| Return to Pro Life Corner |
|
|
|
Special to the Herald |
The writer of a recent cover story for the New York Times Magazine (July 11, 1999), Margaret Talbot, draws attention to a topic worth considering during "Respect Life Month" --- although she probably did not intend to do so. Talbot expressed her hope that the abortion pill called "RU-486" would make abortion more acceptable, since chemical abortion is "More discreet" than its surgical counterpart. RU-486 can produce an abortion earlier in a pregnancy than a surgical intervention can, and the procedure does not necessarily call for a visit to an abortion clinic. So this method is less visible than the current practice and to the Times writer that represents a step forward in calming the abortion controversy.
What Talbot may not see was spotted instantly by Cardinal Albert Decourtray of Lyon, France (the country that invented RU-486). RU-486, he says, "produces a process which allows abortion to seem like a contraceptive." RU-486 is not a contraceptive (these prevent contraception) but an abortifacient, i.e., it causes an abortion. To describe it as "emergency (post-coital) contraception" would be dishonest. In brief, RU-486 prevents a fertilized egg --- which is a new human life --- from receiving food, water and oxygen from the mother's uterus. Eventually, the fetus starves to death or suffocates and is expelled from the womb. In 1988, the Holy See removed any doubt that such a procedure meets the definition of abortion. The Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law declared that abortion is not only "the ejection of an immature fetus," but also "the killing of the same fetus in whatever way and at whatever time from the moment of conception."
The relationship between contraception and abortion observed by Cardinal Decourtray does not apply just to RU-486. To begin with, chemical abortion, under the guise of contraception, has been prevalent for over 30 years. To varying degrees, the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, Depo-Provera and the birth control pill can all function as abortifacients. This may come as a surprise to some people, especially in the case of the pill. However, the Physician's Desk Reference and literature from the drug companies themselves attest that the pill works in one of three ways: by blocking ovulation, by impeding fertilization, or by preventing "nidation," i.e., the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. This third possibility results in a spontaneous abortion.
It is surely true that many women who take the pill are unaware of the danger of a "silent" abortion, particularly if their doctor has prescribed the pill to treat a medical condition such as endometriosis, ovarian cysts, unusual bleeding, irregular cycle, etc. Nevertheless, Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Nebraska, Dr. Bogomir M. Kuhar of Pharmacists for Life, and others estimate that most birth control pills on the market have anywhere from a two percent to 10 percent chance of allowing "breakthrough" ovulation, which is why all types of the pill are also designed to work as abortifacients.
The link between contraception and abortion can be discovered not only in particular methods of birth prevention, but also in what Pope John Paul II calls the "contraceptive mentality." In his 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," the "Gospel of Life," the Holy Father says that "despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree." The pope points out that in many cases, both practices are "rooted in a hedonistic mentality" that tries to separate sexual pleasure from procreation. He believes that this type of thinking strengthens the temptation to accept abortion as the only solution to failed contraception, because "the life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs." ("Evangelium Vitae" 13).
Given the Church's constant teaching on the transmission of life and the regulation of birth, John Paul's insight may not be unexpected. Yet what may be surprising is the unintended endorsement given to the Holy Father by those who might otherwise reject his reasoning. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that abortion must remain available as a backup to contraception. In the 1992 case Parenthood v. Casey, the Court said, "In several critical respects, abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception. For two decades of economic and social development (i.e., since the 1973 decision to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade), people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define themselves and their place in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Even those in the pro-abortion camp are frank about the connection between abortion and contraception. Well known feminist Germain Greer wrote in 1984, "Abortion is an extension of contraceptive technology, and the most promising extension of it at that. Abortion is not a stopgap between here and some future perfect contraceptive; it can very well be the chose method of birth control for more and more women."
To Planned Parenthood and similar groups, contraception and abortion are simply two different methods to achieve the same goal: controlling fertility. Planned Parenthood itself defines "family planning" as "averting the devastation of unwanted childbearing through contraception and safe, legal abortion." Although such organizations may sometimes claim that more and "better" contraception will yield fewer abortions, the reality is that:
1. Abortion proponents do not really distinguish between contraception and abortion. What guides their thinking is not the method but the desire to prevent pregnancy. Frank Susman, the lawyer for the pro-abortion side in the 1989 Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, stated that the "right" to contraception and to abortion "coalesce and merge and they are not distinct." Furthermore, he said that if abortion were made illegal, then contraception must be made illegal as well.
2. There is no country where ready access to contraception has not led to an increase in abortion. In particular, the step from chemical abortion to surgical abortion is a short one. Dr. Malcolm Potts, former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, said in 1973, "No society has controlled its fertility without recourse to a significant number of abortions. In fact, abortion is often the starting place in the control of fertility." Dr. Potts also conceded that "as people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate."
3. As former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, Dr. Kenneth D. Whitehead, observed, "No society in history has ever been as well supplied with the means of birth control as our society --- yet the abortion rate too remains at the astronomically high levels, quickly registered after the legalization of this lethal practice."
4. Finally, as Dr. Brian Clowes of Human Life International notes, abortifacients, like RU-486 are "much more effective at ending pregnancies than contraceptives are at preventing them."
The rise in the number of pregnancies outside of marriage, especially among teenagers, parallels the rise in the availability and use of contraception, a link admitted publicly by two doctors credited with developing the birth control pill. Dr. Robert Kirstner of Harvard Medical School has said, "for years, I thought that the pill would not lead to promiscuity, but I've changed my mind." In addition, Dr. Min-Chueh has acknowledged that the pill has made teenagers "more permissive."
As teenage promiscuity and the availability and use of contraception have increased, there has also been an almost identical rise in teenage abortions. This further suggests that contraception increases abortion since contraception fosters the idea that pregnancy can and always must be controlled.
In 1955, Alfred Kinsey pointed out the highest frequency of induced abortion exists among those who most frequently use contraception, and this remains true today. It is also true, as Dr. Janet Smith from the University of Dallas says, that most abortions come about "because men and women who do not want a baby are having sexual intercourse and facing pregnancies they did not plan for and do not want. Because their contraceptive failed or because they failed to use a contraceptive, they then resort to abortion as a backup." Planned Parenthood's own research supports this conclusion. Frequently, the reasons given for using contraception are the same reasons given for having an abortion. Once the attempt is made to separate sexual activity from procreation by means of contraception, why should the reasoning or intention change when contraception fails?
The "contraceptive mentality" that concerns Pope John Paul seeks to sever the connections between sexual intercourse and procreation, between sex and marriage. Pregnancy often then becomes at best, an "accident" or much worse, "unwanted." American culture no longer considers the norm to be "spouses who have martial relations," but "partners who have sex." It is worth noting that Sigmund Freud considered the separation of procreation from sexual activity the fundamental perversion of sexual life.
Furthermore, the dangers of contraception are not confined to the unmarried. Dr. Teresa Menart from the pro life group called "One More Soul" puts it well when she says that by changing the nature of the conjugal act, contraception "also changes the relationship of the couple involved." Husband and wife who contracept may be tempted to use each other for their own pleasures. "It is no surprise then," Dr. Menart continues, "that when people learn to degrade and devalue themselves, their loved one and their relationship, that it becomes easy to devalue the new life that comes forth from them."
Dr. Menart's view enjoys the support of a well respected and much loved figure. At the the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Mother Trees stated quite plainly that contraception not only destroys "the power of giving life," but it also fosters selfishness in marriage. "Once that living love is destroyed by contraception," said Mother Teresa "abortion follows very easily."
Reprinted with permission of FairField County Catholic.
Fr. Check is a priest of the Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut
Copyright ©1999 Arlington Catholic Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article was published in the Arlington
Catholic Herald,
200 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 607, Arlington, VA 22203; Vol 24, No 40,
dated October 7, 1999.
.
E-mail:
letters@catholicherald.com
Fax: 703/524-2782;
Editorial: 703/841-2590;
Advertising: 703/841-2594;
Circulation: 703/841-2565
A note from the Web Master:
It is noteworthy and honorable that some folks are willing to stand up for a ban on Partial-Birth Abortion. Let us not forget that ordinary everyday run of the mill abortion is also murder. We must understand that aborting the life of a baby is murder no matter the method. Because one method of abortion seems to be horrible does not make the other methods less so. We should be horrified and sickened by any abortion regardless of the method. The Fifth Commandment spells it out clearly:
"Thou shalt not kill."
A fetus is a person, a human being with a God given soul.
Imagine the pain the Lord must feel when any abortion occurs. Please
contact both of your Senators and Representative, via letter or phone,
to let them know how horrified you are that abortions are legal and to
stop, once and for all, Partial-Birth abortions and all other abortions
as soon as possible.
| Return to Pro Life Corner | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|