1989 July/August issue Part 2

What's a nice girl like you...

Young people have the crazy notion now days that the only way to really "get to know" somebody is to get intimate. That's what's important. No it isn't. What's important is what the person lives for and how much they'd be willing to risk for it. The following is reprinted from The Pilot, a Catholic weekly of the Aarchdiocese of Boston, March 31, 1989, with the premission of John Mallon:

1988 September/October issue Part 1

Recycling Discarded Babies

The abortion business thrives on what is called "freedom of choice." The tiny baby-shaped thing in a women's womb is a mere bit of tissue, not human but disposable, like a kleenex. if, however, it turns out that that same collection of cells is usable, comercially or medically, it becomes highly human. Now that medical procedures have been developed for the implantation of bone marrow, brains, and other organs from aborted babies for the treatment of disease, we are asked to ignore the glaring contradiction. Will Christians too ignore it? "The people who knoe their God will stand firm and take action" (Daniel 11:32; RSV)

1986 March/April issue Part 3

Backfire

The National Organization for womens "silent no more" campaign to encourage women who have had abortions to speak out may be backfiring as women who feel they were exploited and traumatized told their stories. The goal of the campaign is to counter the effects of Dr. Bernard Nathonson's dramatic film The Silent Scream which shows the real time ultra sound of an unborn baby recoilong and

1985 September/October issue Part 2

Disposable Children

A ruling of the internal Revenue Service now allows parents a tax exemption if a child intended for abortion lives for any length of time. The breathtakingly fancy mental footwork necessary to justify such action goes something like this: what was meant to be discarded is not a child. It is called a "p.o.c." (product of conception, which of course is what children and all the rest of us are). The bad news is that this disposable tissue, this mere scrap of Kleenex, turned out to be a child and (alas) was born. The good news is that you can get a tax exemption for a dependent child. The best news is that its dependence is only temporary. Call it a child, then, till you get your money. You need not go to the trouble of keeping it.

1985 January/February issue Part 5

Why Not?

Some parents say, "We will not influence our children in making choices and decisions in matters of religion." Why not?
The ads will, the press will, the radio will, the movies will, the neighbors will, the politicians will, television will, the devil will.
(From the Manchester Union-Leader)

Fetal Pain

Joseph Sobran, a well-known author and columnist, wrote in the HumarfLi f e Review, Spring 1984, "A woman can say,'My stomach hurts.' She can't say,'My fetus hurts.' The fetus feels its own pain. It has its own identity, its own nervous system, and therefore its own separate claim on our attention. Some abortion advocates say we must balance the rights of the mother against those of the fetus; and even though they are up to no good when they say that, they have at least come to acknowledge that the fetus does have rights of its own. The very admission that two parties are involved is a significant victory for the opponents of abortion."

1984 November/December issue Part 2

A New Medical Breakthrough and an Old Question*

Some time ago I read of a new medical triumph involving unborn twins. Amniocentesis had shown that one of them had Down's syndrome. The mother decided she did not want that child, so with the simple expedient of piercing the heart of the baby with a long needle, it was killed in the womb. She carried the twins to term and delivered one child alive-the one she wanted to keep-and one child dead-the one she didn't  want to keep. This was hailed as a remarkable breakthrough. I would ask you to pause for a moment here and consider this question: what was it, exactly, that was killed? What was it that was not killed? The answer to both questions, of course, is-a child. They were both children. They were twins. I used plain, ordinary words to  tell the story-the words the news report used. Nothing ambiguous. Nothing incendiary.

1984 July/August issue Part 4

An Unaborted Gift

An African Christian wrote a friend in the 1-1 U.S.: "We have six children. We had agreed to stop having other children. We even started family planning after the last born, but (and a big 'but') we found out that C. was pregnant. I don't know what really happened. My wife and I started crying because we did not know what to do. We have been asking God and telling Him that six children were enough for us. However we were later comforted by God Himself because He said that He will never leave us and will protect us with the young ones. I therefore ask you to pray for us. C. is expecting the child in about three months.

1984 May/June issue Part 3

Can Birth Be Wrong?

The wildest science fiction cannot exceed in outrage some of the legal precedents that have been set in recent years. More than a year ago I read in a magazine (Advance, Spring 1983) about "wrongful birth" suits, in which parents sue a physician because their child was born as a result of practitioner negligence, for example a failed vasectomy, failed abortion (a "failed" abortion, don't forget, means one in which the child destined for the scrap heap happens to be born alive and kicking, so to speak), or failure by the physician to provide

1983 September/October issue Part 4

President Reagan hits Abortion in Magazine Article

Last week president Reagan did what few president’s have done while in office. He wrote a full length article for a journal of opinion (The Human Life Review). “The real question is not when real human life begins, but, what is the value of human life? (italics his) The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law- the same right we have.”

1983 July/August issue Part 3

Amniocentesis

The presidents Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research would like to see more physicians providing the service of amniocentesis for women well under thirty-five. This procedure involves the insertion of a needle into the amniotic sac to withdraw fluid which can be tested to reveal certain abnormalities in the fetus. If they are found, abortion is often recommended. I was stunned to find this statement by Richard Doerflinger of the Bishops' Committee on Pro-life Activities (quoted in Action Line, March 31, 1983): "Amniocentesis performed on a women of 32 is four times more likely to induce a miscarriage in the second trimester as it is to detect a child with Down's syndrome. The Commission argues that 'whether the benefit outweighs the risk' in such a situation 'is largely a matter of personal values.'"

"Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these My brethren, you have done it unto me," Jesus said.

1983 July/August issue Part 2

Infanticide

In March the Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation requiring hospitals to post notices in their nurseries and in the delivery, maternity and pediatric wards which read, in part, "Any person having knowledge that a handicapped infant is being discriminatorily denied food or customary medical care should immediately contact the Handicapped infant hotline.... 800-368-1019 (available 24 hours a day)." Perhaps if this had happened sooner, the baby in Bloomington that i wrote about last January/February might not have died (Note: A federal judge has recently ruled that this regulation cannot be implemented. The decision is being appealed, and the hotline remains in operation.)

1983 March/April issue Part 1

The taking of human life

In a relentless effort to keep the world from squeezing me into its won mold (see Romans 12:1-2) my mind is always making comparisons and connections and trying to test the world’s reasoning by the straightedge of scripture. Recently, when I read of the execution in Texas of Charles Brook, Jr., by lethal injection, I made one of those connections. I remember another news story a few months ago about an unborn twin who was quietly dispatched, while still in its mother’s womb, by means of a needle in its heart. Medical science has advanced to the stage where it is possible to remove human beings from this world’s scene cleanly and kindly (we tell ourselves) and without too much trauma to the executioners and the consenting public. Of the trauma to the victim we prefer not to let ourselves think too much.

1983 January/February issue Part 1

Give them parking space but let them starve to death.

Another moral threshold was crossed last April when a tiny baby boy, at the specific requests of his parents and with the sanction of the Supreme Court of Indiana, was starved to death in hospital. “Infant Doe” (he was not allowed the usual recognition of being human by being named), born with Down’s syndrome and a malfunctioning esophagus (the latter could have been corrected with surgery), died, as the Washington Post (April 18) stated, “not because he couldn’t sustain life without a million dollars worth of medical machinery, but because no one fed him.” For six days the nurses in that Bloomington hospital went about their usual routines of bathing and changing and feeding all the newborns except one. They changed and bathed Baby Doe but never gave him a bottle. Over his crib was a notice, DO NOT FEED. Several couples came forward, begging to be allowed to adopt him. They were turned down.