Only One Child May Live

Steven Mosher paints a horrifying picture of the grim reality of the "One Child" policy in China. As a U.S. State Department representative in Guangdong Province in 1980, Mosher witnessed first-hand the forced abortions of women who committed the "crime" of becoming pregnant for the second time.

Since then, Mosher has become president of the Population Research Institute, a pro-life educational organization "dedicated to protecting and defending human life, ending human rights abuses committed in the name of family planning, and dispelling the myth of overpopulation." PRI has documented the thousands of forced late-term abortions and millions of coerced sterilizations in China, with important implications for targeted population control measures in other developing countries.

According to Mosher, "Population control encourages domestic tyranny of a very personal and deadly sort." This is what happens when alarmist views of overpopulation are somehow translated into public policies that view people as pestilence. Rather than focus on the root issues of poverty through education and economic development, coercive population control measures seek to cure the "disease" by killing the patient.

Human Life Review Article

YouTube Video

Down Syndrome Babies: An Endangered Species?

Recent developments in genetic testing are revolutionizing the ability to test for a variety of genetic disorders in unborn babies. Before now, this required a difficult, painful, and potentially hazardous procedure called amniocentesis, ususally reserved for expectant mothers over the age of 35. Amniocentesis itself carries a 0.5% miscarriage rate, but it has been used to diagnose such conditions as Down Syndrome, Tay-Sachs Disease, Sickle Cell Anemia, or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.

Now there is a simple blood test, recommended for all pregnancies, that reduces the risk for moms, but may dramatically increase the number of genetic disorders diagnosed prenatally. If past history is any guide, this means that 90% of women whio are told their baby has Down Syndrome will choose to have an abortion (reference).

What will be the results of such selection? Well, for one thing, fewer babies with diabilities - and this has many parents who advocate for them rather worried:

A dwindling Down Syndrome population, which now stands at about 350,000, could mean less institutional support and reduced funds for medical research. It could also mean a lonelier world for those who remain (NY Times).

Parent advocates are worried that doctors don't know how to handle the genetic information they now so easily obtain with two blood tests and a sonogram. Many physicians agree -- the best way to share a genetic diagnosis is not: "Your baby is going to be mentally retarded, you should have a pregnancy termination."

This does not mean that the future will be easy for parents who decide to carry their diabled child. But parents of the disabled see the new form of testing as one more step towards a society that doesn't welcome any imperfections. Commentator George F. Will called it a "search and destroy mission" for the handicapped (Will has a grown son, Jon, with Down Syndrome). In complaining about the new recommendations, he adds:

What did Jon Will and the more than 350,000 American citizens like him do to tick off the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? It seems to want to help eliminate from America almost all of a category of citizens, a category that includes Jon (Newsweek).

Imagine a society where every one of us is genetically perfect, where none of us must strive for the small, daily steps of success that mark our physical, emotiojnal, and mental growth. I, for one, would not want to live there.

New York Times Article

More on the Supreme Court's Ruling

On April 19th, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a landmark decision. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the 2003 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act as constitutional. There is much to rejoice about, yet much remains to be done.

The Court has struck a balance between a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy and the "legitimate and substantial" federal interest to preserve fetal life. This balance was at the heart of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision of 1992.

Last week's decision is narrowly crafted to line up with Casey, and in no way signals an overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973). On the other hand, it signals a willingness on the part of the Court to consider federal restrictions on abortion for purely moral reasons. The fact that one option for terminating a pregnancy is no longer available does not significantly interfere with women's rights.

Both sides of the issue agree that this recent ruling will encourage states to craft more restrictions on abortion.

For more analysis, read the commentary by Wesley J. Smith.

Breaking News: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Upheld

By a narrow 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld a federal law banning the late-term abortion procedure called 'intact dilation and extraction,' better-known by the label 'partial-birth abortion.' This is a major victory for the pro-life cause.

Partial-birth abortion (as we have discussed in an earlier post), has been called by one author "constitutionally sanctioned homicide." Praise the Lord it is no longer sanctioned by law, nor by our courts!

This exciting news is an answer to prayer.


Boston Globe Article

Greeting Cards and Abortion

The latest in the abortion debate seems a bit bizarre. Exhale, a post-abortion counseling group, is now offering a variety of supportive E-cards to send to women who have recently undergone an abortion. The cards include attractive pictures of flowers or mountains. One version expresses the sentiment:

I think you're strong, smart, thoughtful, and caring. I believe in you and your ability to make the best decision. I think you did the right thing.

Another version:

There are no words to express my sympathy for your loss. As you grieve, remember that you are loved. I am thinking of you.

Which version should you send? I guess it depends on however the woman undergoing the abortion regards her actions. It does seem paradoxical to affirm abortion in one card, and yet see it as a great loss in another.

The Web site claims to be "non-judgmental." Links are provided to Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. I found no direct links to religious or pro-life resources.

Exhale Web site

Aborting the Less-Than-Perfect

During early fetal development, sometimes the esophagus fails to develop normally, a condition known as esophageal atresia. This happens once in about 3500 pregnancies, and doctors can frequently diagnose this condition by ultrasound prior to birth.

Except that sometimes the doctors are wrong.

In a teaching hospital in Florence, Italy, a woman had an abortion 22 weeks into her pregnancy. She chose this course after two separate ultrasound exams failed to detect the stomach, which the physicians interpreted as evidence for esophageal atresia. After the abortion, the baby was born alive, and doctors realized that he was perfectly normal. Weighting just 500 grams, the baby is now fighting for life in a pediatric intensive care unit. Due to a brain hemorrhage from the attempted abortion, the child is not expected to survive.

Dr. Joe DeCook, a pro-life colleague of mine, put it this way:

Doctors should be really careful when they assume God-like wisdom, and intrude into the realm of suggesting preemptive death as a treatment.

Granted, the hospital claims that their doctors advised the woman to seek further diagnostic tests, and she chose additional input from a private clinic. Yet the physicians should have told her two things:

• An ultrasound test can sometimes be misleading (as it was in this case)
• Even if present, a malformed esophgus can be surgically repaired, with a high likelihood of a normal life afterward.

Given the circumstances, the Vatican newspaper said that the child's life had been "thrown away."

Daily Telegraph article

Seeing These Calamities to Their End

January 21st was National Sanctity of Human Life Day. On this day, 34 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion for any reason. Our guest blogger this week is Murray Vasser, President of Cedarville Students for Life.

In 1783 the slave trade dominated the world’s economy and was deeply entrenched in a morally oblivious society. No one suspected that one of the most influential lobbying powers in Britain was about to be overthrown by a twenty-five-year-old divinity student. As part of an academic literary competition, Thomas Clarkson wrote an essay on the slave trade. As he studied slavery, he became consumed with the horror of it: "In the night I had little rest. I sometimes never closed my eye-lids for grief." On his way to London, this struggle reached a climax: "I sat down disconsolate on the turf by the roadside and held my horse. Here a thought came into my mind, that if the contents of the Essay were true it was time some person should see these calamities to their end."

With that resolution, Clarkson and a small group of friends started a movement that changed the world. By distributing pamphlets, signing petitions, and lobbying Parliament, they awoke a nation’s conscience. In 1807 the slave trade was abolished.

Today we live in a society where 1 out of 4 pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion, resulting in more American deaths each year than in all past military conflicts combined. Cedarville Students for Life is an organization committed to "seeing these calamities to their end." Join us on Thursday, February 1st @ 7:00 in ENS 245 to hear Mrs. Paula Westwood, director of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. She will be speaking on student activism.

If you wish to join Students for Life, or would like more information, the E-mail address is: studentsforlife@cedarville.edu

The Year in Review

As we enter the new year, a look back at 2006 may give us perspective. Unfortunately, this has not been a particularly good year for the notion that human beings have inherent value. In fact, human personhood as a concept took a downward turn, replaced by a disturbing 'end justifies the means' mentality. A few examples may serve to illustrate.

The beginning of 2006 saw the public discrediting of Hwang Woo-suk, the stem-cell researcher and media darling. In 2005 he became famous as the first to clone a human embryo to produce stem cells, with their supposed promise of curing a variety of human ailments. When it turned out that Hwang had largely fabricated his results, he was fired, and he now faces a variety of criminal charges.

Yet according to Fortune Magazine, "far from discrediting the field of stem-cell research, the scandal has juiced up the race for cloning patents . . ." In California, and most recently in Missouri, stem cell research has received legal protections and large infusions of public money. Much of the excitement about embryo-destructive research is based on hype and misinformation.

In other news from 2006, the recent approval of over-the-counter sales of Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill," ignores the real possibility that this so-called pregnancy preventative may sometimes cause an early abortion. See my earlier post on this. I have also discussed both of the above stories in recent editions of the CedarEthics Podcast.

Finally, November 8th saw oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in two cases involving the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. Three lower courts have decided that the law does not pass constitutional muster. Partial-birth abortion, morally indistinguishable from outright infanticide, will be the most important issue of the new year, with a court decision due next summer (news article).

In the past year, a vague notion of human dignity was often trumped by utilitarian considerations, making it easy to sacrifice less visible human lives for the "greater good." May God help us in 2007 to reverse this trend.

Reality Check for Plan B

It's about time, claims bioethicist Arthur Caplan. In a recent commentary on MSNBC, Dr. Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, lauds the recent decision to make emergency contraception (also known as Plan B or the "morning-after pill") available without a prescription. After all, he goes on, preventing pregnancy is better than abortion. Isn't that what both sides want?

Well, it depends. For one thing, it depends on how you define pregnancy. Science has traditionally taught that pregnancy begins with fertilization, the union of sperm and egg in the reproductive tract of a woman. Except that such a definition of pregnancy has become inconvenient lately. For a number of reasons, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists now describes pregnancy as "beginning with the successful implantation of a fertilized egg."

Human life begins at conception, but it takes six days for a new embryo to travel down the Fallopian tube to implant in a woman's womb - long enough for the powerful dose of progestin in Plan B to interfere. In other words, at least part of the time Plan B causes an early abortion.

Supporters of abortion rights have long claimed that widespread availability of Plan B would reduce the number of abortions overall, but a disturbing report from Great Britain indicates otherwise. Plan B has been available without prescription in the U.K. for many years. Yet between 2001 and the present, the number of abortions has actually increased (from 186,000 to 194,000). With full over-the-counter approval of Plan B by the FDA two months ago, such a pattern will likely be repeated in the U.S.

Abortion centers are endorsing a pill that does not live up to its promise of providing an "easy fix" for unplanned sexual activity. In this way, they offer false hope, and may actually increase the numbers of abortions in the process.

Oh, by the way, last year Planned Parenthood made $25 million in profits on Plan B.


Arthur Caplan's commentary is available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14398371/
For more about the U.K. experience with Plan B:
http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0042078.cfm

A 'Genetic Outlaw' Speaks Out

A law professor in Minneapolis has recently become an "outlaw" in the eyes of some. Her crime? She chose not to have an abortion when she received a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. Elizabeth Schiltz had her baby anyway, and writes about her experience in Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics (2006, Spinifex Press). She also tells of other women who have faced severe pressure to abort because they were carrying a less-than-perfect baby.

Modern technologies have created a crisis of too much information. From the older methods of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling, to more recent techniques for preimplantation genetic screening of embryos, women have more reasons not to have their babies than ever before. It is well known that almost 50% of fertility centers now permit screening of embryos for gender, with the “wrong” sex discarded. Many centers are able to eliminate the carriers of certain genetic traits, some of which have little or nothing to do with disease.

Primplantation genetic diagnosis, or its modern cousin, preimplantation genetic haplotyping, can now screen embryos for 6,000 different diseases. This has led Professor Schiltz to remark, “I can't help but see 6,000 new reasons that parents will be branded as sinners or made to feel socially irresponsible for bringing their children into this world.”

What the eminently quotable James Russell Lowell has said about mishaps is surely true of modern biotechnologies: they are like knives that either serve us or cut us, as we grasp them by the blade or by the handle. The ultimate victim of all this will be human nature, sacrificed on the altar of our desire for perfection.

For more about Elizabeth Schiltz: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060720_148057.htm