One Roman Catholic Layman's Research on Evolutionism
In the beginning
created heaven and earth
Genesis 1:1
A project of:
Catholic Apostolate for Creation
P.O. Box 997
Jordan, NY 13080

The abortion link to evolutionism


     "Intelligence Report" provided a tally of the votes from 2550 readers for the smartest Americans.  Prof. Carl Sagan, who received the most votes, responded with modest reflection:

      The perceived humility of the statement notwithstanding, it would seem to constitute a philosophy far more ably preached than practiced, at least by Sagan and Ann Druyan:

     Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, in collaboration with author Dr. Francis A Schaeffer, expanded the scope of genetic understanding:

     Author Janet Podell wrote incredulously:

     Any assertion to the contrary then would seem to be contradictory. It seems highly unlikely that such a position could be based on anything less than preconceived bias.

     The title of the essay from which the Sagan/Druyan quote was extracted, can only be perceived as insinuating that an individual can be, simultaneously, pro-life and "pro-choice." Such a combination of diametrically opposed ideologies can constitute nothing less than an oxymoron:

     The insinuation that a fertilized egg is no more than potential life is as meaningless as the contention that an individual, who ten years hence will be an Olympic medal winner, is only a potential athlete.  If that individual is murdered before being given a chance to develop athletic prowess, of course his or her "potential" will not be realized. Fr. James
T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., established the proper perspective concerning potentiality:


     It would seem reasonable to assert that the abortion dispute is one of the ranking issues of division in our society today.  This is as it should be.  A people who claim to be civilized, as we do, must not be allowed the luxury of complacency on a matter of such crucial importance.

     David Pasinski wrote of his conviction that, "...tolerance is possible" between those who oppose and those who support, abortion.  He further noted his belief that a consensus can be achieved by listening to one another.
[1990. Consensus on abortion: A respectful dialogue is a good place to start. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, May 23, p. A-7]

     Journalist Anna Quindlen had already found such a proposal unreasonable:

     It is difficult to argue with Qunidlen, especially in view of her personal disclosure that, "...there are many of us who...believe that in fact it is possible to be a little bit pregnant..."  One will search in vain for any medical evidence to support such a position.  It seems incredible that a serious writer could pen such a line.  The statement would seem to indicate just how irrational and emotional we human beings can be on the issue of abortion.


     By admission, Carl Sagan is an evolutionist. [1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House. pp. 24, 127] Presumably that also applies to Ann Druyan.  Columnist Christopher Derrick most astutely made the connection between abortion and evolutionism:

     Verification of Derrick's assertion is presented in APPENDIX I

     Another insight was presented from the standpoint of medical science.  Fetologist Sir William Liley saw only self-contradiction in the anti-life mentality of those who advocate abortion:

     American Life League (ALL) President Judie Brown leveled charges of debasement and bias: "While the first comment is merely demeaning, the second comment discredits any claim Sagan might have as being an impartial scientist."
[1990. American Life League blasts "Parade" article, poll. THE WANDERER, May 10, p. 1]

    The rejoinder was directed at the "description" associated with each of two photographs of developing human life:

     Brown's criticism is justified, though perhaps too reserved. The reptilian reference,
in and of itself, might have been attributable to observational insensitivity if it had constituted an isolated  statement.  However, it was only one of a series:

     How strikingly different, the witness presented Sunday, February 9, 1992 before the Confirmation class at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church in Warners, New York.  Students were afforded the privilege of personal testimony, enhanced by printed and photographic materials, from Syracuse Friends for Life representatives.  Mary and Alan Badger, the parents of eight children, were able to describe and show the development of limbs, finger nails, cuticle and skin using the same photographs displayed by Sagan and Druyan.  Why?  One possible reason is a predilection Sagan and Druyan seem to have toward the long-discredited offering of nineteenth-century evolutionist Ernst Haeckel:

     The true implications of the "theory" were summed up in a description of the inherent assumptions:

     The progressive stages of embryonic development (ontogeny) supposedly repeated (recapitulated) the ancestral stages of evolutionary development (phylogeny).

     Dr. Nathanson described the term "quickening" as "nonsense" (1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc.,  p. 154) and "...incompatible with science today." [ibid., p. 187] Perhaps that's the reason Sagan and Druyan enclosed the term in quotes.  Even if quickening was once "valid" as a term, it would seem to have been rendered irrelevant by what has been scientifically established concerning the five-week-old "reptile":

     Even if Sagan and Druyan do not specifically embrace embryonic recapitulation, the result is unchanged.  Their testimony seems to emanate a distinctive Haeckelian odor.


     Years of observation would seem to substantiate the personal belief that we humans have a strong (perhaps inate) tendency to accuse others most forcefully of those very sins for which each of us is most guilty personally.  Sagan and Druyan would also seem to fit that mold.  They leveled the charge that, "Doubtful arguments are trotted out as certainties."
[1990. Is it possible to be  pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 4]
     It may very well be an allegation that looks back at them:

     The evolutionist notion of an unbroken chain (the continuum of life) is treated in APPENDIX II.

     The disclaimer against conceptional beginnings was countered most effectively by Koop and Schaeffer:

     Philosophy Prof. Donald De Marco noted the multi-disciplinary refutation of the conception misconception that seems to have been missed:

     Dr. Nathanson was co-founder of N.A.R.A.L.  (now the National Abortion Rights Action League) and is former director of The Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health in New York.  By his own admission [1979. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, preface], he was responsible, directly or indirectly, for 60,000 deaths by abortion. Now a confirmed pro-life activist for non-religious reasons [ibid., p. 6], he has rejected the notion that human life does not begin at the instant of conception:

     British gynecologist Michael G. Kielty added his own professional observation to the already overwhelming evidence:

     Archbishop John R. Roach and Cardinal Terence Cooke provided this final rebuke in the form of a quote from the September 1970 editorial, "A New Ethic for Law and Society," in CALIFORNIA MEDICINE, the journal of the California Medical Association:

     Sagan, an astronomer, and Druyan, a novelist and television writer/producer, apparently have no problem understanding that life does not begin at conception.  It seems passing strange that those whose fields of expertise include (among others) obstetrics, gynecology, and fetology have not as yet caught up with such "facts."
     Perhaps it's because the evolutionist/pro-abortion mindset is actually nescience and real scientists have no time to waste on it.


     The abortion controversy has erroneously been identified as a Catholic issue.  Dr. Nathanson, by his own admission, a pro-life activist for non-religious reasons [1979. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. p. 6], noted such labeling as part of a massive conspiracy: "...anti-Catholic warp was a central strategy, a keystone of the abortion movement."
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 196]
He exposed the collusion between Planned Parenthood and the Nev York Times. [ibid.,  p. 54]  He also disclosed "...NARAL's Catholic terrorizing elected officials..." [ibid., pp. 179-180] and acknowledged formulation of the well used copout for Catholic politicians:

     There are those who have made no secret of their disdain for the alleged misdeeds of the Roman Catholic Church. [i.e., Sagan and Druyan. 1985., Comet. New York: Random House. pp. 26-28).  A recent presentation of abbreviated Church "history" has the earmarks of an allegation of hypocrisy coupled with a curious attempt at using the information in support of a personal liberal abortion agenda:

     Whatever Fr. Connery's disposition might be toward such praise, his contribution to the historical side of the abortion issue is deserving of tribute.  [1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press.] However, he could be no less than incredulous concerning the discoveries attributed to him.
     According to Connery [ibid., p. 212], "...the code of Canon Law, published in
1917..." merely incorporated the legislative penalties issued by Pope Pius IX in 1869 and consistently maintained through successive pontificates.
     The Pope eliminated the distinction between an "...animated and unanimated fetus" in the imposition of excommunication for "...anyone causing an abortion, whatever the stage of fetal development..."  This was a modification of the relaxation of penalties instituted in 1591 by Pope Gregory XIV and closely paralleled those put into effect in 1588 by Pope Sixtus V who also "...attached an sterilization"
[ibid.,  p. 148).

     The implication in the Sagan/Druyan testimony would seem to be that the Church was tolerant of the practice of abortion until 1869.  Fr. Connery destroyed any such notion:

     The Sagan/Druyan commentary on Fr. Connery's research would not appear to be   information gleaned from a serious reading of his book.


     It would seem only reasonable for those who have made no secret of their support for legalized abortion to present arguments that reinforce their position.  Several statements, numbered for convenience, have been reviewed in this context (the commentary in parentheses is my own):

     Regarding the Romans, Fr. Connery's research provided another disclosure:

     Sagan and Druyan continued:

     Fr. Connery provided no specific information regarding the Jewish teaching on the status of the fetus.  He did quote the only case in the Talmudic Mishna which allowed
sacrificing the fetus to save the life of the mother [ibid., p. 15).  However, he followed that with an observation which would seem to refute the notion of the Jews having any but the highest regard for the unborn child:

     His earlier development of the reasons for such a mindset showed the Jewish tradition respecting unborn life to be one of their most ancient:

     There was no New Testament until after the Resurrection of Christ.  His teachings, and the earliest teachings of the Apostles were based on the Hebrew Scriptures.  Unaware that his epistles would later be canonized as inspired Scripture, Saint Paul also based his teachings on the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is in that context of the Judeo-Christian teaching tradition that Fr. Connery explicitly documented the status of the unborn child:

     It would seem reasonable, then, to question the validity of the Sagan/Druyan sources of historical research.  Fr. James T. Burtchaell provided an insight that might lend a clue:

He also noted a dimension of religious difference regarding the opposition to abortion which trancends the denominational rifts often assumed:


     There are those who would seem to have ruled out the Scriptures as a source in which to find any substantiation for opposition to abortion:

     Fr. Connery's earlier testimony at least implicitly put such notion to rest.  Yet even he cautioned,  "If anyone expects to find an explicit condemnation of abortion in the New Testament, he will be disappointed.  The silence  of the New Testament regarding abortion surpasses even that of the Old Testament"
[1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press, p. 34]
     How, then, can he reasonably inform his readers that the earliest Christians condemned abortion; a mindset they inherited from the Jewish people dating to their earliest written and verbal traditions?
     Dr. Nathanson has decried the pseudoscientific mentality of the anti-life advocates who seem to steadfastly ignore the findings of true science regarding life in the womb.[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc. , p. 2]
Armed vith scientific fact as a base, then, Scriptural support for the pro-life position can be found in abundance.
     A Biblical imperative sometimes quoted in support of capital punishment might seem applicable:  "Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God" [Genesis 9:6].  There is also a more generalized mandate which Christians have identified as the Fifth Commandment:  "Thou shall not kill!" [Exodus 20:13]
     A number of Old Testament passages tell of women conceiving and bearing sons; there are various levels of identification:

     The Text, in each case, implicitly speaks of continuity (a continuum), not of tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but nine months from conception to birth.  At no time is
there a hint of segmented worms, newts, tadpoles or piglike mammals.  It would appear the ancient writers of Scripture were far more scientific than some of the modern writers
who consider themselves enlightened by science which they have a seeming tendency to ignore when it suits a particular agenda.
     The continuity (continuum) of individual human life has also been more explicitly revealed:

     The continuum was also put in the context of a logical comparison:

     Anyone who plants corn seed, expects corn to grow as a result. Anyone who is a breeder of goats, expects the effort will produce goats.  Human beings conceive human beings, who are so at the instant of conception.
     The Scriptures also reveal instances of the sex of a child being prophesied even before conception has taken place:

     The greatest prophesy of all, of course, was that surrounding the Lord Jesus Christ:  "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son..." [Isaias 7:14]  That testimony was made several hundred years before the birth of Christ, and later substantiated:

A scholarly Biblical development is presented in APPENDIX III.


     One of the long-standing verbal barbs leveled by those employed in the central New
York industrial manufacturing sector is in the form of an accusation.  An individual's
unpopular proposals might earn the originator the charge of offering simplistic solutions to solve complex problems. In the context of the anti-life mindset there are those
who seem to have adopted a simplistic outlook based on a false premise:

     Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes wrote a stinging rebuke in response to the activities of
contraceptive activist (and founder of Planned Parenthood) Margaret Sanger.  His testimony was most insightful:

     God's command, of course, was to Adam and Eve to, "Increase and multiply, and
 fill the earth..." [Genesis 1:28]  The practice of artificial contraception, then, renders impossible one's ability to obey this command of Almighty God.

     Nor will the claim that God's command has already been obeyed, stand up to observation.  The earth is not even remotely close to being filled.  Jesus Christ taught that He had come to fulfill the Law, rather than destroy it [St. Matthew 5:17]. Yet He made no mention of God's command having been fulfilled.  He did, however, teach that a woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery, thereby sinning against the Sixth Commandment. [St. Mark 10:12] The teaching was made in the context of a social setting in which a woman had no such right.  Even if the pagan women in the region could legally obtain divorce, those in His Jewish audience could not. Logically, then, His teaching would seem to have been prophetic; only in our own time has it come to pass that a woman can obtain a divorce, and on the flimsiest pretext. Still, His teaching, prophetic or otherwise, did not exonerate us from God's command regarding propagation of the human race.

     Jesuit Fr. John A. Harden documented the Anglican Church position reversal against contraception as a result of Resolution 15 at the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
[1959. Christianity in conflict: A Catholic view of Protestantism. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, pp. 86-87]
Perhaps in direct response to the Anglican sanction, Pope Pius XI countered with authentic Roman Catholic teaching:

     Pope Paul VI reinforced consistent Church teaching in what may be one of the most maligned papal documents of our time by those who dissent from legitimate Church authority:

     Fr. Robert J. Fox destroyed a number of the myths long promulgated by the promoters of contraception:

     Fr. Albert Shamon pointed out just how illogical is the notion that contraception will solve the abortion dilemma:

     A non-Catholic perspective on the ills of contraception is presented in APPENDIX IV.


     Don E. Fehrenbacher wrote, "Seven of the nine justices agreed..."
[1978. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American law and politics. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 322]

He further advised:

     It would seem, then, that such a decision must be based on sound judicial principle.  When seven of the nine justices of the Supreme Court render a decision it must be above reproach.  Yet the result of the decision under discussion was to prove a blight on the U.S. judiciary:

     The Dred Scott ruling effectively declared African-Americans non-human, thus blatantly advocating and promoting racism.  That decision was not the last blight to be self-inflicted on the U.S. judiciary by a majority of seven Supreme Court justices.  Law Prof. John T. Noonan, Jr. related another infamy:

     Yet the decision has its proponents:

     The decision, on the contrary, would seem to lack fair balance and freedom for the life of the unborn baby involved. Dr. Nathanson described use of the term
"trimester," in the context of the abortion debate, as constituting "...Stone Age thinking..."
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc., p. 119]
He also noted the empirical (observable) evidence that fetal heart beat is detectable at four weeks after conception.  That knowledge was presented as analogous to a situation directly involving Sagan in SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) pursued under the auspices of Project META (Megachannel Extraterrestrial Assay). [Sagan. 1986. The search for radio messages from other civilizations in the depths of space is about to enter high gear. PARADE, September 14]

     Notre Dame Law Prof. Charles Rice was quoted revealing the naivete of those who champion the imaginary restrictions in Roe v. Wade as:

     Fr. Burtchaell provided new insight into what constitutes "grave medical necessity:"

     Cardinal O'Connor lamented what the typical pro-life activist knows to be all too true:

     Dr. Nathanson put the "legal" basis for Roe v. Wade in a most interesting context of surrealism:

     He summed up his judicial exasperation with a rebuke:

     Sociologist Raymond J. Adarnek exposed the true nature of the Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions with a quotation from Justice Byron R. White in an excoriating rebuke of his fellow justices:

     Finally, Helen Alvare (Director of Planning and Information, Pro-Life Secretariat, National Conference of Catholic Bishops) has provided information that would seem to put a new twist on the issue of separation-of-church-and-state:



     Concern for the welfare of others is a virtue most noble. It was one of the most
emphatic teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ [cf. St. Matthew 25:31-46]. However, one
concern that has been expressed in the context of the abortion debate would seem to be based on a lack of understanding. That concern was for: "...clerics threatening politicians with perdition."
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990.  Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE (April 22). p. 4]

     One of the most publicized cases in point is that between Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of New York on the one side, and, alternately. New York Archbishop, Cardinal John J. O'Connor and New York Auxiliary Bishop, Austin B. Vaughan on the other.  The misunderstanding is in the insinuation implied by the false accusation of threat.  It seems only reasonable that each of these "clerics" be given his day in court.

     A Catholic News Service representative  interviewed O'Connor  regarding a supplement to the archdiocesan weekly newspaper.
[CNS. 1990c. Cardinal calls attack on essay 'programmed.' CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, June 14, p. 6]

Responding to the attacks against the special edition, he was quoted:

     Theologian Fr. Richard P. McBrien reviewed the cardinal's authority to impose the penalty of excommunication for "...advocating legislation supporting abortion...[ibid.,
no. 9] and concluded:

     Interviewed by Reuters News Service, Fr. Larry Lassing, spokesman for the Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research and Educational Center in St. Louis, offered this Church teaching:

     Catholic News Service representative Sr. Mary Ann Walsh  provided the following testimony:  
     Fr. McBrien quoted Bishop Vaughan who had recently served a 10-day jail term for his pro-life activities: "All I was saying is what he [Cuomo] learned, and I learned, and all of you learned in the first grade: if you commit a serious sin and die without repenting, you go to hell."
[1990a. Bishop's sin is judging another person's soul. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, March 8, p. 16]

     There should be no difficulty for any Roman Catholic to accept such teaching.  Jesus enjoined the Apostles (of whom the bishops are successors) with that very mandate (St. Luke 24:46-47). Yet, Fr. McBrien would seem to have a problem accepting Bishop Vaughan's teaching:

     It would seem that someone has already stepped forward; someone who has access to  the same Scriptures as the rest of us:   "He that heareth you, heareth me..."
(St. Luke10:16)

     No pastoral rebuke would be complete without some contribution from the secular press whose membership wants no part of the imposition of sectarian views on the part of others, but seems to have a problem practicing that which is preached.  Lest anyone be disappointed:

     Peoria Bishop John J. Myers, in a most authoritative pastoral statement, taught precisely that:

     Yet Fr. McBrien issued a disclaimer based on what would seem to be a perception of episcopal futility:

     Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary:  "A bishop in California recently was credited with getting a losing pro-choice candidate elected to state office with similar interference that backfired."
[Editorial. 1990. The cardinal's foray. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, June 16, p. 6]  Backfired? One can readily understand such naivete from a member of the secular press.  We should be able to expect better than that from a member of the clergy.  Such ignorance, real or feigned, completely misses the point as Card. O'Connor explained:  "I have never attempted to affect the governor's political standing.  I will never campaign against the governor.  I will never campaign for anyone else."  So also with "A bishop in California..."
     Perhaps it would be appropriate for a brief reflection on why so many bishops have publicly chastized politicians. Bishop Myers very clearly stated the reason:

     He further put the excommunication frenzy in its proper perspective:

     Roe v. Wade, then, would seem to be the basis for a sweeping tide of sanctions. Yet, the teachings given to politicians of our own time are nothing new.  Four decades before anyone heard of Roe v. Wade politicians had received the same teaching from Pope Pius XI:

     The Holy Father's reference to innocent blood is a Scriptural reprimand:

     Perhaps he was prophetic.  His teaching would also appear to have already addressed a specific political claim that would be invoked a half-century hence:

     Perhaps the most interesting piece of real estate in the experience of life is left field.  It should be no surprise if some emanations from that source have characteristics that
seem contradictory:

     Fr. McBrien took the bishops to task for failure to denounce the actions of President George Bush and Congressman Henry Hyde whom he accused of supporting and/or campaigning for pro-choice Republican candidates. [ibid. , p. 9]  Yet the July 3, 1989 Supreme Court ruling in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services prompted him to advocate pro-life acceptance of:   "Half-a-loaf, even a quarter-of-a-loaf..."
(1989.  Webster decision woke pro-choice support. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, October 26, p. 18]
     Furthermore, he chided the pro-life conservatives, especially the wealthy, for taking particular delight in the bishops' denunciation of Governor Mario Cuomo and Senator Edward Kennedy whom he described as "...liberal Democratic politicians..." [1990c, p. 9]  His charge may very well be valid, but was worded in a manner which would seem to indicate speculation: "...this might somehow weaken...[their] political capacity to advance their despised economic and social agenda." [1990c., p. 9]

     Fr. McBrien seems to have overlooked the quarter-of-a-loaf-or-less of the Cuomo/Kennedy economic and social agenda which is dedicated to abortion funding.  Though also only speculative, it could very well be that the wealthy, conservative pro-life activists only despise the Cuomo/ Kennedy anti-life agenda.  Furthermore, given the obstinate adherence to abortion funding in spite of severe criticism, it seems highly unlikely that the bishops will weaken either man politically even if that were the intent, which it obviously is not.  The real point at issue would appear to be Fr. McBrien's critical vacillation.  The bishops have been put in a no-win situation.


     The Lord commissioned (ordained) His Apostles:

     Had Christ not intended perpetuation of His earthly teaching office by succession, it would seem quite unnecessary to promise His Providential care to the end of time.  It seems only reasonable, then, to allow the bishops, as the successors to the Apostles, an opportunity to make known precisely how such charism should be manifested in the administration of the Church.

     The bishops of Pennsylvania:

     Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk:

     Peoria Bishop John J. Myers:

     New York Archbishop, Cardinal John J.  O'Connor:

     Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith,
Cardinal Joseph  Ratzinger:

     Pope John Paul II:

     All the testimony thus far documented has been from bishops, archbishops, a former archbishop, and the Bishop of Rome. The potential exists then, for criticism based on an accusation of cronyism; the bishops are guilty of maintaining the status quo as a form of ecclesiastical job security.  The witness of a number of priests and members of the laity would seem adequate to despell any such notion.

     Columnist Frank Morriss:

     Columnist Kristina Arriaga quoted Marquette University Associate Theology Prof.
Fr. Richard R. Roach:

     A media viewpoint:

     Christian Ethics Prof. Germain Grisez:

     Columnist Dan De Celles quoted Congressman Henry Hyde:

     Writer Monica M. Migliorino:

     Author Fr. John M. Le Voir:

     Fr. Charles Dahlby:

     Columnist Fr. Enrique T. Rueda:

     Finally, Jesuit Fr. Vincent P. Miceli placed the duty of the episcopacy in its only true context; submission to the Will of Christ (in this case, an eschatological context):

         Those just quoted who did not specifically support the bishops, did so indirectly by leveling nearly identical criticism based on personally insightful analysis of the very Church teachings invoked by the bishops.  Why?  Perhaps one of the reasons is based upon the mandate of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself Who founded the Church, inaugurated the hierarchal structure and Personally appointed the first visible head of His Church on earth:
     Columnist Fr. Robert E. Burns refuted one of the common errors concerning this most crucial Scriptural teaching:

     Dogmatic Theology Prof. Fr. Pedro Rodriguez:

     The clear message is, the bishops, in communion with the Pope, have no choice about proclaiming the Gospel, as unpalatable as it may be for us.  The Lord Jesus Christ
never hesitated in His teaching which many in His own day found unsettling.  Nothing has changed.
     One need only recall the Petrine confession to put the Christian mandate into perspective:  "And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go?  thou hast the words of eternal life." [St. John 6:69]
     Any bishop, then, who teaches anything less than what has been commanded of him by Christ, is guilty of leading others astray, thereby leaving himself open to one of the strongest warnings Jesus gave:



     Three highly emotional, interrelated issues have been offered as validation for legalized abortion in a context that would seem to be a rebuke of those who oppose abortion:

     It's unclear at what point "nurture" became a social disgrace. In the context quoted above it would seem to have been used in a manner suggesting revulsion on the part of the authors.  Furthermore, use of the term "condemning" appears to be another piece of literary artillery specifically intended for anti-life rhetorical effect.

     Columnist Cal Thomas proposed a motivation behind such appeal that would
indicate expediency rather than compassion:

     Feminist author Rosalind Pollack Petchesky would seem to have substantiated that view:

     According to author Marian Faux, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington had a most pragmatic reason for wishing to avoid a judicial link between rape and abortion for Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade):

     Rape is a heinous crime; a vicious assault against the very human dignity of the victim.  Yet those who have not experienced rape can only know of the horror in an abstract sense.  Those who have been victimized, however, are able to present rape in all its ugly reality.

     Writer Elizabeth Kaye interviewed several victims:

     Columnist Dick Case interviewed a suburban woman raped in her own bed:

     Staff writer Amber Smith interviewed a rape victim who trains to help other victims:

     As terrible and vicious an assualt against human dignity as rape is, does it provide the justification for abortion? There are those who believe the answer is no.  Canandaigua [NY] resident Jean Jesserer Smith, in a letter to the editor, noted the opportunity to personally meet two people who were conceived as a result of rape:

     Cardinal O'Connor provided a measure of clear teaching:

     Therein would seem to lie the problem.  Those who harbor an anti-life mindset also appear to have a get-even mentality directed at the unborn baby.  There is no choice for the pre-born child whether or not he or she will be conceived or murdered in the womb.

     Staff writer Catherine Scobey interviewed Crisis Center counselor Pam Kelsey-Gossard who vehemently denounced the cavalier attitude some take toward rape victims:

     She's right!  On the other side neither does an innocent pre-born baby deserve to lose his/her chance for life.
     Should an innocent pre-born child be murdered in the womb to "punish" the rapist?  Will the murder of an innocent pre-born child in the womb unrape his/her mother?

     It seems passing strange that the evolutionist mindset will allow some to "justify" the extermination of our own species while denouncing such action with regard to others:

     Anyone unconcerned about those issues could probably be justifiably accused of calousness.  Is abortion, then, the solution to such problems?  Those unable to discern the Biblical prohibitions against abortion are not likely to accept anything in Scripture that would seem to run contrary to a pre-conceived notion of how the world should function. The fact is, Divine Revelation is most clear on the matter of terrestrial order:

     Mankind, then, has received the plants and animals as a gift from Almighty God, freely given out of His infinite Generosity.  Presumably, most of us would not consider abusing a gift given by a relative or friend.  How much more so we should not abuse the gifts given to us by the Lord!

     As the stewards of God's Creation, we have no prerogative to any misuse or exploitation of His gifts.  However, that includes His most precious gift; human life!  It is only through the gift of life that it's possible to receive any of His other gifts.  Fr. Burtchaell added a rejoinder that would seem to call into question the motives of those whose concern for animals and plants appears to exceed that for human beings:

     Freelance writer James Hansen took to task a seventeenth century cleric for his
alleged mistreatment of a contemporary scientise:

     Whatever Fr. (later Cardinal) Bellarmine's misdeeds, real or imagined, against Galileo,
his written opinion would seem to reflect a strong sense of proper stewardship:

     Nor did Bellarmine do any less than reflect consistent Church teaching.
     Fr. Burtchaell further put the anti-life claim to compassion in a context of realism:

     Petchesky, on the other hand, has provided another set of statistics:  "Two-thirds (65percent) of all women getting abortions each year since 1975 have been between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four, and three quarters (75 percent) have been unmarried."
[1985. , Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press, p. 143]
     Yet she would seem to have taken to task those who might be alarmed:  "It is spurious to call this an "epidemic," when in fact two-thirds of all "sexually-active" teenagers manage not to get pregnant." [ibid.,  p. 145]

     She further seems to have encouraged the tendency:  "Abortion has become a central part of the "facts of life" for teenage women because of a set of social conditions that, on the whole, have improved their prospects as women in a male-dominated society." [ibid., p. 148]
Subjugation by any other name...
     Podell seems to have laid the blame for the "necessity" of abortion squarely with pro-life advocates:

     Columnist Arthur J. Brew detailed a viable means of reducing the incidence of abortion, but a solution that many will probably find less than "fulfilling":

     Cardinal O'Connor reiterated his personal contribution to pro-life "hypocrisy":

     According to a Catholic News Service report 0' Connor's promise was not made idly:

     Sociology Prof. James R. Kelly noted a significant number of people unaware of the help that is available:

     Covenant House President Sr. Mary Rose McGeady has devoted 40 years of her life, " and working on the streets with homeless children..."  The "typical" youngster who seeks asylum at Covenant House is "...white, black, and young as eight and as "old" as twenty-one...all shapes and sizes, from all types of backgrounds, from every kind of religion...from the north and south, the cities and the suburbs, from ghettoes and even from America's better neighborhoods."   They also include young women in their teens who are pregnant:

     Those youngsters welcomed and nurtured at Covenant House are some of the 1,000,000 homeless children each year who would otherwise be sleeping on the streets.  The vast majority of them have run away from abuse at home or have simply been abandoned.  Those who manage to "survive" on the street must work for pimps.  They are victims of rape in every sense of the word.  Yet at Covenant House there is no abortion counselor.  There is no suggestion of the "choice" for a young woman to murder her pre-born baby. There is, further, no indication that any violated young woman has any problem nuturing the offspring of her assailant. Why?  Nobody could have stated it any better than Sr. McGeady:  " truly can save these kids." [ibid., p. 4] Where's the hypocrisy?  Could it be a charge that looks back at those who level it?


     There is no question that war exacts a tremendous price in loss of human life.   Even a so-called just war does nothing to change the fact of such loss.  As terrible as the massive losses are to combatants, the greater tragedy is the loss of lives among innocent civilians.  This is especially sinister if innocent victims are killed because of the particular circumstances of birth over which none of them had any control.

     Dr. Nathanson described abortion in terms that would seem to conjure the image of "state-organized mass murders":

     Prof. DeMarco recognized each of the above incongruities and one that was not noted:

     Fr. Burtchaell documented a number of examples of the nefarious tactic of
dehumanizing the "enemy":

     One of the major dogmas of evolutionism is naturalism; everything in existence has a naturalistic explanation devoid of the creation action of Almighty God.  Physics Prof. Edward P. Tryon applied this philosophy in a generalized fashion:

     Geologist Steven D. Schafersman was a little more specific:

Geologist Authur N. Strahler provided a definition:

     The universe, then, constitutes all of known reality. The evolutionist however,
does not limit himself to the cosmic; his influence is also carried over into the microcosmic:

     Strangely, Fr. Burtchaell seemingly had no perception of wandering. Rather, his
testimony reads much more as a description of a continuum:

     Dr. Nathanson put the "parasite" argument in a different perspective while simultaneously countering the anti-life slogan that abortion on demand allows a woman to control her own body:

     Fr. Burtchaell then carried the parasitical issue beyond the womb:

     The Nathanson testimony raises an interesting question. How was biological life able to survive while the embryonic defense mechanism was evolving?  Perhaps one day a spate of masters theses and/or doctoral dissertations will be generated on this topic.  No doubt unverifiable speculation will abound.
     Those who oppose abortion have long recognized the position as less than appreciated by anti-life advocates. One of the reasons has been documented:

     Fr. Burtchaell responded with a mixture of compassion and indignation:

     Yet what of the question of abortion to save the life of the mother?  If there is a single issue on which anti-life advocates have an iron-clad case, it would logically seem to be this one.  Pope Pius XI upheld the consistent Church teaching of God's Law with full Christian charity:

     A woman who valiantly forfeits her life giving life to her baby, has been called by Almighty God Who alone has the Authority to take life.  God the Father also asked His only begotten Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, to forfeit His innocent life that others might live.  We sadly grieve each in Faith.
     Questions can be asked in a manner giving the impression that the answer is known beforehand. Such would seem to be the case in the following example:

     Were the questions derived from any but an anti-life mindset, they might very well constitute valid inquiry.  In this instance the human quality considered acceptable is

     It has been further offered as:

     Perhaps under the illusion of bending over backwards to make abortion as
"reasonable" as could be expected, there was an endeavor to tighten the act:

     The testimony is flawed.  Conservative can only be a relative term when considering the pre-born babies who were not fortunate enough to have qualified.  The coincidence of arriving at the same "bench mark" as that of the Supreme Court "Magnificient Seven" (Nathanson. 1983., p. 158), somehow seems less than laudatory based on the reason given.

     Author Catherine Jarman had already destroyed the notion that embryonic physiological features are of any relevance:

     It would also seem reasonable to expect the embryo of a fish, tortoise, hen or rabbit to be the same species as the appropriate adult female. Why, then, would anyone pretend any differently concerning the embryo being carried in the womb of an adult female human being?  The only "logical" reason would seem to be anti-life bias, not against "...just any kind of life, but...particularly and uniquely - human life"
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990. Is it possible to be pro-life  and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22 , p. 5 (out of context)]

     The typical evolutionist, of necessity, lives in a phantasmagoric, surrealistic, illusory dream world.
 [Rev. Valentine Long, 0.F.M. 1978. Evolutionism - a fairy tale for adults. HOMILETIC &
[Rev. 0wen Bennett, 0.F.M. 1982. A scientific scrutiny of "Evolution Science."
     HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September]
[Rev. Howard Morrison, S.J. 1982. The irrationality of biological evolution. HOMILETIC &
     PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September]

     Since assumptive speculation is the very substance of the evolutionary scenario,
contradictions abound.
[Crofut and Raymond M. Seaman. 1990. Evolutionism: Genetic 'egg'-sasperation,
Evolution: Factual or fanciful? and Evolution: A cosmic numbers game. CREATION

     It should be no surprise, then, that an evolutionist can also be a victim of
self-contradiction.  The following example would seem to constitute such a case:

     Perhaps earlier admission that they arrived at the same termination date for abortion
as the Supreme Court justices, but for different reasons, was intended to provide an
ideological escape hatch.
     One of the fabricated mental constructs personally encountered in abortion rhetoric is
the ruse, "I can't get emotional over a cell." Perhaps the reductionist use of language is an aid in beating the conscience into submission. A variation on theme is presented

     Fr. Burtchaell quoted Dr. William Lynch of Boston who would seem to have accused
the 'dotters' of straddling the proverbial fence:

     Those who call themselves Christians, yet rationalize abortion on the basis of
embryonic measurement, grasp at a tenous thread. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that any
induced abortion is going to be perpetrated on a "dot" or a "period." Infinitely more
important is the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ was once a Cell, a "dot," a "period!"

     Augusta S. Reynolds of St. Louis was one of the "Intelligence Report" respondents
(noted in FOREWORD) who voted for Prof. Sagan because he "...seems to have answers to every question, regardless of the subject."  On the other side, some things are not what they seem.  Attorney Karl Keating apparently believes there are some subjects to which Sagan's answers are less than omniscient in character:

     Dr. Nathanson quoted Saul Bellow in an alternative assessment:


     One of the arguments often hoisted by anti-life proponents is, "...the specter of
predominantly male, predominantly affluent legislators telling poor women they must
bear and raise alone children they cannot afford to bring up..."
[Sagan and Druyan. 1990  Is it possible to be pro-life  and  pro-choice? PARADE,
April 22  , p. 4]

     More generally, throwing off the yoke of male dominance would seem to be a common thread running through feminist literature. Sociologist Kristin C. Luker and author Kathleen McDonnell would seem to have aimed criticism at males in general, while author Rosalind Pollack Petchesky appeares to have concentrated her attack more specifically on the male medical establishment.
[Luker. 1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision not  to  contracept.   Los
     Angeles:   University  of  California Press]
[McDonnell. 1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion. Boston: South
     End Press]
Petchesky. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and reproductive
     freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press]

     Yet McDonnell also astutely recognized one of the more striking realities of the pro-life movement:

     Contributing writer Jenn O'Connor interviewed a pro-life activist who joined Operation Rescue in Wichita, Kansas:

     The perpetuation of any organization or movement is dependent on the active participation of its youth.  Nineteen years has elapsed since the infamous Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion on demand.  An entire generation has,  from the beginning of cognizance, known that the murder of innocent pre-born children in the womb is legal.
     Millions of our young people have grown up admist the liberal, anti-life, secular media blitz promoting abortion. Charles H. Swain most effectively exposed the anti-life activities of the media "professionals":

     His claims were substantiated in an opinion rendered in favor of the Onondaga County (NY) Infant Mortality Review placing Syracuse seventh in the nation, for cities of that size, reporting deaths of babies before the first birthday:

     What a blatant insult to the youth of our community! Of course, if young people are systematically made the subjects of Hitlerian-style propaganda , they will eventually believe it and conduct themselves accordingly.  Is not such a position alarmist?
[Shirer. 1960. The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 248]

Dr. Nathanson would seem to believe otherwise:

     Is there, then, any hope for the young in this consistent satanic assault on their very immortal souls?  Thanks be to God, yes!  Catholic News Service correspondent Jennifer
Willems interviewed 15-year-old Jennifer Supancheck of Omaha, a veteran of four arrests and 102 days of incarceration (her second arrest) in Fargo, ND:

     Freelance writer Scan McNamara conducted interviews at Bishop Kearney High School (Rochester, NY) concerning an active pro-life discussion group:

     Further interviews were conducted of some of the fifteen students who are members of Teens for Life at De Sales High School (Geneva, NY):

     As part of the sacramental requirement, each of the members of the Confirmation class at Our Lady of Good Counsel Church (Warners, NY) constructed a pro-life poster.  Each is in and of  itself,  an excellent effort  in free-hand artistry, and laudable for that reason alone.  However, the message behind this project is a manifestation of how the Holy Ghost can work through those who are open to the Faith of our Fathers.  Following, in alphabetical order, is the name of each of these young soldiers for Christ:
Stephanie Dantuano
Elizabeth Longo
Mike Marshall
Jenny Marshall
Steve Morgan
Jessica Wilkie
Nancy Nelson
Eric Porter
Tim Pringle
Heather Purdy
Stephanie Trendowski

     Two of the students (also noted alphabetically) each wrote an essay:  Stephanie Trendowski and Jennifer Wilkie. The depth of human compassion and understanding displayed by these young women is a further example of the Faith in action.  Broken sinners though each of us is, the Holy Ghost can still use each of us magnificently to the greater glory of the Lord in direct proportion to our willingness to allow Him to do so.  Stephanie and Jennifer are obviously open to that call in Faith.  Each essay has been reproduced in its entirety in APPENDIX V.


     Polemical diatribe from the faithless members of the secular media only shows how far out of touch with reality these misguided zealots really are.  One of their worst offenses against the human family is the utter denial of the ability of our young people to make morally correct choices, according to the authentic Gospel teachings of Jesus Christ.  Yet we have documented examples of those who have been so shamefully written off, putting the lie to all the erroneous "ex cathedra" pronouncements.  And what have these peddlers of iniquity to show for their perfidy?  They can "proudly" point to increases in promiscuousness with the inherent proliferation of out-of-wedlock pregnancy, venereal disease and their "crown of glory," AIDS.  Were the AIDS epidemic not so tragic, it might even be humorous to read the editorial and feature article shrill-of-the-banshee demands for research expenditures to find a cure, as the sanity of behavior modification is rejected out of hand.
     The scourge of abortion is a shameful testimony to our sad lack of national conscience.  There are those who have recognized the contradiction:

     Yet others would seem to be oblivious to that contradiction. Observed in the city of lthaca, NY on May 10, 1991 was an automobile to which was afixed each of the following bumper stickers:




     Ironically, lthaca is the home of Cornell University where Sagan is Director of the Laboratory for Planetary Studies and David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Studies.
     The question of title that provided the impetus for this offering bears repeating:


     The uncompromising answer for one segment of the population, excellent for its brevity and clarity, was provided by Bishop Myers:




     Catholic writer Christopher Derrick wrote of the cultural acceptance and promotion of abortion as a direct result of the social influence of evolutionism:

     Derrick's assessment is correct.  His charge has been substantiated by the written testimony of a number of evolutionists.

     Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson:

      Astronomer Harlow Shapley:

     Astronomer Carl Sagan:

                        Ecologist Douglas J. Futuyma:

                       Anthropologist Sheila A. Womack:

                       Anthropologist Kenneth R. Stunkle:

                      Philosopher of science Philip Kitcher:

                      Anthropologist John R. Cole:

     Biologist Joel L. Cracraft:

     Geologist Steven D. Schafersman:

                       Immunologist Peter B. Medawar:

            Biochemist Isaac Asirnov:

                       Zoologist L. Beverly Halstead:

     Biologist William B. Provine:

     "Thestic" evolutionism is the sadly naive, accornmodationistic notion that somehow God can be infused into the obviously atheistic philosophy of evolutionism.  Literary theorist Paula Haigh described theistic evolution as:

     Fr. William J. Kramer, an admitted theistic evolutionist, astutely recognized one of
the few issues on which creationists and evolutionists agree:

     The evolutionists herein quoted have at least been honest enough to admit the only real value of evolutionism; the elimination of Almighty God from His Creation.  Those who support theistic evolution should, at the very least, be given pause for reflection at a system of thought so adamantly promoted by the enemies of Christianity.


     One of the more popular myths of evolutionism is that
of the so-called continuity of life.

     They are by no means the only evolutionists who insist on promoting fallacious doctrine.  Ecologist Douglas J. Futuyma, for instance, provided one of the many charts purporting to show precisely such development from algae to man.
[1983.  Science on trial: The case for evolution. New York: Pantheon Books., p. 73]

     However, paleontologist David B. Kitts disclosed the mindset as compulsive:

     Evolution, in the only meaningful sense of the term (the transformation of one species into another species), is not in evidence today.  That fact was affirmed by Prof. Theodosius Dobzhansky one of the ranking evolutionist biologists of our time :

     Canadian biologist. Prof. W. R. Thompson, substantiated the admission of evolution as historical:


     L.C. Birch and Paul R. Ehrlich (biologists at the University of Sydney and Stanford University respectively) carried the admission even further:

     French biologist Pierre-Paul Grasse' affirmed the evolutionary importance of the fossil record:

     Yet paleontologist Niles Eldredge pointed out a serious deficiency with such

     Kitts provided additional damaging testimony:

     The claim regarding human evolution has fared no better than the general assertion regarding the remainder of life. Rev. Patrick O'Connell was a paleontologist with over 50 years of experience in the field.  He specialized in the investigation of claims regarding the so-called hominids (the alleged evolutionary ancestors of man):

     The notion of the evolutionary continuity of life, then, would seem to be more of a mental construct (wishful thinking) than an empirical (observable) fact. Rare indeed is the evolutionary pronouncement which lacks for a dissenter.  Anthropologist Vincent Sarich provided his assessment of the value of the fossil evidence:

     If the fossil record is and was of so little consequence in the evolutionary scheme, the master promoter of the "transformist illusion" was apparently unaware.  Though expressing the belief that fossil evidence is not fatal to his theory, Darwin still included it among:

     He asked a rhetorical question that would seem to indicate a realization of the problem as quite serious:

     Why indeed!

     Hydraulicist Henry M. Morris and creationist Donald H. Rohrer have accused evolutionists of plasticity in the application of the evolutionary "theory."
[1981. The decade of creation. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, p. 177]

     Darwin would seem to have lent credence to the charge.  By employing a convenient series of "must haves," he was able to explain away empirical (observable) evidence, thus molding a series of assumptions into a literary elimination of inherent problems.  [ibid., pp. 112-116] One of his claims, to which he devoted an entire chapter [ibid., pp. 220-241), was that of the alleged imperfection of the fossil record.  Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould would seem to have dismissed the
assertion as an evasion of reality:

     The very fossil record touted by some as the only evidence for evolution, is admitted
by others as providing no evidence for evolution. Creationists agree with each position.
Interestingly, the evolution-continuum was proposed over a decade ago, but in a context which could hardly be construed as lending any support to the Sagan/Druyan position.

     Archbishop John R. Roach and Terence Cardinal Cooke (1988, p. 12) provided a quote from the 1979 document, "The Status of Children,  Youth, and Families," issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

     Sr. Mary Terese Donze added a further measure of insight to what she insisted is already well known:

     Where indeed!


     Experience has been that Scripture can be used as "proof" of almost any belief one chooses to espouse.

     Fr. John R. Connery warned of disappointment for anyone who would hope to find an explicit Scriptural condemnation of abortion.  His research into the Judeo-Christian tradition and mindset prohibiting abortion would seem to render such condemnation unnecessary.
[1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic perspective. Chicago: Loyola
University Press., p. 34]

     However, for anyone to assert that Exodus 21:22 is the only Scriptural reference of any relevance (and that only remotely) is to display a palpable (perhaps even culpable) ignorance of God's Word Revealing, as the following development will show.

     Edward P. Atzert issued a rebuke to the claim of the New Jersey Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights:

     Atzert provided the following development:

     French Biblical scholar Fr. Rene Laurentin developed a notable exegesis of the Gospel account of St. Luke (1:39-56) which testifies to life at conception:

     This formulation is revealing. Signified here is the fulrillment of the narrative program presented in the annunciation to Zechariah which concerned St. John the Baptist:

     Thus, there can be no doubt that the babe, St. John the Baptist, is alive in the womb of his mother, St. Elizabeth. However, in his Gospel account, St. Luke tells us that St. Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy at the time the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived (St. Luke 1:36).

     Sagan and Druyan have noted they "...might draw the line at six months," in restricting abortion, " allow for precocious fetal brain development...
[1990.  Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice? PARADE, April 22, p. 8]

     The testimony, then, would seem to indicate that the Blessed Virgin Mary would, at most, have been pregnant a month when she arrived at the home of Zachary to assist Elizabeth in her final weeks of pregnancy.  Yet, Elizabeth greeted her as, "...the mother of my Lord..." (St. Luke 1:43).   It would seem reasonable that Elizabeth's "Lord" was a Person rather than, "...a segmented worm..." or "...something like a newt or a tadpole..." as we would be led to believe by the Sagan/Druyan photographic interpretation.

     Theologically the argument might also be carried into the abstract.  St. John the Apostle tells us (St. John 1:1) that Christ, the Word of God, was God.  That's a logical
extension from created to Creator.  The adage, "A man is only as good as his word," would indicate that one's word is an integral part of each individual human being.  How
much more so, then, would God's Word be a part of Him; infinitely more so (God said, "Jesus Christ," and a man was conceived).  St. Paul the Apostle reminds us (Hebrews
4:15, Douay-Rheims translation) that Christ was "...tempted in all things like as we are,
without sin."  Christ, as God, then, always existed.  Therefore, He, as the Incarnation,
had to be alive at the instant of His Conception. Since we are as He is in all things but sin, we too, must each have been human at the instant of conception.


     Dr. Nathanson has documented a number of instances in which myths about abortion have been perpetuated by those who have a vested interest in the abortion industry.  Even those myths which may have been spread without malice of forethought do not
change the final outcome.
[1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell Publishers, Inc.]

     One erroneous "explanation" has been compounded by a proposal which would seem to be part of the problem rather than a solution to the problem:

     Understandably, those who support abortion also seem to support contraception (although the reverse is not necessarily true).  Sociologist Kristin C. Luker has done research which would seem to show abortion to be a derivative of contraception, thus rendering flawed the basic premise of the Sagan/Druyan proposal:

     Dr. Nathanson offered a reasonable explanation for the proliferation of abortions:

     Former abortion clinic operator Carol Everett substantiated a long-standing accusation by many pro-life activists from her personal experience:

     Margaret Sanger [1971, p. 309] declared the teaching of New York Archbishop Patrick J. Hayes (in his Christmas 1921 pastoral letter), "A monstrous doctrine..."  Yet she would seem to have advocated and promoted contraception for less than honorable purposes:

     Sanger has been identified as the founder of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.  [World Book, 1962] Interestingly, Jeff Gilbert, Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood Center of Syracuse felt justified in making reference to "...anti-abortion zealots..." [1992.  Proof of difficulties is from bogus study. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, January 3, p. All] A zealot by any other name...

     Feminist author Kathleen McDonnell has put the new abortion technology and contraception "advantages" for women  under a veil of suspicion:

     McDonnell also appeared far too willing to pass the buck of responsibility:

     It may be more correctly stated that blaming "society" is an escape. Reality would seem to be a repetition of personal decisions for which one does not wish to accept responsibility.

     Dr. Nathanson offered a personal perspective on the contraception issue that would seem to indicate a classic (liberal) social "Chicken Little" mentality:

     Sociologist Kristin C. Luker outlined a three-step "benefit" package of contraceptive use that would seem to indicate the feminist agenda has produced less than the anticipated advantages.  Rather then freeing women from the specter of male dominance, active contraception appears to have had the opposite effect.

     Strangely, the women involved seem to realize it and continue to embrace it!
[Ellen Messer and Kathryn E. May. 1988. Back rooms: Voices from the illegal abortion era. New York: St. Martin's Press]
[Rosalind Pollack Petchesky. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press]

     It seems contradictory that one of the "justifications" for contraception has long been the freedom of spontaneity it provides!


 Stephanie Trendowski

     "Thou shall not kill!" This commandment of the Holy Bible should be followed and
praised upon by every Catholic. But when a woman has an abortion, she is deceiving the
Catholic Church because aborting the child is killing.
     If the pregnancy is not wanted, there are many alternatives other than abortion.
Adoption is an option which will benefit the baby greatly because it would be given
 to a family that could care for it and help the child grow into an adult in a loving environment.  Another choice a mother has is to keep the baby and raise it with the help
of friends and family.  There is always someone who can help a mother to care for the child either physically, emotionally, or financially.
     The decision to not abort a life could help the world in many ways. This child could be
the future doctor with a cure for a fatal disease, tomorrow's hero that brings peace on earth, or a person who can help the needy find a home and meals.
     With all of the options a mother has and future plans that may happen during life, there is no need for abortion because every life that God gives is meant to happen for a purpose.  If these children are killed even before they have a chance, what will become of the generations hereafter
     With all of the options a mother has and future plans that may happen during life, there is no need for abortion because every life that God gives is meant to happen for a purpose.  If these children are killed even before they have a chance, what will become of the generations hereafter?

Jessica Wilkie

     Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "To miscarry or induce the expulsion of a fetus before it is able to survive, usually within the first three or four months of pregnancy."  But simply put, abortion is the killing of unborn children; the death of our future.
     "Thou shall not kill!"  This is one of the Ten Commandments that God gave Moses to deliver unto us.  Knowing of this commandment, how can a true Christian have an
abortion?  There are many people who give what they think are valid excuses for this act.  What if the mother's life is in danger ...or the mother can't afford to support the
child, ..or what if she just doesn't want the baby?  These are all very selfish reasons.  We have already had the chance to experience life.  It is only right that we pass
this right on to all humans, born and unborn.
     The Catholic Church has taken a big part in the fight to stop abortion. Marches,
protests, rallies, and conventions have been organized to express the feelings of clergy
members and parishioners, as well as educate the public on this issue. These prolife
actions are being done with hopes that eventually all humans will agree that abortion
is wrong. If abortions are allowed to continue, like the animals of the rainforests, our own
species may become endangered or even possibly extinct!


Adarnek, R.J. 1980. Abortion policy: Time for reassessment. In: Abortion parley. Rev.
     J.T. Burtchaell, C.S.C., ed. New York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc.
Alvare, H. 1991. Title X and abortion. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse,
     July 25-August 1.
Anonymous. 1992. Readers pick America's smartest people. PARADE, January 5.
Arriaga, K. 1984. Maguire book embarrasses Marquette? NATIONAL CATHOLIC
     REGISTER, September 30.
Asirnov, 1. 1984. The "threat" of creationism. In: Science and creationism. A. Montagu,
     ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Atzert, E.P. 1991. Children wanted and unwanted. LIVING TRADITION, no. 34, March
     (Reprinted from the Newsletter of the Trenton, NJ Chapter of Catholics United for the
Bellarmine,Rev. B.R., S.J. 1928. The ascent to the Mind of God by a ladder of things
     created. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd.
Bennett, Rev. 0., 0.P.M. 1982. A scientific scrutiny of "Evolution Science." HOMILETIC
     & PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September.
Bennetta, W.J., ed. 1987. Scientists decry a slick new packaging of creationism. THE
Birch, L,C. and P.R. Ehriich. 1967. Evolutionary history and population biology.
     NATURE, 22 April.
Brew, A.J. 1987. North Dakota seen as the most pro-life state. THE WANDERER,
     May 28.
Brown, J. 1990. American Life League blasts "Parade" article, poll. THE WANDERER
     May 10.
Burns, Rev. R.E., C.S.P. 1981. The primacy of Peter. THE WANDERER, May 28.
Burtchaell, Rev. J.T., C.S.C. 1982. Rachel weeping and other essays on abortion. New
     York: Andrews and McMeel, Inc.
Carter, G.S. 1957. A hundred years of evolution. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
Case, D. 1992. Rape: A survivor. HERALD-AMERICAN/THE POST STANDARD, Syracuse, February 2.
CNS. 1990a. Archbishop states policy on abortion. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, March 15.
----- 1990b. Women seeking help after cardinal's offer. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese
     of Rochester, June 7.
----- 1990c. Cardinal calls attack on essay 'programmed.' CATHOLIC COURIER,
     Diocese of Rochester, June 14.
Cole, J.R. 1983. Scopes and beyond: Antievolutionism and American culture. In:
     Scientists confront creationism. L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Connery, Rev. J.R., S.J. 1977. Abortion: The development of the Roman Catholic
     perspective. Chicago: Loyola University Press.
Cracraft, J. 1983. Systematics, comparative biology, and the case against creationism.
     in: Scientists confront creationism. L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Crofut, B. and R.M. Seaman. 1990. Evolutionism: Genetic 'egg'-sasperation; Evolution:
     Factual or fanciful? and Evolution: A cosmic numbers game. CREATION
Cuomo, M.M. 1984. The confessions of a public man. NOTRE DAME,  Autumn.
Dahlby, Rev. C., O.P.M. 1987. Needed: O.N.G. (Order of Nice Guys) religious
     community. THE WANDERER, December 10.
Darwin, C.R.1928. The origin of species. New York: Literary Classics, Inc.
Dawes, B. 1952. A hundred years of biology. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
DeCelles, D. 1984. Hyde: Standing up for what's right. NATIONAL CATHOLIC
     REGISTER, October 7.
DeMarco, D. 1979. Abortion in perspective: The rose palace or the fiery dragon?
     Cincinnati: Hayes Publishing Co., Inc
Derrick, C. 1983. The central issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, March 13.
Dobzhansky, T. 1957. On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology: Part I,
     biology. AMERICAN SCIENTIST, December.
Donze, Sr. M.T., A.S.C. 1992. Some reflections on abortion. THE WANDERER,
     February 6.
Editorial. 1984. Why abortion is different. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, Oct. 7.
--1990. The cardinal's foray. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, June 16.
--1992. Unhappy lives. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, March 19.
Eldredge, N. 1980. An extravagance of species. NATURAL HISTORY, July.
Faux, M. 1988. Roe v. Wade; The untold story of the landmark Supreme Court decision
     that made abortion legal. New York: New American Library.

Fehrenbacher, D.E. 1978. The Dred Scott Case: Its significance in American law and
     politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Rev. R.J. 1975. Charity, morality, sex and young people. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday
     Visitor, Inc.
Funk & Wagnalls. 1968. Standard dictionary of the English Language, International
     Edition. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company.
Futuyma, D.J. 1983. Science on trial: The case for evolution. New York: Pantheon
Gilbert, J. 1992. Proof of difficulties is from bogus study. THE POST-STANDARD,
     Syracuse, January 3.
Gould, S.J. 1977. Evolution's erratic pace. NATURAL HISTORY, May.
Grasse', P-P. 1977. Evolution of living organisms: Evidence for a new theory of
     transformation. New York: Academic Press.
Grisze, G. 1984. A clear-cut social issue. NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, Oct. 7.
Haigh, P. 1976. Thirty theses against theistic evolution. Louisville: Catholic Center for
     Creation Research.
Halstead, L.B. 1984. Evolution - The fossils say yes! In: Science and creationism. A.
     Montagu, ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, J. 1982. Can science allow miracles? NEW SCIENTIST, 8 April.
Harden, Rev. J.A., S.J. 1959. Christianity in conflict: A Catholic view of Protestantism.
     Westminster, MD: The Newman Press.
Harrisburg. 1984. Pennsylvania bishops affirm priority of right-to-life issue. THE
     WANDERER, October 18.
Hayes, Most Rev. P.J., D.D. 1921. Pastoral letter. Archdiocese of New York, Dec. 14.
Jarman, C. 1971. Evolution of life. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
John Paul II, Pope. 1988. The authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. THE WANDERER,
     November 17.
Kaye, E. 1991. Rape: How women erase the shame. MADEMOISELLE, December.
Keating, K. 1985. Fundamentalism's darker side. In: The fundamentalist challenge to the
     Church, part vii. THE WANDERER, November 7.
Kelly, J.R. 1991. Abortion: What Americans really think and   the  Catholic   challenge.
     AMERICA, November 2.
Kendall, G. 1991. Former abortionist declares "Abortion  is about money." THE
     WANDERER, May 16.
Kielty, M.G. 1986. Abortion - a medical perspective. L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO
     No. 18, 5 May.
Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing science: The case against creationism. Cambridge: The MIT
Kitts, D.B. 1974. Paleontology and evolutionary theory. EVOLUTION, December.
Koop, C.E. and F.A. Schaeffer. 1983. Whatever happened to the human race?
     Westchester, IL: Crossway Books.
Kramer, Rev. W.J., C.PP.S. 1986. Evolution and creation: A Catholic understanding.
     Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division.
Laurentin, Rev. R. 1986. The truth of Christmas beyond the myths: The Gospels of the
     Infancy of Christ. Petersham, MA: St. Bede's Publications.
LeVoir, Rev. J.M. 1985. Are we for John Paul II? THE WANDERER, May 30.
Long, Rev. V., 0.P.M. 1978. Evolutionism - a fairy tale for adults. HOMILETIC &
Luker, K.C. 1978. Taking chances: Abortion and the decision not to contracept. Los
     Angeles: University  of  California Press.
McBrien, Rev. R.P. 1989. Webster decision woke pro-choice support. CATHOLIC
     COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, October 26.
-----1990a. Bishop's sin is judging another person's soul. CATHOLIC COURIER,
     Diocese of Rochester, March 8.
-----1990b. Cardinal raises the stakes in abortion issue.
CATHOLIC COURIER,.Diocese of Rochester, NY  (July 26).
 - - l990c. Abortion politics: 1990. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse,
     November 14-20.
McDonnell, K. 1984. Not an easy choice: A feminist re-examines abortion. Boston:
     South End Press.
McGeady, Sr. M.R., D.C. 1991. God's lost children. New York: Covenant House.
McNamara, S. 1990a. Students examine abortion. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of
     Rochester, March 1.
-----1990b. Teen group at Desales defends life. CATHOLIC COURIER, Diocese of
     Rochester, May 10.
Medawar, P.B. 1984. The limits of science. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Messer, E. and K.E. May. 1988. Back rooms: Voices from the illegal abortion era. New
     York: St. Martin's Press.
Miceli, Rev. V.P., S.J. 1983. The antichrist. West Hanover, MA: The Christopher
     Publishing House.
Migliorino, M.M. 1984. Cuomo and the killer state. THE WANDERER, October 18. Morris, H.M. and D.H. Rohrer. 1981. The decade of creation. San Diego: Creation-Life
Morrison, Rev. H., S.J. 1982. The irrationality of biological evolution. HOMILETIC &
     PASTORAL REVIEW, August-September.
Morriss, F. 1981. Loving obedience owed to the Pope. THE WANDERER, May 28.
Myers, Most Rev. J.J. 1990. The obligations of Catholics and the rights of the unborn.
     Pastoral statement. Diocese of Peoria, IL (June 1).
Nathanson, B.N. 1979. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
-----1983. The abortion papers: Inside the abortion mentality. New York: Frederick Fell
     Publishers, Inc.
Noonan, J.T., Jr. 1973. Raw judicial power. NATIONAL REVIEW, March 2.
O'Connell, P., B.D. 1968. The origin and early history of man. Houston: Lumen Christi
0' Connor, J.  1991. Fighting for life in Wichita. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of
     Syracuse, October 10-16.
O'Connor, J.J. Card. 1990. Abortion: Questions and answers. CATHOLIC NEW YORK,
     Archdiocese of New York, June 14.
Pasinski, D. 1990. Consensus on abortion: A respectful dialogue is a good place to
     start. THE POST-STANDARD, Syracuse, May 23.
Paul VI, Pope. 1968. HUMANAE VITAE : Encyclical on the regulation of birth, 25 July.
     Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road
     Irondale, AL 35210. Electronic Copyright ©  1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved.
Petchesky, R.P. 1985. Abortion and woman's choice: The state, sexuality, and
     reproductive freedom. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Pius XI, Pope. 1930. Casti Connubii: Encyclical on Christian Marriage, 31 December.
     Provided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road
     Irondale, AL 35210. Electronic  Copyright © 1999 EWTN. All Rights Reserved]
Podell, J., ed. 1990. Abortion (The Reference Shelf, v. 62, no. 4). New York: The H.W.
     Wilson Co.
Provine, W.B. 1988. Scientists, face it! Science and religion are incompatible. THE
     SCIENTIST, September 5.
Quindlen, A. 1990. A time to choose. THE NEW YORK TIMES, January 28.
Roach, Most. Rev. J.R. and T. Card. Cooke. 1988. Testimony in support of the Hatch
     Ammendment. In; Abortion & Catholicism: The American debate. P.B. Jung and T.A.
     Shannon, eds. New York: Crossroad.
RNS. 1984. Catholic research center issues strong statement against abortion. THE
     WANDERER, October 18.
Ratzinger, J. Card. 1988. Bishops, theologians and morality. In: Abortion & Catholicism:
     The American debate. P.B. Jung and T.A. Shannon, eds. New York: Crossroad.
Rueda, Rev. E.T. 1987. Unity with diversity. THE WANDERER
(December 10).
Rodreguez, Rev. P. 1982. Primacy of the Pope. CHRISTIAN ORDER,
Sagan, C. 1980. Cosmos. New York: Random House.
-----1986. The search for radio messages from other civilizations in the depths of space
     is about to enter high gear. PARADE, September 14.
Sagan, C. and A. Druyan. 1985. Comet. New York: Random House.
Sagan, C. and A. Druyan-----1990. Is it possible to be pro-life and pro-choice?
     PARADE, April 22.
Sanger, M. 1971. Margaret Sanger: An autobiography. New York: Dover Pub., Inc.
Schafersman, S.D. 1983. Fossils, stratigraphy and evolution: Consideration of a
     creationist argument. In: Scientists confront creationism. L.R. Godfrey, ed. New York:
     W.W. Norton & Co.
---1987. Review of ASA booklet. CREATION/EVOLUTION NEWSLETTER, March/April
     and May/June.
Scobey, K. 1992. Rape: Who can help. HERALD-JOURNAL, Syracuse, February 3.
Shamon, Rev. A. 1989. Pro-life rescue missions appeal to a higher law. CATHOLIC
     COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, April 6.
Shapley, H., iid. 1960. Stars, ethics, and survival. In: Science ponders religion. New
     York: Appleton-Century-Crafts, Inc.
Shirer, W.L. 1960. The rise and fall of the Third Reich: A history of Nazi Germany. New
     York: Simon and Schuster.
Simpson, G.G. 1960. The world into which Darwin led us. SCIENCE, I April.
Smith, A. 1992. Rape victim trains to help others. HERALD- JOURNAL, Syracuse,
     February 3.
Smith, G.L. 1991. Roe vs. Wade. THE CATHOLIC SUN, Diocese of Syracuse,
     January 17-23.
Smith, J.J. 1989. Children born of rape deserve a chance at life. CATHOLIC COURIER,
     Diocese of Rochester, October 26.
Strahler, A.N. 1987. Science and earth history - The evolution/ creation controversy.
     Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Stunkle, K.R. 1982. Understanding "scientific creationism." In: Confronting the
     creationists. S. Pastner and W. Haviland, eds. Northeastern Anthropological
     Association Occasional Proceedings No. 1. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Swain, C.H. 1992. Media madness. Washington: March for Life Education & Defense
     Fund Annual Report.
Thomas, C. 1990. A conscience of convenience on abortion. HERALD-JOURNAL,
     Syracuse, July 16.
Thompson, W.R. 1956. Introduction: The origin of species. London: J.M. Dent and Sons,
     Ltd. (Everyman Library No. 811). In: New challenging "introduction" to the origin of
     species. 1967. Hounslow, Middlesex: Creation Science Movement.
Tryon, E.P. 1984. What made the world? NEW SCIENTIST, 8 March.
Walsh, Sr. M.A. 1990. Bishop: Cuomo risks going to hell for abortion view. CATHOLIC
     COURIER, Diocese of Rochester, July 26.
Willems, J. 1991. Teen reflects on 102 days in jail for abortion protest. THE CATHOLIC
     SUN, Diocese of Syracuse, November 21-27.
Womack, S.A. 1982. Creationism vs. evolutionism: The problem for cultural relativity. In:
     Confronting the creationists, S. Pastner and W. Haviland, eds. Northeastern Anthro-
pological Association Occasional Proceedings No. 1. Burlington: University of Vermont.
World Book Encyclopedia. 1962. Sanger, Margaret. Chicago: Field Enterprises
     Educational Corporation, vol. 6.

Dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary
who did not abort her CHILD!

In loving memory of Bridget McPeak
Sunday 10 May 1992 Mother's Day

Updated for the web site
August 1999.
Sincerely yours in Christ and His beleagured Church,
Bill Crofut, Founder