Here are comments about Janet Dawling’s study in 1994 of over of 2700 women about breast cancer. With the mainstream media’s interest on reproductive rights, it is understood why this would be suppressed.

“…Most ominous of all were the results for women who had had an abortion before age 18 and who also had a family history of breast cancer. Twelve women in the Daling study fit that description. EVERY ONE OF THEM DEVELOPED BREAST CANCER.

Even, if one had only a tiny shred of common decency left in their entire body, you would think that abortion clinics would at LEAST warn these teen age girls that they should avoid an abortion at all cost.

But no, they are not warned — not even by the NCI and the ACS and yet these two groups, which exist to warn the public of cancer risks, admit that aborting your first child, even with no history of breast in the family, increases the risk of breast cancer.

These young girls are literally thrown to the wolves just to protect the abortion industry. What’s so sad, is that most physicians are not complaining about it.
The truth will come out, but in the meantime thousands of women will continue to die every year, needlessly….” Read entire link here

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

~Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

On this tenth anniversary of Bl. Mother Teresa’s death, here are some excerpts of her speaking out against abortion:

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters.

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

***

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child – a direct killing of the innocent child – murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?

How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love – that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Please don’t kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children’s home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!

From Donum Vitae:

Which moral criteria must be applied in order to clarify the problems posed today in the field of biomedicine? The answer to this question presupposes a proper idea of the nature of the human person in his bodily dimension.

For it is only in keeping with his true nature that the human person can achieve self-realization as a “unified totality”: and this nature is at the same time corporal and spiritual. By virtue of its substantial union with a spiritual soul, the human body cannot be considered as a mere complex of tissues, organs and functions, nor can it be evaluated in the same way as the body of animals; rather it is a constitutive part of the person who manifests and expresses himself through it. The natural moral law expresses and lays down the purposes, rights and duties which are based upon the bodily and spiritual nature of the human person. Therefore this law cannot be thought of as simply a set of norms on the biological level; rather it must be defined as the rational order whereby man is called by the Creator to direct and regulate his life and actions and in particular to make use of his own body. A first consequence can be deduced from these principles: an intervention on the human body affects not only the tissues, the organs and their functions but also involves the person himself on different levels. It involves, therefore, perhaps in an implicit but nonetheless real way, a moral significance and responsibility. Pope John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this to the World Medical Association when he said: “Each human person, in his absolutely unique singularity, is constituted not only by his spirit, but by his body as well. Thus, in the body and through the body, one touches the person himself in his concrete reality. To respect the dignity of man consequently amounts to safeguarding this identity of the man ‘corpore et anima unus’, as the Second Vatican Council says (Gaudium et Spes, 14, par.1). It is on the basis of this anthropological vision that one is to find the fundamental criteria for decision-making in the case of procedures which are not strictly therapeutic, as, for example, those aimed at the improvement of the human biological condition”.

Applied biology and medicine work together for the integral good of human life when they come to the aid of a person stricken by illness and infirmity and when they respect his or her dignity as a creature of God. No biologist or doctor can reasonably claim, by virtue of his scientific competence, to be able to decide on people’s origin and destiny. This norm must be applied in a particular way in the field of sexuality and procreation, in which man and woman actualize the fundamental values of love and life. God, who is love and life, has inscribed in man and woman the vocation to share in a special way in his mystery of personal communion and in his work as Creator and Father.(12) For this reason marriage possesses specific goods and values in its union and in procreation which cannot be likened to those existing in lower forms of life. Such values and meanings are of the personal order and determine from the moral point of view the meaning and limits of artificial interventions on procreation and on the origin of human life. These interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial. As such, they bear witness to the possibilities of the art of medicine. But they must be given a moral evaluation in reference to the dignity of the human person, who is called to realize his vocation from God to the gift of love and the gift of life.

From Donum Vitae:

God created man in his own image and likeness: “male and female he created them” (Gen 1: 27 ), entrusting to them the task of “having dominion over the earth” (Gen 1:28). Basic scientific research and applied research constitute a significant expression of this dominion of man over creation. Science and technology are valuable resources for man when placed at his service and when they promote his integral development for the benefit of all; but they cannot of themselves show the meaning of existence and of human progress. Being ordered to man, who initiates and develops them, they draw from the person and his moral values the indication of their purpose and the awareness of their limits.

It would on the one hand be illusory to claim that scientific research and its applications are morally neutral; on the other hand one cannot derive criteria for guidance from mere technical efficiency, from research’s possible usefulness to some at the expense of others, or, worse still, from prevailing ideologies. Thus science and technology require, for their own intrinsic meaning, an unconditional respect for the fundamental criteria of the moral law: that is to say, they must be at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God. The rapid development of technological discoveries gives greater urgency to this need to respect the criteria just mentioned: science without conscience can only lead to man’s ruin. “Our era needs such wisdom more than bygone ages if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanized. For the future of the world stands in peril unless wiser people are forthcoming”.

From Donum Vitae from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987

The gift of life which God the Creator and Father has entrusted to man calls him to appreciate the inestimable value of what he has been given and to take responsibility for it: this fundamental principle must be placed at the centre of one’s reflection in order to clarify and solve the moral problems raised by artificial interventions on life as it originates and on the processes of procreation. Thanks to the progress of the biological and medical sciences, man has at his disposal ever more effective therapeutic resources; but he can also acquire new powers, with unforeseeable consequences, over human life at its very beginning and in its first stages. Various procedures now make it possible to intervene not only in order to assist but also to dominate the processes of procreation. These techniques can enable man to “take in hand his own destiny”, but they also expose him “to the temptation to go beyond the limits of a reasonable dominion over nature”. They might constitute progress in the service of man, but they also involve serious risks. Many people are therefore expressing an urgent appeal that in interventions on procreation the values and rights of the human person be safeguarded. Requests for clarification and guidance are coming not only from the faithful but also from those who recognize the Church as “an expert in humanity ” with a mission to serve the “civilization of love” and of life.

The Church’s Magisterium does not intervene on the basis of a particular competence in the area of the experimental sciences; but having taken account of the data of research and technology, it intends to put forward, by virtue of its evangelical mission and apostolic duty, the moral teaching corresponding to the dignity of the person and to his or her integral vocation. It intends to do so by expounding the criteria of moral judgment as regards the applications of scientific research and technology, especially in relation to human life and its beginnings. These criteria are the respect, defence and promotion of man, his “primary and fundamental right” to life, his dignity as a person who is endowed with a spiritual soul and with moral responsibility and who is called to beatific communion with God. The Church’s intervention in this field is inspired also by the Love which she owes to man, helping him to recognize and respect his rights and duties. This love draws from the fount of Christ’s love: as she contemplates the mystery of the Incarnate Word, the Church also comes to understand the “mystery of man”; by proclaiming the Gospel of salvation, she reveals to man his dignity and invites him to discover fully the truth of his own being. Thus the Church once more puts forward the divine law in order to accomplish the work of truth and liberation. For it is out of goodness – in order to indicate the path of life – that God gives human beings his commandments and the grace to observe them: and it is likewise out of goodness – in order to help them persevere along the same path – that God always offers to everyone his forgiveness. Christ has compassion on our weaknesses: he is our Creator and Redeemer. May his spirit open men’s hearts to the gift of God’s peace and to an understanding of his precepts.

From Evangelium Vitae by Pope John Paul II:

Man is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God. The loftiness of this supernatural vocation reveals the greatness and the inestimable value of human life even in its temporal phase. Life in time, in fact, is the fundamental condition, the initial stage and an integral part of the entire unified process of human existence. It is a process which, unexpectedly and undeservedly, is enlightened by the promise and renewed by the gift of divine life, which will reach its full realization in eternity (cf. 1 Jn 3:1-2). At the same time, it is precisely this supernatural calling which highlights the relative character of each individual’s earthly life. After all, life on earth is not an “ultimate” but a “penultimate” reality; even so, it remains a sacred reality entrusted to us, to be preserved with a sense of responsibility and brought to perfection in love and in the gift of ourselves to God and to our brothers and sisters.

The Church knows that this Gospel of life, which she has received from her Lord, has a profound and persuasive echo in the heart of every person-believer and non-believer alike-because it marvellously fulfils all the heart’s expectations while infinitely surpassing them. Even in the midst of difficulties and uncertainties, every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded.

In a special way, believers in Christ must defend and promote this right, aware as they are of the wonderful truth recalled by the Second Vatican Council: “By his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every human being”. This saving event reveals to humanity not only the boundless love of God who “so loved the world that he gave his only Son” (Jn 3:16), but also the incomparable value of every human person.

The Church, faithfully contemplating the mystery of the Redemption, acknowledges this value with ever new wonder. She feels called to proclaim to the people of all times this “Gospel”, the source of invincible hope and true joy for every period of history. The Gospel of God’s love for man, the Gospel of the dignity of the person and the Gospel of life are a single and indivisible Gospel.

For this reason, man-living man-represents the primary and fundamental way for the Church.

Excerpted from an article by Dr. Janet Smith from Church and State in America:

There is a paradox or contradiction at the very heart of our approach to human life. We go to great lengths to preserve human life and to diminish human suffering, yet at the same time we increasingly treat human life in such a cavalier and utilitarian fashion that one wonders why we continue to make herculean efforts to improve the human lot. One suspects that it is more a desire to advance and test our technological prowess or just mere sentiment that leads us to dig small children out of wells and to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep tiny neonates alive. A residue of the grand and noble vision of man that informed Hamlet’s musings lingers but it is rapidly disappearing.

In respect to the “life issues” the pluralism of our culture, is not a benign multiculturalism; it is not just a matter of “my people” wearing its national costumes and doing its national dances or a question of whose heroes we are going to celebrate, whose novels and histories we are going to read. It is not a matter of protecting such fundamental rights as the free practice of religion, nor a matter of fundamental fairness such as public funding for private schools. Pluralism in this case goes to the very heart of existence; it strikes at the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life. Pluralism in the life issues means that some people approve of the taking of innocent human life, some people do not; some approve of the making of babies in laboratories and others do not; some people approve of the killing of the dying and infirm and others do not. These values are not just pluralistic but contradictory. This is not a tolerable pluralism. We no longer share a common vision of man and of life from which we can then construct a social system protecting man’s fundamental rights. Having lost the vision of man that Hamlet articulates, we have also lost the values derived from this vision.

There many reasons, often interrelated, why we in the modern world succumb to the temptation to destroy human life, especially the unborn, weak and dying. Here, hoping to be as comprehensive as possible, but knowing that some reasons likely have been missed, I shall list some fifteen of these reasons that our society is losing the will to do what it ought in protecting human life.

First, the secular world has completely lost any sense that there is a life beyond this one. Many Christians, too, have an extremely diminished — if any — sense of our ordination to another life. This leads to distortions that cause us to devalue life. For instance, we come to think that what happiness we shall ever experience, we must experience in this life. Confusing happiness with pleasure, we have lost sight of an understanding of happiness that links it with the virtuous life, with the pursuit of what is good and noble. Few believe that they will be rewarded in the next life for the good that they have done in this. Thus, we labor to ensure that our lives are filled with pleasure and we seek to avoid all pain. We largely live in accord with a utilitarian ethic that leads us to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, even at the expense of the lives of others. Thus, women and men not prepared to shoulder the responsibilities of parenthood because these impinge upon the goals they have for their own lives, feel justified in taking the lives of the unborn. Those who are dying see no reason to endure the pain and suffering of their condition.

Read the complete article

An excerpt from a review of the book, Bodies Bazaar, by Lori Andrews and Dorothy Melkin from Catholic Educators Resource Center.

The book’s title, Body Bazaar, is a pun on the strangeness of how elements of the human body — DNA, umbilical cord blood, embryos, bone, tissue — have become products for a burgeoning global biotechno-mart. For doctors harvesting human tissue, the body has become (changing the metaphor) a “gold mine.” …

…Indeed, the basis of the biotechnological problem is the cultural acceptance of the human body as an object that is the property of the conscious “subject” who “inhabits” it. To consider the body as the legal property of its owner simply reinforces the prevailing moral culture justifying the biotech market — and will serve finally to hand the body over to government caretakers for social control and regimentation.

The breathtaking pace of modern biological science confronts civilization with moral difficulties in circumstances never faced in the past. One great virtue of the Magisterium of the Church, however, is precisely that it articulates known, eternal principles of moral truth under changing historical circumstances. The Magisterium has always taught that the human person is a unity of body and soul. This truth about the body, known through reason as well as faith, can provide the moral basis from which man may grapple with the challenge of biotechnology.

For example, to treat under law the surreptitious taking of embryos as a “theft of property” can only reinforce the error of considering unborn children as objects instead of human persons. It makes more legal sense to view embryo-snatching as a kidnap, subject to analogous criminal punishments. This way of thinking about the “body bazaar” might be extended to many of the wrongs discussed in this book. The moral premise, in other words, is that body parts partake of a human person and must be so thought of under law. The “person” of the subject’s body must be treated with a dignity equal to that of the researcher. Thus, for example, to patent another’s genes without that other’s consent amounts to “owning” another person — in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment forbidding human slavery. We can make a more fruitful beginning to limiting the abuses of the biotechno-mart by thinking of the body, living or dead, in light of its personhood.

From the  Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (On the Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) issued by Pope John Paul II on December 30, 1988.  

In effect, the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defense and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no state, can change — let alone eliminate — them because such rights find their source in God himself.The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offenses against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.” (Gaudium et Spes, 27)