I know that the I.U.D is an abortifacient, but is the diaphragm also an abortifacient? J.M. Toronto.
I checked wit two very pro-life doctors to make certain that I answered you correctly. Both doctors say that the diaphragm is a contraceptive, but it is not an abortifacient.
First, pro-lifers neither deny a woman the right to bear a child, nor do they insist that she become pregnant. So far as they are concerned the choice is hers.
However, once she has exercised that choice and is pregnant, she is already a mother, and she already has a child. Now there are two lives, not one. At this stage those who claim a “right to reproductive freedom” are claiming that the woman has another voice, either to let her baby live, or – usually – to kill it.
Pro-abortionists use terms such as ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘pro-choice’ to camouflage the evil of abortion and to gain credibility in public opinion. It is easier to sell the notion of ‘reproductive freedom’ than the right to kill a child. George Orwell (of 1984 fame), in an essay, Politics and the English Language, wrote that political language “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.” He could have been predicting today’s abortion debates. He also warned that “…if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” This is a warning to be heeded by all of us.
I know that you have answered this before, but isn’t it better for a seriously handicapped baby to be aborted rather than suffer pain for years? L.B . Winnipeg, Manitoba.
I would take a book to give all the reasons why your argument is wrong, but – as you are concerned with pain – let us confine ourselves to a discussion of that subject.
Where is the compassion in condemning the pre-born child to the agony of abortion? How can it be better and kinder to dismember and crush a baby, cutting it into pieces small enough to be removed from the uterus, as happens in a D&E? Is it compassionate to kill a baby by a saline poisoning procedure where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the amniotic sac? The corrosive action of the saline solution burns away the upper skin layers of the child, and its esophagus and mouth are burned when it swallows the polluted amniotic fluid. The effects of the saline burning and poisoning have been compared with those of napalm.
How man people victims of accidents of some crippling disease and faced with years of suffering, would opt for death by procedures comparable with a D&E or saline burning and poisoning? Would they regard such a death as more compassionate?
Thus far we have only mentioned pain, but the real argument is that every human life, however young or old, however fragile or damaged, has its own intrinsic value which must be protected. It must be added that those who argue that a handicapped baby is better off dead are telling those who were born with handicaps that they should never have been born.
What is the history of the Canadian Medical Association (C.M.A.) regarding abortion? C.P., Toronto, Ontario.
In 1963, C.M.A. stated: “The induction or procuring of abortion involved the destruction of life. It is a violation both of moral law and of the Criminal Code of Canada, except where there is justification for its performance. The only justification is that continuance of pregnancy would imperil the life of the mother.”
From that point it is all downhill. By 1971, the C.M.A. recommended abortions for the health and social well-being of the mother. In 1975, it called for the removal of therapeutic abortion committees from the Criminal Code – tantamount to abortion on demand. By 1988, the C.M.A., policy statement was seen as open support for abortion on demand. A violation of the moral law in 1963 was openly approved in 1988.
However, as Dr. Paul Ranalli of Canadian Physicians for Life has made clear (Vitality, October 1985), the 1988 policy statement of the C.M.A. was drawn up without consulting its members and it does not reflect their views. A survey of the 13,000 C.M.A. members made by the Physicians for Life shows that, far from favouring an open policy, the majority of doctors, 58 per cent, call for a new law, more restrictive – not less – than the old law. As Dr. Ranalli makes clear, the C.M.A. has lost all credibility to speak for Canadian doctors.