Nobody questions why non-religious persons fight drug abuse, drunk-driving, rape, poverty, crime, etc. Why should fighting abortion be viewed so differently?

Some people think that unless you believe in God, or more specifically, a God that will punish you in Hell if you do something wrong, then you cannot be made to behave. They apparently believe that atheists must be criminals.

Yet, many non-religious people actively fight crime, violence, and "wrongdoing" for many reasons. We believe in fairness and justice, protection of people's rights, lives and property. Heck, we even register to vote and try to pass laws to govern the behavior of other citizens! I am living proof that a belief in God or religion is not necessary for a person to become involved in the fight against abortion.

In fact, one thing that both the abortion industry and the pro-life movement agree on is that public ignorance about fetal development, abortion methodology and post-abortion complications is necessary if abortion is to remain legal. Ironically, the religious orientation of most pro-lifers may act as the major factor preventing education from taking place.

Faith and Trust

Once upon a time, I was a "pro-choice" woman. I believed in many mythical things back then: that sex could be "free" from any committments or consequences, that legalized abortion was "safe", that "control" over female reproductive functions would lead to equal rights for women. But the myth I held to most dearly was that opposition to abortion was merely religious.

Since I had allowed my first child to be killed by abortion, I wanted to be reassured that I had nothing to feel ashamed or guilty about. Certain women's groups comforted me by calling abortion a woman's "right" - merely a medical procedure. I would literally hold my breath whenever abortion was the topic on television, waiting for religion to be mentioned. The media never let me down. Abortionists angrily complained about the trauma experienced by patients because of pro-life picketers. Abortion-rights activists harassed preachers who spoke up against abortion, accusing them of being insensitive to women.

In a sense I was being repeatedly promised the same thing: as long as I avoided pro-lifers or religion, I would not suffer any post-abortion regrets or grief. I faithfully followed this advice for a decade. As an atheist, I was confident that condemnation of abortion by religious leaders would never bother me.

I gained so much confidence that I could even bring up abortion in conversation or joke about it. I mouthed "pro-choice" slogans as if they were proven truths. What little information about abortion that filtered through my defenses I assumed was propaganda dreamed up by religious fanatics who would even stoop to lying. I perceived the truth about abortion to exist somewhere between bad enough to be a little upsetting (messy, blood) but not so bad as to warrant further investigation. I placed such faith and trust in the providers and defenders of abortion; I believed they were there to help women, to protect women. I was totally unprepared when reality hit.

Seeing The Light

Believing that the fetus was just a "blob of tissue", that pro-lifers were lying about how developed aborted fetuses are, I had no reason to avoid information from sources that were not "anti-abortion". I learned about fetal development when my other children were born. I experienced nightmares, crying spells and suicidal thoughts. I knew these were not caused by the activities or words of pro-lifers or preachers. Was I supposed to be upset with sonogram technicians or childbirth instructors for educating me?

Still, I tried to defend abortion somehow. I didn't want to be called a "right-to-lifer". I fell back on the "choice" slogans about child abuse, rape, women's rights... but could not find any real evidence to back up their assumptions. I even contacted "pro-choice" groups to ask questions. It was made very clear to me that my support of the abortion industry was supposed to be "no questions asked!" They had no answers.

As an atheist, one of the most ironic discoveries I made when I became pro-life was the cultist nature of the followers of choice. To a skeptic like myself, the "pro-choice" movement started to look frighteningly fundamentalist. I started asking questions and was "answered" with slogans.

Dissatisfied with slogans, I continued asking questions and was accused of being "anti-choice". To question was taboo; information from pro-lifers was "heresy", and I had become a "heretic".

Non-Religious Rationale

Two major differences between atheists and religious persons are their philosphies regarding the origin of the universe and what happens after death. If you examine the atheist's beliefs, it is easy to understand why they could or should oppose abortion.

Atheists do not believe that the universe was created; they believe that the universe evolved, rather than being planned. "Choicists" believe that "unplanned" life is not worthy of protection. Furthermore, they believe that unplanned-for-lives are doomed to unhappiness, violence, and abuse.

Evidence that humanity has suffered unhappiness, abuse, and violence is easy to find in any history book or just by looking around you now. If the "every child a wanted child" (and if not wanted, destroyed) "prescription" for "curing" child abuse were applied to the whole violent, unplanned universe... well, that sort of "logic" leads directly to advocating for the destruction of the entire human race!

in fact, it doesn't take genius (just honesty) to acknowledge that this sort of reasoning is already being employed in targeting certain groups of humans for reduction or elimination (for their own good, of course, to ease their suffering). Does violence exist because the universe is a bastard, without even a "biological", let alone spiritual "father"? The theory of evolution and the unplanned pregnancy equals child abuse theory clash with each other.

Examining afterlife philosophies reveals more inconsistencies between "choicism" and atheism. Religious persons generally believe in life after death either in a heaven or via reincarnation; non-religious persons generally believe in the finality of death or a kind of non-religious reincarnation.

For the atheist who believes that when you die, your life is over, period, the taking of an unborn human's life should be a very serious matter. There will be no comforting of this being by a heavenly father, angels, or relatives after a torturous death; there will be no mere reincarnational transfer.

Thousands of times each day unique, never-to-be-again, individual beings have their one and only chance at life terminated without even a trace of "due process".

Unfortunately, many pro-life individuals are keeping the link between religion and opposition to abortion the primary focus in the debate. For some religious pro-lifers, employing non-religious arguments against abortion is sacrilegious. Not only do they see abortion as a sin, but failing to make reference to religion with each pro-life effort is sinful.

They are upset and afraid of the idea of atheist or agnostic pro-lifers. They answer questions with scripture regardless of their audience. They pray at pro-life pickets and meetings. In short, they fit the negative, stereotypical way that all pro-lifers are portrayed: as religious zealots trying to "impose morality", mindless puppets directed by pro-life preachers.

Some religious pro-lifers simply need more information. They would use the medical, legal, and scientific facts to argue against abortion, if they knew them. Lacking this information, they are not confident discussing abortion. They worry that issues such as child abuse, rape, and "back-alley butchers" will be brought up. They have not yet heard the well-researched, logical explanations that disprove the popular "pro-choice" reasons for "needing" to keep abortion legal.

I hope to educate others about the facts, confident that they will then oppose legalized contract killing of the unborn once they know the truth. I do not try to "impose morality".

The cold reality is that abortionists are prenatal hitmen, employed to impose morality on innocent unborn humans.

Reflections on Catholic Politicians and Abortion

As a national association whose mission is to strengthen the clergy in their preaching and teaching about abortion, we feel obliged in this election season, in which abortion continues to be a hotly debated issue, to echo the recent teaching of our bishops on the relationship between the Church's mission and public policy on this topic.

The Church speaks, and will continue to speak, on the issue of abortion and clearly call for public policies that limit and eventually eradicate this practice. This message is not simply the result of religious beliefs, but of American ideals. As the United States bishops wrote in November of 1998,

Furthermore, we as Catholic priests refuse to be intimidated when, in carrying out our duty to proclaim the Gospel, we are charged with "meddling in politics." We do not endorse candidates or political parties. We do, however, challenge all in political life to reject the violence of abortion. Politics is not an arena which can absolve itself of responsibility to moral laws; nor can the Church absolve herself of the responsibility to teach those laws.

A further concern arises when those holding or seeking elected office take a "pro-choice" position and also proclaim themselves to be Catholics.

No law says you have to be Catholic. But if you publicly declare that you are, don't be surprised if someone criticizes inconsistencies between your public positions and the teachings of the Church.

We repeat the words of the United States bishops:

Priests for Life will continue to echo this teaching, particularly in the months ahead, and will continue to be a resource for the clergy to address the abortion issue with vigor, clarity, and confidence.

Fr. Frank Pavone

National Director

Priests for Life

 

Priests for Life
PO Box 141172
Staten Island, NY 10314
Tel. 888-PFL-3448, (718) 980-4400
Fax 718-980-6515
Email mail@priestsforlife.org

Subscribe to Fr. Frank's bi-weekly prolife column (free): subscribe@priestsforlife.org 

Click here to See What Abortion Looks Like!

Home
Search  || Crisis Pregnancy Help || About Us ll Support our Work
Latest News  || Guestbook || About Other Groups ll Online Store

This site is updated daily!

A Libertarian Atheist Answers 'Pro-Choice Catholics'

by Doris Gordon

Many who say they are personally opposed to abortion nonetheless support keeping abortion legal. Such a stance is often taken in the Catholic community, particularly by Catholics in politics. An example is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Calling herself "pro-choice," she said that as a Catholic she believes "what Catholics believe on abortion," and asked, "[I]s it right for government to force Catholic beliefs on every other faith?" (The Detroit News, 9/10/02).

Interesting question. To ask it is to concede that the political arena is about forcing beliefs on others by law. Government is not a think tank that makes political-policy suggestions. Government is force. The power of the sword is implicit in all laws, just or unjust. How are politicians going to use that power?

Abortion isn't a victimless-crime debate; to abort a child isn't like smoking pot. The reason I and others object to abortion is that we find it to be homicide (the killing of one human being by another). The proper use of government force is to oppose killing the innocent, not to encourage it, as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, by legalizing and protecting its practice.

People show severe intellectual problems in saying both that they believe what the Church believes and that they would deny preborn children legal protection. The Church holds that such children are human persons with rights, yet the "personally opposed" hold that it should be a woman's choice to destroy them. If there is a credible reason for such a position, what is it?

I'm not Catholic

Opposition to legal abortion cuts across the religious and political spectrum. I'm an atheist. I was born and raised Jewish. Catholicism had nothing to do with my coming to understand why abortion is a wrong, not a right, and why it should not be legal.

I'm a longtime libertarian and participant in abortion debates among libertarians. Libertarianism is pro-choice -- except when it's a choice to victimize others and violate their rights. I used to think abortion is permissible, thanks to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. But ironically, I became pro-life and founded Libertarians for Life (LFL) because of Rand and her onetime closest associate, Nathaniel Branden, both atheists.

(See my articles, "How I Became Pro-Life: Remarks on Abortion, Parental Obligation, and the Draft" -- www.L4L.org/library/congrecord.html; and "Introduction" -- www.L4L.org/library/intro.html.)

What about the substance of the abortion debate?

Many libertarians are religious. However, in arguing politics, we normally appeal to ordinary reason, not religious faith. In abortion, what's central is: When do human beings -- human persons with rights -- begin? The marker event can't be derived from libertarian philosophy; it just takes the concepts of human being, person, and rights as a given. Its basic premise is that all of our rights are limited by the obligation not to violate the rights of others.

To arrive at the correct marker, we need the correct scientific facts of human embryology. That a new human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, begins at fertilization is well recognized. (See: Dianne N. Irving, "When Do Human Beings Begin?: `Scientific' Myths and Scientific Facts" -- www.L4L.org/library/mythfact.html.)

One doesn't have to be pro-life to accept that this is correct science. Alan Guttmacher, M.D., was a president of Planned Parenthood. PP's research arm, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, was named after him. In his 1933 book Life in the Making, he wrote: "We of today know that man is born of sexual union; that he starts life as an embryo within the body of the female; and that the embryo is formed from the fusion of two single cells, the ovum and the sperm. This all seems so simple and evident to us that it is difficult to picture a time when it was not part of the common knowledge."

There are also philosophical questions to answer, such as: What's the marker for when a person with rights begins? LFL shows why it's fertilization, and why the right to control one's own body is a limited right. (See: Doris Gordon, "Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly" -- www.l4l.org/library/abor-rts.html; and the sections in the Library on www.L4L.org, "On the Onset of Personhood and Rights" and "On Parental Obligation and Children's Rights".)

In those articles, LFL shows why the support children receive from their parents is theirs by right. Both parents owe them protection from harm, whether they are living in a crib, the mother's body, or in a petri dish. (What about rape? See: John Walker, "Abortion in the Case of Pregnancy Due to Rape" -- l4l.org/library/aborrape.html.)

Roe v. Wade and the ACLU

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court announced itself unable to answer "the difficult question of when life begins." It should have given the benefit of its uncertainty to life. Instead, it arbitrarily ruled that to be a person legally, we must be born.

In effect, Roe trashed the ethical principle of equal unalienable rights as set forth in The Declaration of Independence -- and imposed a two-tiered legal policy on human beings that defines a superior class as persons with rights and an inferior class that does not count. Such a double standard is not only unlibertarian, it puts all of us on a slippery slope. Yet to this day, the Court is unwilling to confront either philosophy or correct human embryology.

Our unalienable rights are pre-political. As Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said on C-Span: "We don't need the Ninth Amendment or the Constitution to have rights; we have rights by virtue of the fact we are human beings." I agree. The Declaration of Independence holds that everyone is created -- not born -- equal and "endowed by their Creator" -- not the government -- with certain unalienable rights, among which are life and liberty, and that the purpose of government is to secure these rights.

Strossen and the ACLU favor legal abortion, so on a later occasion I asked her, "If having rights is pre-legal, then why not also our personhood, from which our rights flow?" Usually a font of information, this time she only noted that we disagree. At another time, she admitted to me that the ACLU had no prepared response to the charge that abortion is homicide.

Why is Catholicism opposed to abortion?

Let's get back to what's Catholic. In order to judge the Catholic belief on abortion, one must first know what it is. I consider Fr. Frank Pavone, Founding Director of Priests for Life, to be a reliable source of information. I asked him some questions:

Q: Are there any statements in papal encyclicals against abortion that are inextricably religious? If so, what is their impact on the conclusion that abortion is wrong?

Fr. Pavone: "Yes. The key document, of course, is Pope John Paul II's encyclical The Gospel of Life. One of the specifically religious arguments against abortion found there is from the Incarnation. God, in other words, became human in Christ, and thereby united every human life -- including life in the womb -- to Himself. The Pope therefore concludes that to attack a single human life is, in some way, to attack God Himself.

"The impact this has on the conclusion that abortion is wrong is simply that for believers it gives another motive for the conclusion, and strengthens their awareness that they cannot be `pro-choice believers.' At the same time, as you know, the Catholic Church holds that one can come to the conclusion that abortion is wrong without having any faith at all."

Q: Do these encyclicals say anything against the legalization of abortion?

Fr. Pavone: "Yes, The Gospel of Life states that no civil authority has the right to legitimize abortion, and that if it tries, such laws lack all authentic juridic validity. Yet the Church does not reach that conclusion based on the religious arguments against abortion, but rather based on the fact that abortion violates fundamental human rights which any government is bound to protect. The Church sees her call for laws against abortion in the same way as for laws against stealing. Though stealing is against the teachings of Catholicism, the non-believer is not free to say, `Since I am not Catholic, I may steal.'"

Sounds sensible to me. When faith and reason arrive at the same position, that's a strong recommendation for it. But if others learned in Catholicism have counter arguments, I'd like to hear them.

A challenge

When people argue and agreement seems elusive, they often ask, "Who should decide?" Ayn Rand gave a great answer: "Whoever can prove it." Intellectually, both sides have the burden of proof. Read the encyclicals. Read Libertarians for Life's perspective. Read those who insist that abortion is a permissible choice. Then ask which side of the abortion debate best addresses the fundamental questions and which side makes the strongest case.

What if you're still in doubt? Give the benefit of the doubt to life.

__________________________________________

Libertarians for Life's literature and speakers are available to explain and defend why we oppose abortion. Our reasoning is expressly philosophical and scientific — rather than either religious or pragmatic.

Doris Gordon
Libertarians for Life
Website - http://www.l4l.org
email - libertarian@erols.com

Contact:  Libertarians for Life
http://www.L4L.org  MD, US
Doris Gordon - Founder, 301-460-4141
Keywords:  Pro-Life

By Father William Saunders

Sometimes I meet Catholics who say, "I am personally against abortion, but I am pro-choice." To me, that makes no sense, but how can I argue with them? -- A reader in Springfield

The pro-abortion movement has made great gains using the "pro-choice" label. First, the "pro-choice" label numbs our moral sensitivity because it masks the fact that anyone really is for abortion and diverts our attention from the act itself. Secondly, the idea of being "pro-choice" seems to appeal to Americans who cherish freedom and the idea of being free to choose rather than being forced to do anything.

In arguing against this "pro-choice" position, one must first focus on the heart of the choice—a child. Proceeding from a purely scientific approach, we know that when conception occurs, a new and unique human being is created. The DNA genetic code attests to this uniqueness. (Why has DNA coding become so important in identifying criminals?) Moreover, from that moment of conception, the child continues to develop and grow; the child is born, matures to adolescence and then adulthood, and eventually dies.

Note, though, that this is the same person who was conceived: all that has been added is nourishment, time and hopefully a lot of love. Therefore, our Church teaches that
 

"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" (Declaration on Procured Abortion, No. 12, 1974).

Moving beyond science to the level of faith, we also believe that almighty God creates and infuses a unique and immortal soul into that body. This soul—our spiritual principle—is what gives each person that identity of being made in God’s image and likeness (Cf. <Catechism of the Catholic Church>, No. 363-368). Even if there were some doubt that God infused the soul at conception or some doubt that the conceived child were truly a person,
 

"it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder. ‘The one who will be a man is already one’" (Declaration, No. 13).

We find in sacred Scripture testimony to the sanctity of life in the womb:

The Lord said to the mother of Sampson,
 

"As for the son you will conceive and bear, no razor shall touch his head, for this boy is to be consecrated to God from the womb" (Jgs 13:5).

Job said,
 

"Did not He who made me in the womb make him? Did not the same One fashion us before our birth?" (Job 31:15).

In Psalm 139:13 we pray,
 

"Truly You have formed my inmost being; You knit me in my mother’s womb."

The Lord spoke to Jeremiah,
 

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you" (Jer 1:5).

For Christians, the sanctity of life in the womb and the belief that this truly is a person is further corroborated by the Incarnation: Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, the true God, entered this world becoming also true man. Even though Jesus was still in the womb of His blessed mother, St. Elizabeth and St. John the Baptist (who was also in the womb) rejoiced at the presence of the Lord. Would anyone dare suggest Jesus was not a person in the womb of His mother? Little wonder that the Didache (The teachings of the Twelve Apostles) -- the first manual of doctrine, liturgical laws and morals, written about the year 80 AD—we find the moral prohibition,
 

"You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."

Given that the heart of the choice involves a unique, human person, the choice of action becomes clear: to preserve and safeguard the life of this person in the womb or to destroy it. Since this is a person, the latter choice does not involve simply a termination of a pregnancy or the removal of a fetus; rather, the latter choice involves a direct killing of an innocent person, a deliberate murder. Therefore, the act of abortion is an intrinsically evil act. The Second Vatican Council asserted,
 

"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes" ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 51).

We do not have the right to choose evil, no matter what the circumstances are or even if some sort of "good" may arise. To purposefully choose to do evil is an affront to God Himself, in whose image and likeness we are made. Here it is not as though one is choosing between two good actions; instead, one is defending the sanctity of human life in the face of evil. To say one is "pro-choice" in this matter is no different from saying one is "pro- choice" for apartheid, Nazi concentration camps or Jim Crow segregation laws—"I am personally against it, but everyone should choose."

Pope John Paul II said,

"Anyone can see that the alternative here is only apparent. It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment, ‘Do not kill!’" (<Crossing the Threshold of Hope>, p. 205).

In those difficult, tragic situations—rape and incest (which result in conception at best 2 percent of the time, depending upon which set of statistics one looks at), a young teenage pregnant mother, or a deformed or handicapped child—we must remember the child is still an innocent human being who through no fault of his own was conceived. Here, sharing in the cross of our Lord becomes a reality without question. In these cases, we as members of the Church must support both the mother and the child through our prayers and by opening our hearts, homes and wallets to their needs. We must make the sacrifice to preserve human life.

Fr. Saunders is president of Notre Dame Institute and associate pastor of Queen of Apostles Parish, both in Alexandria. This article appeared in the January 19, 1995 issue of "The Arlington Catholic Herald."

Courtesy of the "Arlington Catholic Herald" diocesan newspaper of the Arlington (VA) diocese. For subscription information, call 1-800-377-0511 or write 200 North Glebe Road, Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22203.

Mommy keep me safe,
Mommy keep me warm,
Handle me with all your love,
Mommy keep me from harm.

I'm only six weeks old today,
This birthday gift to me,
A pair of bright blue eyes,
That someday you will see.
I've barely got ears,
A little puppy nose,
and at the end of my feet,
Little things called toes.
Looking forward to my life,
toys, teddy bears, snails,
and long fairy tales.

Where are we going mommy,
in a bath, on a bus ride or,
perhaps far away.
Where are we going being pushed
at all force.
How funny it feels passing through
doors,
people dressed in green,
if they hurt you mommy just scream.

What's happening mommy,
I'm starting to cry,
Mommy come quickly,
they're making me die,
Killing me slowly,
Pulling me apart,
everything inside of me
even my heart,
Bye mommy, good-bye
But how I wanted to see
the grass, the trees,
hear a sweet song,
feel a sweet breeze.

Bye mommy
good-bye
I love you
I really do
.
.
.
.
I just wish you could have loved me too.

No, it's not a choice,

it is a baby!

Body Parts for Sale - Fetal Harvesting

By Mona Charen - Nationally Syndicated Columnist

"Kelly" (a pseudonym) was a medical technician working for a firm that trafficked in baby body parts. This is not a bad joke. Nor is it the hysterical propaganda of an interest group. It was reported in The American Enterprise magazine -- the intelligent, thought-provoking and utterly trustworthy publication of the American Enterprise Institute.

The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain "high-quality" parts for sale.

They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains and thymuses, among other things.

"What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts.

We only wanted the most perfect specimens." That didn't turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities.

About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old -- well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company -- Opening Lines Inc. -- disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: "Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful."

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it."

Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An "intact trunk" fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to "perform the harvesting," as well as to "offset [the] clinic's overhead."

Opening Lines further boasted, "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States."

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, "a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, 'Got you some good specimens -- twins.'

I looked at him and said: 'There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this."

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. "It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead."

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. "Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure.

The (abortionist) would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating."

The magazine pressed Kelly again: Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby?

"Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens."

Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn't like voluntary organ donation.

This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.

More on this story . . .

U.S. House Votes to Hold Hearings on Trafficking of Baby Bodies and Organs:

On Tuesday, November 12, 1999, the U.S. House passed HR 350 on a voice vote. The resolution, offered by Representatives Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Joe Pitts, expresses a sense of the House of Representatives with respect to private companies involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit. It directs the Congress to exercise oversight responsibilities and conduct hearings and take appropriate steps if necessary, concerning private companies that are involved in the trafficking of baby body parts for profit.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he overturned, by executive order, the ban on taxpayer funding of research involving the transplantation of organs and tissues obtained from aborted babies (fetal tissue) that had been instituted by the Bush administration. On March 11, 1993, Congress codified Clinton’s executive order by passing HR-4, The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, by a vote of 283-121. 57 Republicans voted with 225 Democrats and 1 Independent for this law that allows for federal funding of research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes.

The law prohibits any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce, but does not exclude reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of human fetal tissue.

Information acquired by Life Dynamics of Denton, Texas reveals that at least 5 companies are in the business of procuring babies’ in-tact bodies, bones, blood, organs and tissues for profit. One company, Opening Lines of West Frankfurt, Ill, published a brochure in which they listed charges for various body parts including $999 for a brain, $500 for a trunk, and $325 for spinal cords. They claim they are within the letter of the 1993 law which allows for the above-mentioned reasonable payments. The hearings, which are to be scheduled by Congressman Tom Bliley (R-VA), chairman of the Commerce Committee, are expected in January when Congress returns from its recess. They will look into whether these tissue retrieval companies are violating the law.

What Life Dynamics has brought to light is the fact that there is an enormous and growing business of filling orders from researchers for in-tact, non-fragmented organs and tissues obtained from induced abortions. Evidence is mounting that some babies are aborted alive and then dissected and killed so that researchers may receive the perfect specimens they desire. The research is being conducted in taxpayer-funded facilities such as the National Institutes of Health, public universities and medical schools and by private pharmaceutical companies. Many have long believed that this has become a major reason for the use of the partial-birth abortion technique.

While it is important to hold hearings on whether or not these companies are guilty of selling babies’ organs for profit, we urge our friends in the pro-life community to begin legislative action to prohibit the use of fetal tissue derived from induced abortions for research purposes. If a mother suffers a spontaneous abortion, or her baby is still-born and she wishes to donate her child’s body to science, that is a different matter and would be consistent with current practice in adult organ donation.

People are going to continue to find ways to make money from the sale of aborted babies’ body parts as long as it is legal to conduct research experiments on them. Whether funded privately or by the taxpayers, this practice must be stopped.

Will Members of Congress attempt to ban fetal tissue research on aborted babies? It's hard to tell because of the pressures that will be brought by high-powered lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry and others. Some claim it would be a futile battle because Bill Clinton would veto a ban.

Who knows what will happen? As word gets out about these horrible practices, the public will become increasingly outraged. Congress has an obligation to try, win or lose, to do the right thing. Sometimes progress comes as much from the battle as the victory.

If your Congressman/Congresswoman holds a town hall meeting, please take that opportunity to present this information to the gathering, Ask him/her publicly to support the hearings and to demand an end to research on tissue obtained from induced abortions.

For a 15 minute videotape of the testimony of a woman who has been engaged in the fetal tissue retrieval business, and for other information and literature, contact:

Life Dynamics - P.O. Box 2226 - Denton, Texas 76202
Life Dynamics' Phone: 940/380-8800, Fax: 940/380-8700, E-mail: ldi1@airmail.net

Click on Life Dynamics to visit their new web site.

LifeNews.com Note: Bradley Mattes is the executive director of Life Issues Institute, a national pro-life educational group. Mattes is a veteran of the pro-life cause, with over 33 years of educational, political and humanitarian experience.

There's great news coming out of Beijing! You may be familiar with the story of Tasha Danvers-Smith. This athlete from the United Kingdom was one of Britain's best hopes for gold in the Athens 2004 Summer Olympics.

However, she became unexpectedly pregnant. The father of her baby was her coach-husband.

There was enormous pressure from the track and field community to abort her baby. A child, she was told, would destroy her Olympic dreams of gaining a medal.

Tasha and her husband, Darrell, chose life for their baby.

As a result, Tasha was castigated in the media.

We, on the other hand, presented her with our Hero At Heart award, given to those who demonstrate outstanding courage or compassion on behalf of innocent human life. Tasha and I became fast friends ever since.

During the first season of our half-hour weekly TV program, Facing Life Head-On, I interviewed Tasha and Darrell regarding these events.

Fast forward to the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China.

Tasha is once again competing against the best in the world in the 400 meter hurdles event. On August 20, 2008 she ran her personal best to claim the bronze medal.

With this tremendous victory, Tasha has demonstrated to women all over the world that they don't have to sacrifice their unborn children to fulfill their dreams.

Tasha's three-year-old son, Jaden, was an inspiration to her Olympic goals. The very thing critics said would destroy and derail her hopes was central to helping her fulfill them.

Tasha stood strong for life, even when it meant temporarily giving up her dreams for an Olympic medal.

Now she has become a member of the exclusive club of Olympic champions, and she has her beautiful son, Jaden. I couldn't be happier for her.

Please email TashaDanvers @ lifeissues.org to convey your warmest congratulations to Tasha. I know she'd enjoy hearing from you. I'll make sure every email is delivered to her.

The Democratic Party is refusing to invite the highest ranking Catholic official to its national convention that begins next week. Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput is the leader of the largest religious denomination in Colorado but he won't take part in the convention.

Democratic officials have invited other Catholics to the convention -- most of whom walk on the liberal side of the political spectrum. The party is going as far as flying in Greek Orthodox Archbishop Demetrios from New York.

But Chaput isn't getting an invitation -- and it likely stems from his comments saying faithful Catholics should obey the Church's pro-life teachings and not support candidates, like Obama, who support abortion.

Chaput took the decision in stride and told the Washington Times he did not take it personally.

"I'm happy to see they are having prayer at their sessions," he said, "and they have a right to choose whom they want to do that."

Instead of participating in the Democratic convention, Chaput will join a pro-life rally that will feature several pro-life African-American leaders.

Raymond Flynn, a pro-life Democrat who was the mayor of Boston and later the Vatican ambassador, blasted the decision in comments to the Washington Times.

He called the decision not to invite Chaput "a serious oversight."

"Chaput is arguably the most respected leader of the Catholic Church in America," he said. "His record is a strong commitment to social and economic justice and the principles of the Catholic faith. He's also a strong patriot."

"Pro-life Democrats who are proud Catholics like myself feel this is an insult to our values," Flynn told the Times. "The Democratic Party has already driven millions of faithful Catholics to the GOP -- what they are doing now will continue that mass exodus."

In February, Archbishop Chaput said pro-life Catholics have an obligation to have their voting decisions match their views -- which should match the Church's.

"If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices," the Archbishop said. "Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity."

"The 'choice' in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being," Archbishop Chaput said.

"For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself.

by Devon Williams, associate editor

'God’s plan was well in place for these embryos, and that was a plan of adoption instead of destruction.'