The Most Dangerous Place on Earth

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta was highly respected and admired during her lifetime, and more so after her death. There was hardly a ripple of dissent when Pope John Paul II beatified her in October 2003.

The humble nun who dedicated her life to working in the slums of Calcutta was globally regarded as a modern saint and prophet. She was a moral tour de force. People all over the world were eager to meet and talk to her and volunteer for her many charitable projects.

Yet, when Mother Teresa declared that “the womb (was) the most dangerous place on earth”, she was vilified. At the UN sponsored International Conference on population and development held in Cairo, Egypt, in September 1994, delegates denounced Mother Teresa’s ideas as naïve and archaic.

Despite the waves of criticism, Mother Teresa dared to call a spade a spade. She said abortion was the outright killing of children, even as she pleaded for mothers considering abortion to give up their babies for adoption instead. She and her missionaries of charity stood willing and ready to care for any unwanted child.

In a society that has veered away from the common good in favor of individual interest and individual rights, it is understandable that Mother Teresa’s defense of the unborn child over that of the mother’s “reproductive rights” were met with disdain by Planned Parenthood advocates and sectors of the ultra feminist movement.

Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood, championed the option of any woman to kill her unborn child, euphemistically arguing that a woman's decision or choice took precedence over the right of her unborn child to live. Over five decades, she methodically pushed her ideas on eugenics and abortion. Eventually the "pro-choice" position became acceptable.

Today, Sanger's ideas are imbedded in the Democratic Party agenda and espoused by feminist politicians, such as Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barbara Boxer. Even a knowledgeable senator as Barach Obama, who should be aware of Sanger's open disdain for black children, has supported and defended the Democratic Party's platform on abortion.

You would think that with the advent of modern imaging devices, such as 3-D ultrasound, the debate would be moot. Modern scientific instruments can now visualize the fetus accurately so that parents can be informed of the sex of their unborn child. Congenital anomalies, such as diaphragmatic hernia and polycystic kidneys, are now so much easier to diagnose so that therapeutic interventions can be carried out even in utero by Fetal Pediatric surgeons.

Ultrasound imaging can now confirm a beating heart as early as 6 weeks into the pregnancy. An anatomical profile or outline of the baby is seen at 11 weeks of gestation. The neural tube which evolves into the brain and spinal cord can be detected in the first few weeks of pregnancy. The nervous system is developed well enough in intrauterine life that scientists claim that unborn children experience pain and suffer when aborted.

Terminating a pregnancy may merely be a psychologically traumatic event for the mother, but abortion is cruel and unusual punishment for the baby who is literally tortured to death.

I find it ironic that the people who are such staunch defenders of abortion, raise hell when dolphins are caught in fishing nets, or when chicken are slaughtered with minimal sedation. They protest when lower forms of life are threatened by new road or housing construction, or when rare trees are cut down. If these individuals are so concerned about animal rights, and the welfare of insects and trees, why are they not concerned at all about the rights of the unborn, defenseless child?

We would cringe if an individual cut off a viable finger, yet why are we not equally horrified at the prospect of a mother having a living part of her body (or more accurately, a living person inside her womb) extracted, disposed of, and wasted?

Sanger and her disciples have sold us the big lie. They have methodically persuaded society that the right of the mother supersedes that of her unborn child, that any woman has the right to kill her unborn baby.

Finding ourselves engulfed in what Pope John Paul II called “the culture of death”, it helps to listen to what the Church, based on Scripture and tradition, teaches: “The right to life is no less to be respected in the small infant just born than in the mature person. In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already.” (Vatican Council II, Vol. 2).

While teaching about the error of abortion, the church also recognizes that “decisions that go against life sometimes arise from difficult or even tragic situations of profound suffering, loneliness, a total lack of economic prospects, depression, and anxiety about the future”. Addressing mothers who have undergone abortion, the church understands that “the wound in your heart may not yet have healed. …do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. …The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace….you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.” (Pope John Paul II, “The Gospel of Life”, 1995)

Reference: Kevin D. O'Rourke, O.P, & Philip Boyle, Ph.D., Medical Ethics: Sources of Catholic Teachings (3rd Ed), Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.

Reader Opinions
Malcolm Wells • shfwells@bellsouth.net
MAR 31 • It is just my humble opinion but why would any filipina ever vote for and elect mrs clinton to the office of president of the US why not just invite Gloria over here to be the president they have equal experience and regards for human life
Betsy Chiongbian
MAR 21 • What amazes me, Ed, is that I know so many Filipinos in the US who are registered Democrats/vote Democrats and are unaware of their party platform -- particularly the Democrats 'pro-abortion' platform.

A matter of consequence

In the frenzied campaign for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations, it can be difficult to separate the weeds from the wheat.

The two remaining Democrats are history makers -- Senator Barach Obama could be the first African-American occupant of the White House, while Senator Hillary Clinton could be the first woman president. On the Republican side, Senator John McCain is a genuine American hero, having proved his mettle as a prisoner of war at Hanoi Hilton for five years, two and a half in solitary confinement. Governor Mike Huckabee is a staunch conservative gifted with a refreshing sense of humor, and of history.

The United States, at this particular period in its 232-year history, is faced with serious issues -- the global threat of terror from Jihadists, a resurgent arms race from Putin’s Russia, the economic ascendancy of a China which trivializes human rights, AIDS epidemic and genocides in Africa and many other problems competing for supremacy on the world stage. On the domestic front, recession looms large as the housing industry takes a nosedive; the nation is polarized on the war in Iraq, on ways to solve the health care crisis, on the issue of illegal immigration, on education access, etc.

It almost seems irrelevant to consider the abortion issue and how the presidential contenders stand on the matter. Why worry about reproduction rights and Roe v. Wade, if the next president of the United States will have to contend with matters of more serious consequences?

The New York Times publicizes what is well known. Democrats Clinton and Obama are on the pro-abortion or pro-choice side. Republican Senator McCain, Gov. Huckabee, and Congressman Ron Paul (who is an Ob-Gyn physician) are on the pro-life side. Furthermore, pro-life McCain is pro war, while pro-abortion Obama is anti-war. Clinton is staunchly pro-abortion but is backtracking on her original support of the war in Iraq.

Should the views of presidential contenders on the subject of abortion really matter? They do because, for the most part, their position, and how they regard the most vulnerable and defenseless members of human society, are reflective of their moral philosophy.

“The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion”, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta pointed out. If we dismiss the sanctity of life as an irrelevant issue, then we allow a woman by the name of Margaret Higgins Sanger to cast a deceptive veil over our collective eyes.

Born in 1879 in Corning, New York, Margaret Higgins was the sixth of eleven children of an agnostic father and a Catholic mother. After her mother’s death, she attended practical nursing school, and in 1902 married architect William Sanger. Separated from her husband in 1913, she started a career in political activism that spanned half a century. Via a monthly newsletter, called the Woman Rebel , with the motto: “No Gods, No Masters”, Sanger incessantly advocated birth control, encouraging women to take “complete control of their reproductive functions”.

In October 1916, Sanger opened the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, New York. In 1917, she founded the Birth Control Review, touting the benefit of eugenics “to create a race of thoroughbreds” because “the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit’ (is) the greatest present menace to civilization”.

In the 1920s, the idea of contraception and eugenics was anathema across all segments of society. It was widely opposed by the Catholic and Protestant churches, by Congress, by the Judiciary, by the medical profession, by the media, etc. Unfazed, Sanger set out to break the opposition methodically.

In 1926, Sanger fought to amend section 211 of the U.S. criminal code to allow for the transport and mailing of contraceptives among drug manufacturers, pharmacists, and physicians. She gathered a core group of congressional representatives and senators to push for birth control legislation. Blaming Catholics for blocking her legislative efforts, she encouraged her readers to be single-issue voters: “ Make your political interest this year a vote for the man who will support Birth Control Legislation”.

Ironically, Planned Parenthood, which Sanger later founded, is quick to dismiss pro-lifers as single-issue voters.

Opposed not only by the Catholic Church, but also by the American Federation of Labor, the American Medical Association, and other well-respected institutions, Sanger cleverly shifted the debate on birth control from morality to medicine, arguing that limiting families promoted health and well-being. Meeting resistance in Congress, she focused on judicial legislation where her arguments found receptive judges, particularly when the debate bore down on the constitutional right of the mother versus that of her unborn child.

To counter the impression that her eugenics-inspired movement aimed to limit the growth of the Afro-American population, a National Negro Advisory Council was created. Drafting “Suggestions for Negro Project” in 1939, Dr. Clarence Gamble, heir of Procter and Gamble company, strategized with Sanger to make birth control acceptable in black communities. When eugenics became associated with Nazi Germany, Planned Parenthood quickly dropped the discredited term.

Sanger achieved maximum success when First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt endorsed her ideas

as later enshrined in the agenda of Planned Parenthood. Traditionally, Christianity regards children as God’s blessings, as gifts for the family. Sanger and Planned Parenthood regard them instead as harmful to a woman’s health and detrimental to the family’s financial status. While Christianity considers the unborn to be a human being created in God’s image and likeness, Planned Parenthood views the fetus as a nuisance.

As Sanger’s movement gained national prominence, corporations such as American Airlines, American Express, Bank of New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon, etc. became regular financial contributors. The New York Times, The New York Post, CBS remain stalwart supporters. So is the Rockefeller Foundation.

In effect, according to statistics gathered by the Guttmacher Institute (an affiliate of Planned Parenthood), 1,200,000 babies are aborted each year in the United States. A total of over 49 million abortions have been carried out from 1973 to 2007.

This is not an insignificant nor irrelevant matter.

Reference: Robert Marshall and Charles Donovan. Blessed Are The Barren: The Social Policy of Planned Parenthood. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1991.