. In addition to Joy, there were several Catholic college students from the Newman center at a nearby university, and a couple of non-Catholic Christian women who said that they were involved in a crisis pregnancy center in the area. I believe one of the women said she was a director of the center. The photograph above shows Joy on the left, and a vigil participant named Lisa. Lisa works in the library at a nearby university. Everyone in the group was at the clinic as part of the 40 Days for life vigil, but Joy mentioned that she prays and ministers at this clinic all year. She is also the director of pro-life ministries at her Catholic parish.


After chatting briefly, we continued praying. The women from the crisis pregnancy center took up station across the parking lot, at the exit where I originally was, and Joy, the college students, and I remained where we were. The technique we used to connect with the people entering and exiting the clinic was similar to a military operation, as strange as that may sound. In a military operation, ground troops enter enemy territory, while friendly aircraft fly overhead to provide air support. At the clinic, Joy was the "ground troops", engaging not the "enemy", but rather those who have been deceived by the enemy, who is the devil. Rather than "air support", the rest of us provided "prayer support". When Joy saw someone entering or exiting the facility, she would ask us to start praying for them, and for her, as she engaged them in conversation. She would then call out a friendly "Hello!" to the person to get their attention. Once they looked her way, she would call them over. What surprised me was that most people actually responded and came over to her, instead of ignoring her. I believe it was God's hand guiding them to her. As they approached her, she would say something to them that would break the ice, like "You have a nice outfit", or something similar, to show them that she was friendly, and not some loony protester. She was very sincere in what she said, and I could tell that it put them at ease.


Once the person reached her, she would begin a conversation with them. She asked them about their situation, and why they came to the clinic. As she talked to them, she shared information with them about the harmful effects of abortion, and provided information about the facility they were about to enter or had just left. She often shared a story about a friend of hers who aborted her first child, and became sterile as a result of the procedure, never able to have children. She told them about the grief and heartache that her friend experiences every day because of the abortion. Even if the person was coming to the facility for a service other than abortion, she would direct them to other facilities in the area that provided those services without doing abortions. She did everything she could to save lives by taking business away from the abortion mill. The clinic was undergoing renovation, and she even tried to convince the contractors working on the clinic to stop working there and take their business elsewhere.


What was really inspiring about the way Joy ministered to people at the clinic was her sincere caring and compassion for them. She simply loved them where they were, and didn't make any assumptions about their situation. She shared information with them that enabled them to make an informed decision. Abortion proponents who think pro-life activists are nothing but crazed fanatics need to watch Joy in action. She is a shining example of what it truly means to be "pro-life". May God bless her and all those like her who work tirelessly to educate people on the hurt that abortion causes women and men.     

A Proper Birthday Celebration

Earlier today I took part in an event near my home called a "Life Chain", where people protest abortion by standing side-by-side along a busy street holding signs with pro-life messages. I especially wanted to take part in the Life Chain today of all days, because it's my birthday, and what better way to celebrate my birthday than to show support for the right of unborn children to have a birthday? On this day, I received the best birthday present I've been given so far: both of my sons took part in the Life Chain with me. It was definitely a "proud papa" moment.

A Human Being Exists at Fertilization

The fact that a human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization isn't religious dogma. It is an embryological fact:

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

The Undeniable Facts About Abortion

You can call the unborn a child, a baby, a fetus, a foetus, a clump of cells, a blob of flesh, or whatever you want. What is undeniable is the fact that if the unborn child, baby, fetus, foetus, clump of cells, or whatever you call it, is allowed to continue developing, it will be born a human being, and will continue to develop through childhood into adulthood. Another undeniable fact is that if the unborn child, baby, fetus, foetus, clump of cells, or whatever you call it, is aborted, it will not be born a human being, and will not grow through childhood into adulthood. Whether you support abortion or not, you cannot deny these facts. Abortion prevents the birth of a human being.

The Humanity of the Unborn, in 3D

Time and time again I hear stories of pregnant women who decided against having an abortion after they see an ultrasound of their unborn baby. As I was getting ready for work this morning, I wondered how many women would decide that abortion is wrong if they could see an ultrasound of an unborn child before they even get pregnant?

Budgeting 101: How Taxpayer Money Can Indirectly Fund Abortion

Most people have a budget. They budget their income for expenses like clothing, food, medical expenses, etc. When they receive income, they set aside money for each of the different types of expenses. If an unexpected windfall of money is received, it can free up budgeted money to be used elsewhere. Consider the following scenario:


A husband and wife budgets $500 a month for college expenses for their daughter. They would like to budget money for medical expenses, but after setting aside the $500 for college expenses, there isn't enough money left over. At the beginning of the school year, they receive a government grant to help pay for their daughter's college expenses. When the grant is divided up over the 9 month school year, it equals $300 per month. If they apply the $300 towards their $500 monthly college expense budget, it frees up $300 that they can use to budget for medical expenses. 


Even though the purpose of the grant is to pay for college tuition expenses, does it not indirectly fund the couple's medical expenses? If the couple didn't receive the grant, they wouldn't be able to budget money for medical expenses.


Republicans in the House and Senate are currently trying to pass H.R. 217, which is a bill that would prohibit federal grants from being awarded to family planning organizations that provide abortion services, like Planned Parenthood. Opponents of the legislation claim that the federal grants aren't used to provide abortion services. They claim the federal funds are used to provide family planning services, such as the dispensing of contraceptives, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, etc. Even if this is true, wouldn't the federal grants free up money that these organizations could use to fund abortions services? Of course they would. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. The less money organizations like Planned Parenthood need to spend on family planning services, the more money they have to spend on the abortion part of their business.


The purpose of H.R. 217 isn't to prohibit all family planning organizations from receiving federal grants. It would only prohibit grants from being awarded to family planning organizations that also provide abortion services. If the opponents of H.R. 217 are concerned that H.R. 217 will prevent Planned Parenthood and other organizations like it from providing family planning services, maybe they should try to convince these organizations to drop the abortion part of their business. Then they'll have nothing to worry about, right?   

There is Life After Having a Child

Dr. John Bruchalski is an ob/gyn physician who used to perform abortions, but now he offers hope for women experiencing crisis pregnancies. The pro-life group Live Action posted a link on Twitter to an article about Dr. Bruchalski on LifeSiteNews.com. The following is an excerpt from the article that provides insights into how to reach abortion-minded women:


Dr. Bruchalski said his experience working with abortion-minded women has shown him the need to focus on offering women hope for life with their child, rather than emphasizing adoption or images of fetal development.

“You can show women fetal development and many of them it doesn’t phase,” he said.  “Remember the fetus, the baby, the unborn child is an adversary to the woman, it’s going to cramp her life.”

Abortion-minded women see adoption, on the other hand, as a “double negative,” he says. “Not only are you not qualified to be a mother and care for the child, but you have to give the child up,” he explained.  “They hate that choice, so for them the abortion becomes the best alternative, the least terrible of those options.”

“You really have to focus on [the fact] that there is life after having a child, that there is a way out of your predicament,” he said. “Just meeting women where they are by being able to listen to their pain and their agony and their suffering, and then love them so much that we walk them through this."


This is a really important message for people in the pro-life movement to hear. I think we're too quick to offer adoption as the only alternative to abortion. As Dr. Bruchalski says, it's important to help abortion-minded women to know that it is possible for them to keep their baby. Having a baby doesn't ruin a person's life. It completes it.


Please take a moment to read the entire article about Dr. Bruchalski:


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-abortionist-spreads-gospel-of-life

Relativism and the Abortion Issue

If you held up an apple in your hand, and I looked at it and said "That's an orange!", would I be right? What would you think if I said that the object you held in your hand is whatever I believe it to be? If I believe it's an apple, it's an apple. If I believe it's an orange, it's an orange. Would you agree with me, or would you think I'm a few bricks shy of a full load?


How you answer these questions depends on whether you think truth is relative, or absolute. If truth is relative, the apple is whatever a person thinks it is. If truth is absolute, the apple is an apple, regardless of what anyone thinks it is.


While the apple analogy is extremely simple, the principle can be applied to complex moral issues. Let's take the abortion issue, for example. People usually take one of the following positions in regards to abortion:

1. Abortion is always bad.
2. Abortion is always good.
3. Abortion is good for some people, and bad for other people.
4. Abortion is good in certain circumstances, and bad in others. 

A person that takes position #1 believes that abortion kills an innocent unborn human being, and that killing an innocent human being is always wrong. A person that takes this position identifies themselves as pro-life, and denies any association with the pro-choice movement. A person that holds this position believes that abortion is wrong at any stage of the pregnancy.


A person that takes position #2 believes that abortion is always good, because it provides a way for a woman to avoid having a baby when she doesn't want one. A person that takes this position identifies strongly with the pro-choice movement, and believes that it is acceptable to perform abortions at any stage of the pregnancy, right up to the point of birth. Like position number one, position number two is an absolute position regarding abortion.


A person that takes position #3 believes that the morality of abortion is up to each individual. People who take this position are the ones who say "I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to prevent someone else from having one, if they feel it's right for them."


A person that takes position #4 believes that the morality of abortion depends on the situation. People who take this position believe that abortion is wrong except in certain situations, such as pregnancies due to rape or incest, or pregnancies that endanger the mother's life.


Which of these positions is correct? Positions 3 and 4 can be taken out of the running right away. Why?  Because they are both relative positions, and truth is absolute. An apple is an apple, regardless of what people think it is, or the circumstance. The same applies to abortion. To say that abortion is right for some people and wrong for other people is as ridiculous as saying that an apple is an apple to some people, and an orange to others. To say that abortion is wrong in all situations except for certain ones is as ridiculous as saying an apple is an apple except when you play catch with it.


Since positions 3 and 4 have been eliminated, all that's left is positions 1 and 2. Which of these is the correct position? The answer depends on when a human being comes into existence. The only logical point at which a human being comes into existence is at the moment of fertilization. To think that a human being comes into existence at some arbitrary point between fertilization and birth is unreasonable, and not in accordance with human embryology (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0027.html). Therefore, position 1 is the only position that can be correct. Abortion is always wrong, because it ends an innocent human being's life, regardless of how the human being came into existence. Abortion is always wrong, whether a person thinks it's wrong or not. Abortion is always wrong, regardless of the situation.  

How Would You Handle the Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Scenario?

While I was driving home from the grocery store, I was thinking about the Planned Parenthood sex trafficking scandal. In case you haven't heard about it, you can read about it on the Live Action web site. Many people on both sides of the abortion issue would agree that what the manager of the Planned Parenthood clinic did was wrong, but I wonder what we would do if we were in her situation, or one similar to it? If you were the manager of a Planned Parenthood clinic, and a person you believed to be a real pimp came in and asked you if you would provide "health services" (including abortion and contraception) to under age girls that he is sex trafficking, how would you respond?


Obviously, your view on abortion and contraception use would affect how you would respond (I would hope). For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to assume that an abortion opponent wouldn't be in this situation, because they wouldn't take a job at a Planned Parenthood clinic. But what if you support abortion and contraception use? How would you respond? Would you:

1. Politely excuse yourself from the room and call the police, and refuse to provide abortions and contraception to the girls he's trafficking?
2. Politely excuse yourself from the room and call the police, and then provide abortions and contraception to the girls he's trafficking if you think they need it?
3. Inform the pimp that sex trafficking is illegal and ask him to leave, but not report him to the authorities?
4. Offer to provide abortions or contraception to the girls he's trafficking without informing the authorities?
5. Respond in some other way?

What if the pimp really has an underage girl that got pregnant while he was trafficking her? If you choose option 1, aren't you denying her what is currently a legal medical procedure? If the pimp really has an underage girl that is pregnant, and you had the clinic give her an abortion, would you inform her parents?

"I personally think abortion is wrong, but..."

As I've talked to people on Twitter about the abortion issue, I've encountered three basic types of people:

1. People who think abortion is wrong for everybody.
2. People who think abortion is right for everybody.
3. People who think abortion is wrong for them personally, but believe that other people shouldn't be prevented from having one if they feel abortion is right for them.

The people that I find the most fascinating are the ones that fit type #3. Whenever I encounter someone that holds this belief, the first thing I ask them is why they think abortion is wrong for them personally? I posed this question to a person on Twitter last night, and she said she was personally against abortion for "religious reasons". I then asked her why her religion was against abortion. She responded that her religion is against abortion because "it's considered murder". I then said to her, "You're against abortion because you believe it's murder, but you don't want to take away other people's right to murder?" She responded "Yes, I believe it's a woman's choice." I then asked her "Do you support laws that prevent women from murdering born people?" It doesn't surprise me that I never received a response. If the woman responded that she supports laws that prevent women (and, obviously, men) from murdering other born people, she would appear hypocritical because of her stance on abortion. How could she support laws that prevent others from murdering born people, but not support laws that prevent others from murdering unborn people?

In Germany in during World War II, when the holocaust was occurring, it would be interesting to know if there were Germans who said "I personally think killing Jews is wrong, but I don't think it's right for me to prevent other Germans from killing Jews, if they think it's right for them." I wonder...

They Have Ears, But They Do Not Hear

The Gospel reading from today's Catholic Mass reminded me, in a way, of some of the people I've met on Twitter that support abortion rights (Pro-Choice). In the reading, Jesus tells a parable about the lives of a rich man, and a poor man named Lazarus. The rich man lives a life of wealth, and Lazarus lives a life of poverty. After they die, the rich man finds himself in hell, and Lazarus finds himself in eternal happiness with God in heaven. The end of the story is what reminds me of many of the pro-choice people I've encountered. The rich man calls out to God and asks him to send Lazarus to his brothers' house and warn them so they don't suffer the same fate as he did when they die. God responds by telling him that his brothers can listen to Moses and the prophets. The rich man basically tells God that his brothers won't listen to Moses or the prophets, but if God would send someone from the dead, the brothers would listen to him. Here's the kicker: God says to the rich man, "If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead."

This reading reminds me of my discussions with many pro-choice people because the stark truth about abortion can be presented to them, and it's as if they didn't hear a word that you said. For example, it is extremely obvious to me and others who oppose abortion that a human being exists from the moment of conception, but pro-choice people refuse to see this simple reality. How can they not see something so obvious? It's as if they have ears but do not hear.

Here is today's scripture reading from Luke 16:19-31:

Jesus said to the Pharisees, ‘There was a rich man who used to dress in purple and fine linen and feast magnificently every day. And at his gate there lay a poor man called Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to fill himself with the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even came and licked his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. ‘In his torment in Hades he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus in his bosom. So he cried out, “Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.” “My son,” Abraham replied “remember that during your life good things came your way, just as bad things came the way of Lazarus. Now he is being comforted here while you are in agony. But that is not all: between us and you a great gulf has been fixed, to stop anyone, if he wanted to, crossing from our side to yours, and to stop any crossing from your side to ours.” ‘The rich man replied, “Father, I beg you then to send Lazarus to my father’s house, since I have five brothers, to give them warning so that they do not come to this place of torment too.” “They have Moses and the prophets,” said Abraham “let them listen to them..” “Ah no, father Abraham,” said the rich man “but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent.” Then Abraham said to him, “If they will not listen either to Moses or to the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone should rise from the dead.”’

"Personally I Think Abortion is Wrong, but..."

I find it interesting when I hear a person say "Personally, I think abortion is wrong, but I'm not going to prevent others from having one." The first thing I wonder is why they personally think abortion is wrong? Why is abortion a wrong choice for them? What do they think is so wrong or bad about an abortion that they wouldn't have one?

The second thing I wonder is why they wouldn't want to prevent someone else from having an abortion? If they think abortion is bad for them personally, wouldn't they want to protect others from abortion? It would be interesting to know if people that hold this viewpoint support laws that prevent born human beings from killing other human beings. If they do, aren't they're preventing others from committing murder? Why do they think it's ok to legally prevent born human beings from killing other born human beings, but think it's wrong to legally prevent born human beings from killing preborn human beings?

Are people that hold this viewpoint being open minded, or are they straddling the fence on the abortion issue? What do you think?

Not All Women's Rights Are Right

The following is a list of some of the rights women should have:

• The right to have any job that a man can have, and get paid the same amount for it.
• The right to work outside the home, if she so chooses.
• The right to be a stay at home mom, if she so chooses.
• The right to breastfeed in public.
• The right to be treated equally with men.
• The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In 1973 in the United States, women were granted a right that is outright wrong, and that is the right to kill her unborn child via abortion. This right is just as wrong as the right Americans were given many years ago to own slaves. Americans finally came to realize that slavery was wrong, and made slavery illegal. Americans, and the entire world, need to realize that nobody should have the right to take anyone's life, no matter what their stage of development. Women, men, and children, both born and unborn, have the right to life, liberty, and the the pursuit of happiness. Women who experience unwanted pregnancies are in very difficult circumstances, without a doubt, but disposing of an unborn child is never a viable solution. 

U.S. Representative Trent Franks on Abortion, Slavery, and Personhood

U.S. Representative Trent Franks of Arizona gave a talk recently regarding abortion, slavery, and personhood. He made several excellent points in his talk, especially how people dehumanize the human fetus in order to make abortion seem morally acceptable. He was also right-on when he referred to abortion as a "holocaust".

When it comes to the abortion issue, Representative Franks "gets it". Do you?

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice - Can't We Just Get Along?

There is a lot of bickering, back-biting, and name calling on Twitter these days between people in the pro-life and pro-choice movements. As far as I can see, these are the primary goals of the pro-life and pro-choice movements:

1. The goal of the pro-life movement is to protect unborn human life.
 
2. The goal of the pro-choice movement is to protect the rights of women experiencing unwanted pregnancies.

Believe it or not, these are both noble goals. Although many people in the pro-choice movement might think so, I seriously doubt that there are many pro-life people who would say their primary goal is to take away the rights of women who are experiencing unwanted pregnancies and "force" them to have their babies. Although many pro-life people might think so, I seriously doubt that there are many pro-choice people who would say their primary goal is to murder unborn babies.

Let's keep this in mind, pro-life and pro-choice people, as we engage each other in debates over the abortion rights issue. If we do, our discussions might be productive, rather than destructive.

To all pro-life and pro-choice people, I leave you with the first reading from today's Catholic Mass. It is one of my favorite scripture readings from the first letter of John, in the Christian (New) testament:


My dear people,
let us love one another
since love comes from God
and everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God.
Anyone who fails to love can never have known God,
because God is love.
God’s love for us was revealed
when God sent into the world his only Son
so that we could have life through him;
this is the love I mean:
not our love for God,
but God’s love for us when he sent his Son
to be the sacrifice that takes our sins away.

1 John 4:7-10

Peace be with you, and with your spirit!

Your Boyfriend Supports Abortion and Premarital Sex, and You're OK With That. What?

Consider this scenario:

A single woman "Jill" is living with her boyfriend "Jack". Jack and Jill share an apartment together. Jill is a stong believer in abortion rights, and Jack supports her pro-abortion beliefs. Jill thinks it's wonderful that Jack is so supportive of her "right to choose" abortion if she so desires. Jack doesn't want to wait until marriage to have sex with Jill. That's OK with Jill, so Jack and Jill walk up the hill to their apartment and enter into an active pre-marital sex life.

If Jill was my daughter, this is what feedback and advice I would share with her:

1. Jack's support of your pro-abortion beliefs seems noble, and may very well be, but the fact that he is unwilling to wait until marriage to have sex with you casts doubt on the nobility of his support. Is it possible that he supports your pro-abortion beliefs so that it he gets you pregnant, he won't need to worry about the complications of having a child out of wedlock because he's confident you would abort the child?
 
2. Why isn't Jack willing to wait until marriage to have sex with you? Doesn't he think you're worth waiting for? Is it possible that his unwillingness to wait until marriage to have sex with you is a sign of a lack of commitment to you? He might not want to wait until marriage to have sex with you because he doubts that he will ever marry you.
 
3. If Jack really loves you, and is committed to be with you, he should be willing to wait until marriage to have sex with you. If he is willing to wait, you can rest assured that he isn't interested in you primarily to receive physical pleasure from your body.
 
4. Do you really want a boyfriend that supports abortion rights? What if you get pregnant, and you really want the baby, and he doesn't, and he pressures you to have an abortion? If Jack was pro-life (against abortion rights), you wouldn't have to worry about being in that situation.

I would also have a separate conversation with Jill as to why she is pro-choice/pro-abortion, and why she thinks pre-marital sex is OK, but I'd rather limit the scope of this post to the pre-marital sex and abortion rights aspects of Jill's relationship with Jack.

If Jill was your daughter, and you were fully aware of the arrangement mentioned in the scenario above, what would you say to her? What advice would you give her? Would you approve of what she is doing? If so, why? If not, why not? Please use the comment box below.

Abortion is a Black & White Issue

After I went to bed last night, a person on Twitter sent me a post stating that the abortion issue is not black and white, which I interpret to mean that abortion is a very complex issue. Here is my response:

I believe that abortion is black and white issue that people do their best to complicate. The abortion debate boils down to one simple question: Is the human fetus a human being that has the right to life? If the fetus is a human being, killing it is a crime. It's a scientific and logical fact that a fetus is a human being in an early stage of development. To say that a fetus is anything else but a human being has no basis in science, reason, or logic. It is a fact that the killing of a human being is murder. Therefore, abortion is murder and should be made illegal.

There are a variety of reasons why women seek abortions. I'm certain that many, if not most, women who seek abortions are in very difficult situations, and I feel for them. However, no matter how difficult the situation is, the fact remains that the fetus inside the woman is a human being that has the right to live, just as much as the mother has the right to live. Nothing justifies killing the unborn child. Nothing. The rights of both the mother and the unborn child can and should be respected. Rather than allow abortion to remain legal, we need to make it illegal and find ways to help women with unwanted pregnancies.

Sounds pretty black and white to me.

Caitlin Jane's "Unborn" Music Video

Live Action Films provided a link to a beautiful pro-life video on YouTube called "Unborn". The video is very well done, and does a great job at illustrating the beauty of all life, especially the unborn. I hope the video touches your heart, as it did mine:



If you have difficulty viewing this video, click here.

Does Conception Occur at Fertilization, or Implantation?

Earlier today I was chatting with a pro-choice friend of mine about the terms "fertilization" and "conception". To me, these two words are synonymous. When the sperm and the egg unite, the egg is fertilized, and conception occurs. To my friend, however, these two words have very different meanings. When I asked what the difference was, she said that fertilization occurs when the sperm and the egg unite, but conception doesn't occur until the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterine wall. I asked her where she got this information, and she said that she got it from "medical books."

After doing some research, I discovered that the distinction between fertilization and conception isn't as clear cut as my friend wanted me to believe. According to Wikipedia, "Fertilization (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism." [1] According to About.com, "Conception is when the female's egg is fertilized by a male's sperm." [2] According to the Merck medical manual, "For conception (fertilization) [to occur], a live sperm must unite with an ovum in a fallopian tube with normally functioning epithelium" [3] However, according to Ovulation-Calculator.com, "cell division and implantation of the egg must take place for conception to be successful." [4] According to Guttmacher.org, a pro-abortion organization, "A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete" [5]

So why all the confusion as to whether fertilization and conception occur at the same time, or not? According to PhysiciansForLife.org, conception "was redefined by contraception & abortion promoters in the 1960’s to mean 'implantation in the uterus', not 'fertilization'. " [6] After further research, I discovered that it was the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) that redefined conception in 1965. ACOG is a known supporter of abortion rights. Even though ACOG redefined the point at which conception (pregnancy) occurs, it appears that many people in the medical community didn't get the message, and still believe that conception occurs at fertilization. Results of survey taken by the Louisville Ob/Gyn Society showed that 73% of the respondents indicated that conception occurs at fertilization.[7]  

So what difference does it make if conception occurs at fertilization or implantation? It makes a big difference in regards to hot button reproductive issues such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), cloning, stem cell research, and the use of so called pregnancy prevention drugs such as Plan B. If conception (pregnancy) occurs at implantation, the disposal of the fertilized egg after fertilization but prior to implantation can be considered contraception, instead of abortion. By saying that conception occurs at implantation, abortion rights supporters can claim that the use of drugs like Plan B prior to implantation does not result in an abortion. If conception occurs at fertilization, Plan B would be considered an abortifacient, which would most likely deter many women from using it. If less women use Plan B, the drug companies that make Plan B make less money.

Since there appears to be ambiguity in the medical community as to whether conception occurs at fertilization or implantation, how can a person decide which is the case? For a person that only has the civil law and secular culture to gauge what is true or not, it is a difficult question to answer. As a Catholic, I can defer to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding when life begins. According to the Catholic Church, "Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall" [8]

References:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization

[2] http://contraception.about.com/od/contraceptionoverview/p/conception.htm

[3] http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec18/ch258/ch258a.html?qt=conception&alt=sh

[4] http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/pregnancy/pregnancy-conception.htm

[5] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

[6] http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1170/2/

[7] http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907299020&db=all

[8] Statement on the So-Called "Morning After Pill" http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html