Don`t be too sure about Development and Peace Canada.  A couple of years back I was surprised when donations I thought were going to the poor actually went elsewhere. They gave $20,000 to a pro abortion feminist march in which pro-life feminists were denied participation.  there is also concern about persons elected to leadership positions lately.

Sebastian Szyszkowicz--

Try Cross International Catholic Outreach at http://www.crossinternational.org

I would be interested to know how many people who read this blog would object to a ‘morning after’ pill being offered to a rape victim within a few days of the crime. There doesn’t seem to be much clarity on either side of the abortion issue. I think answering that question will tell us a lot. I would
also like to know how many pro choice people would be OK with limits on third term abortions except in cases of extreme, immediate danger to the mother. Answers to those two questions would go a long way toward focusing the argument.

In response to David Page’s questions I offer the following as answers:- As a pregnancy (and therefore the start of a new human being) occurs within a few hours of intercourse the Morning After Pill is either useless i.e. it is too late, or it is an abortifacient.  The manufacturers say the Morning After Pill has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse to be effective (cause an abortion) so “within a few days” would not work.  The MA Pill is a massive dose of hormones – I have heard 400 times the natural hormones – so it should not be given lightly even if you are happy with abortion as a solution.

I, myself am not pro-abortion so answering the second part of your question might seem inappropriate but I have an article by Phillip R. Norris, MD, FROCG, that says
“1.  Therapeutic termination of pregnancy can never be an abortion, since abortion has as its intention the destruction of the fetus.
2.  The well-being of the fetus depends upon the health of the mother.  It follows, therefore, that if the health of the mother is threatened, the health of the fetus is also threatened.  Steps to remove the fetus from an unhealthy hostile uterine environment may become urgently necessary for its survival.
3.  The fetus should be removed from the uterus at a time and by a method which will ensure its best chance of survival – compatible with the safety of the mother.
4.  Once removed the fetus must receive such medical assistance as is presently available and is appropriate with its stage of development.
5.  Methods of termination which, by their nature, cause the death of the fetus must never be used if an alternative is possible.
6.  The doctor must at all times be mindful that during a pregnancy he has a duty to both mother and fetus.

I have now run out of allowable characters and will sent the rest of Mr. Norris’s paer in a following letter as I feel the distinction between an operation to save lives should never be mixed up with abortion.

This is to complete my answer to David Page about the difference between termination to save life and abortion.

7.  Medical or surgical treatment of the mother is, indirectly, treatment of the fetus.  No therapeutic termination is valid if the mother has not received, before termination, adequate and proper treatment – unless the fetus is likely to be harmed by such treatment.
8.  If the intention of the doctor is to do his or her best for both mother and fetus, according to circumstances, it is a true termination of pregnancy, and fulfils the highest standards required of medical practice.  If, on the other hand, it is the intention of the doctor to destroy the fetus to achieve his or her ends, then this is an abortion, an abomination which is unacceptable to those who respect human life, and who are committed to the Geneva Declaration of 1948.
9.  Therapeutic termination of pregnancy requires no legal enablement.  An abortion does, since the fetus must die for it to be effective.
I hope this helps you.

Gill:

Your information about the morning-after pill is incorrect.  See the Life Training Institute blog for lots of information on this from a pro-life point of view.

Thank you, Gil, for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. I have a few other questions. Is your objection to terminating a rape related pregnancy based in religion or in compassion? Can one have compassion for a life that, as yet, has no consciousness? What if the fetus has no brain? Must it be preserved? What if the mother has cancer and a delay in treatment could kill her? Should the fetus die slowly as a result of chemotherapy?
I don’t ask these questions frivolously. 20 years ago my wife was pregnant with twins. She also had a benign tumor that was larger than either fetus. Hormones released during the pregnancy were stimulating the growth of the tumor. Her
OB/GYN told her the pregnancy could only end in disaster and could very well kill her. She chose to continue the pregnancy. In the beginning of the fourth month she started to miscarry. She was bleeding heavily and contractions had started. We called her doctor, who told us all we could do was wait for it to get worse and then go to the hospital.
To kill time and to calm us both down I opened a bottle of Sherry. We drank a lot of it. The contractions stopped. She was taken into a local infirmary and put on a morphine drip. The tumor had died and my daughters lived. This was the result of my wife’s bravery. The point is that no one had the right to make the choice for her. No one had the right to tell her to continue a high risk pregnancy. Her doctor was right to encourage her not to risk her life. Two sweeter kids you never met.

Ms. Coelho’s comments definitely hit the nail on the head.  You can be sure there was nasty conumdrums behind closed doors to have AI take such an about face on their commitment to end human rights abuses.  Furthermore, I often lament the fact that a child has to lose his/her life who is innocent of a crime.  Yet the rapist goes free…

And in response to Mr. Szyszkowicz, I know of an excellent organization doing great work with bright African girls from impoverished families helping them get a good education.  And the organization is in accord with Catholic teaching.  It’s called Harambee and the Canadian contact is in New Westminster, BC.

I’ve had 4 abortions when my birth control failed.  I’d have another if it happened again.  I searched for years for a Gyn that would perform a permanent method of sterilization on me and they simply refuse.  Is this what its come to?

Well, Claire, I find it hard to believe that you were able to find an abortionist so easily, yet couldn’t find a ob-gyn to provide a permanent method...unless you are quite young.  In which case, a ob-gyn will likely not perform the procedure in the event you may change your mind in the future.

If you’re not prepared to become a parent, perhaps you shouldn’t be sexually involved.  No method is 100% effective except abstinence.

I do’nt understand the position that Amnesty took about aborting. It is really out his mandate to support life.

Amnesty should withdraw this absurd decision.

What message is Amnesty now giving to those victims of rape who have survived? That they would be better off dead?
I have a friend, born with spina bifida. It outrages her that the severely disabled, as well as victims of rape and incest, are always in the ‘permissible to abort’ category whenever the question of abortion law is debated.

Francis Phillips said: “I have a friend, born with spina bifida. It outrages her that the severely disabled, as well as victims of rape and incest, are always in the ‘permissible to abort’ category whenever the question of abortion law is debated.”

Francis, why is your disabled friend angry?

She is angry because when this question of who to abort is debated, spina bifida is always in the ‘abort’ category (as is Down’s syndrome). That gives her the message that she is not a person worthy of life but a severe medical problem that must be eliminated.
Suppose medical science could detect Unitarians in the womb and decide they were in a similar category, would not you be angry on behalf of your unborn brethren? (This is of course an absurd scenario, but it makes the point).

I’m sorry, Francis, I misunderstood your post. I see what you mean.

By the way, if medical science could detect Unitarians in the womb the present government in America probably would abort them.