[Pflienews] PharmFacts E-News Update: SF investigates, re-approves abortoholic CCHD grantee;
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org
Wed Jan 6 11:50:04 MST 2010
*PharmFacts E-News Update -- 6 Jan 2010 AD
**This daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous gifts of
our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight for the
defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help or to renew your dues
online TODAY!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*DONATE TODAY....PFLI is relying on /you/
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/contents/en-us/d4.html>*
Please help us carry on our apostolate to help protect the
innocent preborn and defend pharmacist rights of conscience. We
also are pulling out the stops to raise extra funds for vitamins
and supplies for pregnancy help centers.
Goal: $50,000; Donations received to date: $1,455
*This (almost) daily e-newsletter is only possible through the generous
gifts of our readers and supporters. Please help us continue to fight
for the defense of babies by donating today!** **Click here*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>*
<http://www.pfli.org/shop/index1.html>to help or to renew your dues
online TODAY!
**
If you have not done so, NOW is time to renew your commitment for 2010
<http://www.pfli.org/shop>to the preborn and the mission of PFLI by
renewing your membership in the ONLY pro-life association of
pharmacists, technicians, interns, students and the lay public. We rely
solely on the dues and donations of our members and supporters to
continue this apostolate of education and providing material assistance
to pregnancy help centers. Consider a two year renewal and save 10% over
the annual rate! Three year renewal enjoys a 15% discount! Do it today!
We know the economy has been difficult for many families this year, and
non-profit volunteer organizations like ours are the first to feel those
effects. Can you send you most generous gift this Christmas for your
association? $5, $10, $25, $50, $100? <http://www.pfli.org/shop>
No gift is too small or not gratefully appreciated! With your help, we
have dispensed tens of thousands of prenatal vitamins and supplies this
year to women with troubled pregnancies; help us to continue that
mission in 2010, as well as providing breaking news on our website daily.
Please do this TODAY by clicking this link! <http://www.pfli.org/shop>**
<http://www.pfli.org/shop>Thanks and God bless you this Christmas and in
2010!*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Breast Cancer Scandal: National Cancer Institute Researcher Louise
Brinton Reverses Position, Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer
Risk in Study that Fingers [Abortifacient] Oral "Contraceptives" as a
Probable Cause of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Study is 9 months old, but still no warnings from cancer establishment
MEDIA ADVISORY, Jan. 6 /Christian Newswire/ -- Less than two months
since the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force issued new guidelines
recommending against routine mammograms for women in their forties, a
second breast cancer scandal involving a U.S. government panel of
experts has come to light which has implications for healthcare reform.
An April 2009 study by Jessica Dolle et al. of the Fred Hutchinson
Cancer Research Center examining the relationship between oral
contraceptives (OCs) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in women
under age 45 contained an admission from U.S. National Cancer Institute
(NCI) researcher Louise Brinton and her colleagues (including Janet
Daling) that abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40%. [1]
Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18
multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within
the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an
aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.
"Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen
Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI,
the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other
cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast
cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."
Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the
abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the
non-existence of the link was "well established." [2]
Dolle's team reported in Table 1 a statistically significant 40% risk
increase for women who have had abortions. They listed abortion among
"known and suspected risk factors."
Brinton and Daling had previously studied this population from the
Seattle-Puget Sound area in the 1990s and reported risk increases
between 20% and 50% among women with abortions. [3,4] In the 2009 study,
they and their co-authors wrote that their findings concerning induced
abortion, OC use and certain other risk factors, "were consistent with
the effects observed in previous studies on younger women."
"Obviously, more women will die of breast cancer if the NCI fails in its
duty to warn about the risks of OCs and abortion and if government funds
are used to pay for both as a part of any healthcare bill," said Mrs.
Malec.
A brief analysis of the study
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102923680531&s=16890&e=001hF4OKqYo9h33zMhuT4v0Xt3f3rmX1oS77MLbHIU6qlwmaGCmiTuGnp0BSsHc19aEoa6EeyW3BM44AN7w6t64tWvDpegbHWGM3Wc1jnRZ9AX-ZFevHZgcGHRvEASyYljWqrSqX4nZ0IpQnzpGtqd-p_-hugsW8SLCddo9O_6cs7a-pwZkFmCSAA==>,
Dolle et al. 2009, was provided by Dr. Joel Brind, professor of biology
and endocrinology and deputy chair for biology at Baruch College, City
University of New York.
Last year, studies from Turkey and China also reported statistically
significant risk increases for women who had abortions. [5,6]
The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer is an international women's
organization founded to protect the health and save the lives of women
by educating and providing information on abortion as a risk factor for
breast cancer.
References available online at www.abortionbreastcancer.com/press_
releases/100106/index.htm
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102923680531&s=16890&e=001hF4OKqYo9h3P1Eh1m0NgM1id6z2R6z0ynkgV5kdqtf5pf-c7m_XzHhSQkqs-Kd0_Ah8xALN-CJG2T8wJEWDmihBrViUyK-CFlwtUraouzbIk6O3xY9cyfWN5OiKKNjbRFm0iy0M4TYKf0_nbyGth1t1y56JPVFaIxok-zinztxZCeQyVpDXChw==>
Christian Newswire
<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102923680531&s=16890&e=001hF4OKqYo9h2zBSGLKo17YNNu-gNLfo8r8m1FiyRpLbxNMarrOcrifkjc96pn-2Qt6yJCfFHgUvFzv9QMYqVB4FtBVJGUehtbXn7VGEUowj_u1Ga-e6NZtUttzc-sLxB7>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New archbishop gets down to business
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/archbishopgetstowork.html%3F21320&ct=ga&cd=y1XqW8VbiX8&usg=AFQjCNF-21GGmONNxFlqxf8DyWJ_P2cvYw>
OnMilwaukee.com
Listecki has come down hard in terms of moral teachings, saying it is
wrong for anyone -- including rape victims -- to use *emergency
contraception*. *...*
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://onmilwaukee.com/buzz/articles/archbishopgetstowork.html%3F21320&hl=en>
San Francisco Archdiocese Reinvestigates, Approves Pro-Abortion CCHD
Grantee
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010503.html&ct=ga&cd=y1XqW8VbiX8&usg=AFQjCNEzuhDJTD89rZn1r0rm9jYPsaIyug>
Lifesite
*...* Life League is a member) revealed the SFOP's strong support for
health care facilities that provide family planning and "*emergency"
contraception*. *...*
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010503.html&hl=en>
*Planned Parenthood Clinic Listed on Jesuit University's Student Health
Services Site
*http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99651
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=574&L=4038&F=H>
EWTN
The web site of the Student Health Services office at Loyola University
New Orleans includes Planned Parenthood among its list of local clinics
and offers a link to Planned Parenthood of Louisiana and the Misssippi
Delta. The university's web site also notes that students who have taken
the sociology department's capstone course (Sociology
Internship/Practicum) "have interned at Planned Parenthood."
*Sebelius Praises Senate Health Plan's Abortion Coverage
*http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=99656
<http://ss.all.org/link.php?M=18096&N=574&L=4037&F=H>
EWTN
In a little-publicized interview given with the Feminist blog,
"BlogHer.com," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
praised the language in the Senate version of the health care bill
because it upholds publicly-funded abortion coverage.
Philippine Bishops Issue "Catechism on Family and Life" for Upcoming
Elections
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010410.html&ct=ga&cd=4OKjbXFBmvY&usg=AFQjCNFBO6reaFLU1JhO9tAp5bnNmhXoGQ>
Lifesite
The bishops point the finger at politicians on the left who have
attempted to impose legislation to loosen restrictions on abortion,
*contraception* and to *...*
See all stories on this topic
<http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010410.html&hl=en>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Pelosi: My Pro-Abortion Stance is Consistent with Catholic Faith*
By Kathleen Gilbert
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 4, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/>) - In defending her pro-abortion views
against the teachings of the Catholic Church in late December, House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a professed Catholic, argued that restricting
abortion amounts to a violation of women's free will and is inconsistent
with her Catholic faith.
Pelosi told Newsweek's Eleanor Clift December 21 that she had "some
concerns" about the Catholic Church's positions on abortion and
homosexuality.
"I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy
about that. But it is my faith," said the Speaker. "I practically mourn
this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe
is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed
with, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And
that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will."
Rep. Pelosi also discussed her interaction with Church hierarchy over
the last-minute decision to include Hyde-amendment restrictions on
federal abortion funding in the House's health care bill in early
November. After a group of conservative Democrats signaled that they
would not support the bill without the abortion funding ban sponsored by
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Pelosi turned to the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops to negotiate adequate pro-life language. Pelosi was
ultimately forced to include the Stupak ban, which was rejected in the
later Senate version.
Pelosi maintained that the bill's original abortion language, which
segregated the government-appropriated monies funding abortion, would
have kept the legislation "abortion neutral."
"I said to [one of the cardinals] that I believe that what we are doing
honors the principles we talked about.... They said, 'We believe that it
does not,'" she said. "That's what the meeting was about --- to make
our case. Clearly, the people at that table were not willing to accept
what we know to be a fact."
Asked whether it was difficult for her to reconcile her faith with her
public life, the Speaker responded: "You know, I had five children in
six years. The day I brought my fifth baby home, that week my daughter
turned 6. So I appreciate and value all that they want to talk about in
terms of family and the rest."
She continued: "When I speak to my archbishop in San Francisco and his
role is to try to change my mind on the subject, well then he is
exercising his pastoral duty to me as one of his flock. When they call
me on the phone here to talk about, or come to see me about an issue,
that's a different story. Then they are advocates, and I am a public
official, and I have a different responsibility."
Pelosi's bishop, San Francisco Archbishop George Niederauer, reportedly
met <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021809.html>quietly with
her last February in what Pelosi's spokesman called a "cordial" exchange
on the topic of abortion.
Niederauer and 25 other U.S. bishops publicly corrected Pelosi in August
after she indicated in a Meet the Press interview that historic Catholic
Church teaching was unclear about the morality of abortion.
Print this Story
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/printerfriendly.html?articleid=10010402> |
Email to a Friend
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/sendtofriend.html?articleid=10010402> |
View Story on LifeSiteNews.com
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/viewonsite.html?articleid=10010402>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed with permission of the authors
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_172responsetocondic.html
Lifeissues.net: <http://www.lifeissues.net/>clear thinking about crucial
issues
*Irving and Kischer Responses to Dr. Condic's [pseudo]"Science" in
National Catholic Register Interview***
/January 6, 2010 //
/*Dr Dianne N Irving, MA, PhD
*/Former career appointed biologist/biochemist NCI/NIH, and //
//Professor of the history of philosophy, and of medical ethics //
//Email: DNIrving at aol.com <mailto:DNIrving at aol.com> //
/*C Ward Kischer, PhD*///
//Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology & Anatomy //
//University of Arizona, College of Medicine //
//Tucson, Arizona 85724 //
//Email: cwkischer at yahoo.com <mailto:cwkischer at yahoo.com>//
//Reproduced with Permission /**
/ /
/[Note: The following responses to Dr. Maureen Condic's "science"
presented in her interview on "when human life begins" with the National
Catholic Register were written independently, and sent to the NCR and
related others. They are copied here as sent. Such overtly erroneous
"science" could be used to "justify" human cloning, human embryonic stem
cell research, human reproductive genetic engineering, the use of
abortifacients - whether the early human embryo is sexually or asexually
reproduced, in vivo or in vitro. Such erroneous "science" needs to be
identified, especially for those with little or no scientific
background. Dr. Condic's interview follows at the end. - D.N. I. and CWK] /
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publisher and Editor in Chief
NC Register
Father Owen Kearns, LC
Dear Editor Kearns:
In the issue of the NC Register, dated December 20th - January 2nd, an
article was posted dated December 14th, 2009 entitled: "When Human Life
Begins". It was written by Sue Ellen Browder. She interviewed Dr.
Maureen Condic, a faculty member at the University of Utah, School of
Medicine.
I never cease to be amazed that when I see and read about this subject:
"When Human Life Begins", the wrong people have been sought after for
interviews and comments. Why is it that human embryologists are rarely
those interviewed? Dr. Condic is not a human embryologist. In this
particular article, she makes some profound errors and misstatements.
Dr. Condic says "the first human cell" is a zygote. This is incorrect.
The term "zygote" identifies a cell formed about 24 hours after
fertilization. It is important to use this term correctly because many
events occur prior to 24 hours.
Dr. Condic states that the zygote "is not a new individual". Oh, yes it
is. The analogy to a car is not useful. From the moment of first contact
of fertilization, everything in that new, individual life is changing,
until death, whenever that may occur. This involves all of the
characteristics of life: size, form, content, function and appearance,
etc. It's just that the rates of change vary, sometimes dramatically, to
the extent that anyone might not be so appreciated. You can't say that
about a car. Assigning relative values at any point is simply arbitrary
and not scientifically grounded. Therefore, at any time point along the
continuum of life there is a whole, integrated human life.
Dr. Condic states that defining pregnancy at implantation "makes perfect
sense both medically and biologically". Wrong again! There are two basic
reasons why defining pregnancy at implantation is nonsense. 1.
Fertilization occurs, optimally, in the ampulla of the Fallopian tube
[the upper third]. During the 5 to 6 days it takes for the embryo to
arrive in the uterus, the mother is protecting and nurturing that
embryo. 2. During that 5 to 6 days journey, the embryo is continuing to
develop. Both of these activities are occurring during a pregnancy.
The idea that pregnancy begins at implantation of the embryo into the
uterus was generated more than four decades ago. At that time there were
concerns about the actions of chemical contraceptives. Albert Rosenfeld
wrote in his book "Second Genesis" [1969], if chemical contraceptives
prevent implantation of the embryo into the uterus, some may hold that
constitutes abortion. "A way around this impasse has been suggested by
Dr. A. S. Parkes of Cambridge: Equate conception with the time of
implantation - a difference of only a few days".
The question of "person" and "personhood" are not within my expertise. I
am a scientist. These are philosophical issues and, therefore, may be
arbitrary. Yet, as a scientist I view a "person" as a human being, and
an embryo as a human being from the first moment [first contact] of
fertilization. It seems to me that the issue of what leads to
fertilization is virtually never discussed: that is, sexual intercourse,
which leads to pregnancy. It appears that some women want the pleasures
of sexual intercourse without the attendant responsibility of a possible
pregnancy. If human rights were to be considered for the embryo, perhaps
some women would be more discriminating in their activities leading up
to the assignment of rights for the new, individual human being.
/With all good wishes,
C. Ward Kischer, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology & Anatomy
Specialty in Human Embryology
University of Arizona, College of Medicine
Tucson, Arizona 85724
Email: cwkischer at yahoo.com <mailto:cwkischer at yahoo.com>/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/[The following on-line comment was sent by Dr. Irving directly from the
"comment" webpage for Dr. Condic's interview with the National Catholic
Register] /
/ /
I was astounded to read in a Catholic news website article so much
scientific nonsense (Sue Ellin Browder's interview with Dr. Maureen
Condic on "When Human Life Begins", Dec. 20, 2009, at:
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/19659/). Where to begin?
(1) As Dr. Condic has been advised before, she can't claim both that the
new human being begins at penetration of the oocyte, and also when the
zygote forms. Those are two very different points in time. Since 1942
the internationally grounded Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic
Development - the "gold standard" of human embryology - makes it
perfectly clear that in SEXUAL human reproduction the new human being
begins to exist at first contact of the sperm and oocyte
*(**http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/collections/hdac/stage1.pdf**)*. If
the zygote is claimed instead, that falsely justifies unethical research
on the human embryo before the formation of the zygote - when most
unethical genetic engineering, cloning, iPS research is performed.
(2) The very same international experts' website has always documented
that normally a woman is pregnant when the new human being is formed at
first contact of the sperm with the oocyte inside the woman's fallopian
tube - absolutely not at implantation. It is only during artificial
assisted IVF/ART that a woman is pregnant at implantation. Dr. Condic's
false science would "justify" the use of abortifacients -- which even
the makers of Plan B admit on their website and in their medical inserts
that one mechanism of the pill is to prevent implantation of the new
already existing human being. This scientific error would also justify
embryo flushing, prenatal genetic diagnosis, and the use of the early
human embryo until the blastocyst stage in unethical research such as
human cloning and other unethical genetic engineering, etc.
(3) Not all human beings begin with "conception" (sexual reproduction);
even one of every two natural monozygotic twins naturally occurring
within a woman's body are asexually reproduced, as are IVF/ART twins,
clones, etc. Dr. Condic's false science leaves out all asexually
reproduced human beings - who can then be exploited and killed.
(4) Dr. Condic seems oblivious to the concept that the right to life is
fundamentally a natural right conferred by God and by virtue of the
embryo's own inherent humanity, rather than by political "consensus" or
"logic".
(5) Dr. Condic also seems unaware that the question of when a human
BEING begins to exist is a strictly scientific question, but that the
question of when a human PERSON begins to exist is a philosophical or
theological question. One can't empirically document "personhood", but
only reason to it - IF the accurate human embryology is used as the
starting point.
(6) Dr. Condic seems to co-opt the current "personhood" language by
identifying the zygote rather than the embryo formed at first contact of
sperm and oocyte as "when human life begins". Personhood initiatives
beware.
Dr. Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D.
Former career appointed biologist/biochemist NCI/NIH, and
Professor of the history of philosophy, and of medical ethics
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/19659
NCRegister.com December 20, 2009-January 2, 2010 Issue
Posted 12/14/09 at 1:04 PM
By Sue Ellin Browder
*When Human Life Begins *
Many politicians and lawyers nowadays say the answer to this question
remains shrouded in "mystery." As pro-abortion Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, told NBC News' Tom Brokaw last year, "I don't
think anybody can tell you when ... human life begins." Vice President
Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic, told Brokaw he personally
believes life begins at conception simply as a "matter of faith."
But cutting-edge biology can answer this question objectively,
accurately and definitively. In her paper "When Does Human Life Begin? A
Scientific Perspective," Maureen Condic, a senior fellow at The
Westchester Institute for Ethics & the Human Person, spells out the
simple scientific facts. It's available at WestchesterInstitute.net.
In a conversation with the Register's Sue Ellin Browder, Condic, who is
also associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University
of Utah School of Medicine, explained how these facts can help all
people of good will deepen our nation's dialogue about the beginnings of
life.
*You said the first step to understanding when a human person begins is
to understand how a whole living being (an organism) differs from a
clump of cells. *
Yes. Living beings exist, and we all recognize them - dogs, cats,
mosquitoes, oak trees, people. As living beings, we're all integrated,
functioning wholes. We have parts that all work together in order to do
the job of life. Sometimes diseases, injuries or defects - birth
defects, for example - can compromise the functioning of the whole
being. But even if a little baby is born without arms, a very
unfortunate birth defect, we all recognize it's still a baby.
*So a living being differs from a clump of cells in that the organism
has interacting parts working together as a coordinated whole? *
Yes. Although collections of human cells are alive, they fail to work
together in an interdependent, coordinated way to "carry on the
activities of life."
*So when do you first see an embryo behaving in this way - as a whole
being with integrated parts all working together in a coordinated way? *
The scientific evidence on this is very clear. You see this kind of
holistic functioning *from the moment when a new cell, distinct from the
sperm and the egg, comes into existence*.
*How quickly does this fusion between sperm and egg take place? *
It's a very rapid event. In less than a second, an entirely new human
cell comes into existence. *This new human cell (known as a zygote)* has
a unique molecular composition that's distinct from either the sperm or
the egg. And its behavior also differs radically from that of either
sperm or egg.
*In what way? *
Well, for example, the *zygote's* first act is to change its composition
*so no other sperm can bind to its surface*. This happens within the
first 30 minutes following sperm-egg fusion.
*So you're saying this little single cell biologically acts as a
coordinated whole "in its own interest," so to speak? *
I would say that even at the one-cell stage, the zygote is directing its
own development. About five or six days later, at about the time of
implantation, the embryo produces a hormone that can be detected in the
mother's blood or urine to tell her she's pregnant.
*This human zygote seems to be very busy. Why do so many people believe
a human person's life begins at a later stage? *
Many people think that because the embryo isn't fully formed, it's not a
new individual. A colleague recently told me that the embryo is merely
"a unique human cell in the process of becoming a new human, but not
there yet."
This way of thinking is compelling because it's similar to our thinking
about the much more familiar process of manufacturing. *A car isn't a
car until it rolls off the assembly line. Until then, it's just a bunch
of parts in the process of becoming a car*.
*But you said a profound difference exists between manufacturing a car
and embryonic development. And what is that? *
The difference is who (or what) is doing the "producing." The embryo is
not being passively built by some external "builder" controlling the
assembly process. Rather, the embryo is manufacturing itself.
There is actually no endpoint to the "building" of a self-organizing
human being. It's an ongoing process that continues from sperm-egg
fusion - the *"moment of conception"* - through birth, maturation and
aging and ends only in death.
If *a person begins at fusion (fertilization)*, what does this say about
"emergency contraception" pills like Plan B? The manufacturer says Plan
B doesn't kill a person because it doesn't disrupt an implanted pregnancy.
Well, *I think the jury is still out on whether Plan B kills an
implanted embryo*. But my concern is that once an embryo has been
conceived, even preventing implantation is killing it.
*The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists actually
redefined "pregnancy" in 1965 as beginning not at fertilization but at
implantation. Some say it was done to get around the fact an
intrauterine device could cause abortions. What do you think of that? *
I think it was done for political reasons. But, that said, *I think
defining "pregnancy" as implantation makes perfect sense both medically
and biologically*.
*Interesting. Why? *
Because "pregnancy" is the state of the woman, and *a woman does not
become pregnant until she's gestating an embryo or fetus. That requires
implantation*.
But that's irrelevant to the life of the individual conceived at
fertilization. I actually think a fairly strong legal argument can be
made that taking a lethal action against a human being prior to
implantation steps outside the whole Roe v. Wade jurisprudence entirely.
*In what way? *
The whole basis of the "right" to an abortion is that a woman has a
right to control her own body.
Ah. But prior to implantation, the self-organizing human embryo isn't
attached to her body. Right. It's not involving your body if you're
taking lethal action toward an embryo prior to implantation.
*In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declined to decide when a human
person begins. Could these new biological facts challenge Roe v. Wade at
its very foundation? *
Let's put it this way: We need to define what we're actually taking
lethal action against because the biology is unequivocal. You can't
argue with the biology. Anybody who tries will be blown out of the
water. There's no argument about the fact that embryos are human beings
from a scientifically well-defined *"moment of conception."* That's what
they are.
*This brings up a frequently asked question that goes beyond when life
begins. And that is: When does the right to life begin? *
I think ultimately this is the real debate. Let's stop arguing about
when life begins. We know when life begins. There's no question about
it. Beyond that, you're then left with the question "When do we assign
rights to this individual?"
Let's talk about what we really are arguing about: When do rights begin?
When do we confer rights upon embryos? We know they are clearly human
beings - a living member of the human species - from the one-cell stage
forward. When do we actually value these persons sufficiently to allow
them the right to continued existence?
You said that when we assign rights to an individual person is
ostensibly an arguable point. I think ultimately the implications of the
argument become terrifying pretty quickly. But, still, you can make the
argument that we as a society give and take away rights all the time.
You know, children don't drive cars, vote or drink alcohol. And aged
people who run their cars up onto bus stops and kill people have their
right to drive taken away. So based on their biological state - their
physical or mental competence, their age, their maturity - we confer or
revoke rights on people all the time.
So how do we decide when to confer rights on a person in the embryonic
stage of development? There are a number of ways to do it. The first is
that we assign rights intrinsically to you as a person simply because
you're a member of the human species. That's the historical way rights
have been assigned in this country and throughout the world. "All men
are created equal." All members of the human race have certain rights
that accrue to them inherently, among which are the right to "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That's in the Declaration of
Independence.
*But many people, even Catholic politicians, rebel against this way of
conferring rights on embryonic persons. Why? *
I think the problem is the emotional response. People can follow the
argument up through the point of "Okay, so an embryo is a human
organism, and it starts at fertilization." But then they look at this
clump of cells. They look at their spouse, child or grandmother. And
they protest, "How can you possibly say these two things are of equal
moral worth? How can you equate this little ball of cells with my child
who's dying of cancer or my grandmother who has Parkinson's?" Obviously,
your emotions and your intuitions just go into a stage of revolt. They
say, "It's not possible. These two things are too different in
magnitude: One is foreign and small and it doesn't even look like a
person; it doesn't do anything. And the other one is this individual I
love and whose health I care about."
So I think that's what drives the rejection of rights adhering in a
person simply because of what they are - a member of the human species.
People reject it, and they cast about for other ways to assign rights.
*What other ways are there? *
One argument is that rights gradually accrue as a function of some
aspect of biological maturity. For example, when my lungs are mature to
the point that I can have viability if I'm born, then I have the right
to life.
*But you said most people reject viability as a meaningful argument. Why? *
Because viability says nothing about whether or not the developing fetus
we're talking about is actually a person. It only says something about
the state of our technology. Why should a fetus in rural Nebraska
without access to sophisticated neonatal intensive care be a nonperson
at 30 weeks because we just don't have the equipment to keep it alive,
but a fetus at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston be a person at 20 weeks?
It seems absurd to make personhood contingent on the availability of
technology.
*What about assigning rights according to brain maturity - consciousness
or, perhaps, the capacity for reason or self-awareness? *
I can understand why people focus on consciousness, because our ability
to understand ourselves is the basis for all our most meaningful
experiences. Our memories, feelings, emotions and thoughts all involve
the ability to reflect on yourself and to be aware of who you are as a
thinker, an actor, a person who chooses. It's the intimacy of this
conscious experience, I think, that drives people to believe this is
somehow critical to being a human being. And yet when we try to assign
rights in this way, we run immediately into problems. Given the very,
very slow course of brain development - which is my field - the brain
isn't fully "mature" until you're in your 20s. The question "When do you
have a brain?" depends on how you define "brain." The strict
neurobiologist would say, well, at age 25. That's a mature brain. And
from then on out, it's a declining brain. You have a very brief window
of time where your brain gets to maturity - and then it starts falling
apart. Sad but true. Since the "mature brain" exists only for some brief
moment of time, after which it starts decay, how can we use this as the
criterion on which we're to assign the right to life?
*What about consciousness as a criterion for assigning rights? *
If we use consciousness as a basis, what about retarded individuals who
never achieve a fully mature level of consciousness? Are we going to
assign rights proportionate to intelligence - with smart people having
greater liberty and more rights than less intelligent people?
Everybody rejects this immediately: "Oh, that's absurd! Of course we
don't do that!" But then, where's the bar? Where are we going to set the
consciousness bar so it's low enough to exclude embryos but high enough
to include severely retarded people? And if we set the bar below a
typically human level of consciousness, then we run into problems coming
up from the bottom. Why are not chimpanzees then human persons? And why
are not dogs human persons? Plenty of animals have a level of brain
function comparable to that of a newborn.
*Then you said there's the social-consensus way of assigning rights.
What's that about? *
People will say, "Well, okay, personhood doesn't have to be linked to
biology. It's just a social consensus. When people feel 'comfortable'
calling something a person, then it is. We're just going to get
everybody together in a big group hug and decide 'where we feel
comfortable' conferring rights upon a baby."
The problem with this, of course, is that once you've embarked down this
road - that we've all just "agreed" that a fetus has a right to live at
a certain point in time because "we feel good about this" - you
eventually undermine the concept of rights completely.
*In what way? *
Once rights become a matter of social consensus, on what basis could you
possibly object to Nazi Germany? There was a social consensus there: The
majority of voters elected Hitler and supported his policies. They all
got together, and coming out of their little huddle, agreed that Jews
didn't have any rights.
To people who take this social-consensus view of rights, it seems
"reasonable" and "intuitive." It feels like it should make sense. And
yet as soon as you start pushing it intellectually in any way
whatsoever, it really means there are no rights at all. If there's only
consensus, there's no conceivable basis for objecting to denying rights
to anyone.
So we're left to come up with another view - or to accept the
uncomfortable truth that rights adhere in a person simply because
they're a human being. And if that's the case - if rights accrue to a
person independent of their size, state of maturity, functional
abilities, consciousness or any other feature - the conclusion is
inescapable: We have to confer rights on embryos from the one-cell stage
onward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Sue Ellin Browder writes from Ukiah, California. /
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such
material is made available for educational purposes, to advance
understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without
profit. Emphases added.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PFLI PharmAid Center
pfli at pfli.org <mailto:pfli at pfli.org>
PO Box 1281
Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA
800-227-8359
www.pfli.org
<%3Cform%20action=%22https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr%22%20method=%22post%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22cmd%22%20value=%22_s-xclick%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22image%22%20src=%22https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-butcc-donate.gif%22%20border=%220%22%20name=%22submit%22%20alt=%22Make%20payments%20with%20PayPal%20-%20it%27s%20fast,%20free%20and%20secure%21%22%3E,%3Cinput%20type=%22hidden%22%20name=%22encrypted%22%20value=%22-----BEGIN%20PKCS7-----MIIHDgYJKoZIhvcNAQcEoIIG/zCCBvsCAQExggEwMIIBLAIBADCBlDCBjjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgTAkNBMRYwFAYDVQQHEw1Nb3VudGFpbiBWaWV3MRQwEgYDVQQKEwtQYXlQYWwgSW5jLjETMBEGA1UECxQKbGl2ZV9jZXJ0czERMA8GA1UEAxQIbGl2ZV9hcGkxHDAaBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWDXJlQHBheXBhbC5jb20CAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEgYBCghZOVGZlieOruRnAgEV8/uAC9TQOtQX2x7btEZ/H93aoVYUvu+qWfglPJbCj3NjvKSZr92X5eNxd11TKGgDqtI7f8vWuwntnuHnwoXm8laoLpklBH8ZSc7IX6wtZmw1/St/Lfxu6l+L0HfZDJrYmnTCS9pVMpt/xs/0cc9OsLzELMAkGBSsOAwIaBQAwgYsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAUBggqhkiG9w0DBwQIMdzynwtmH%0A%0A%0A%0A%0A7yAaPdNuhkxhP7at8q3uBYpPEsrPDNFUT6LF5ifULBN1NQe0HVyskYDtW0+TpTfBoDtHNzPOPdP31JXxAhNanUcUHrTeJ2wqvWRkjHAPKAm8N54pgMLxmXAmH7ZAbvBgBmL+5RAwTiopzewoIIDhzCCA4MwggLsoAMCAQICAQAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgY4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJDQTEWMBQGA1UEBxMNTW91bnRhaW4gVmlldzEUMBIGA1UEChMLUGF5UGFsIEluYy4xEzARBgNVBAsUCmxpdmVfY2VydHMxETAPBgNVBAMUCGxpdmVfYXBpMRwwGgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg1yZUBwYXlwYWwuY29tMB4XDTA0MDIxMzEwMTMxNVoXDTM1MDIxMzEwMTMxNVowgY4xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMQswCQYDVQQIEwJDQTEWMBQGA1UEBxMNTW91bnRhaW4gVmlldzEUMBIGA1UEChMLUGF5UGFsIEluYy4xEzARBgNVBAsUCmxpdmVfY2VydHMxETAPBgNVBAMUCGxpdmVfYXBpMRwwGgYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFg1yZUBwYXlwYWwuY29tMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDBR07d/ETMS1ycjtkpkvjXZe9k+6CieLuLsPumsJ7QC1odNz3sJiCbs2wC0nLE0uLGaEtXynIgRqIddYCHx88pb5HTXv4SZeuv0Rqq4+axW9PLAAATU8w04qqjaSXgbGLP3NmohqM6bV9kZZwZLR/klDaQGo1u9uDb9lr4Yn+rBQIDAQABo4HuMIHrMB0GA1UdDgQWBBSWn3y7xm8XvVk/UtcKG+wQ1mSUazCBuwYDVR0jBIGzMIGwgBSWn3y7xm8XvVk/UtcKG+wQ1mSUa6GBlKSBkTCBjjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNVBAgTAkN%0ABMR%0AYwF%0AAYD%0AVQQ%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-----END%20PKCS7-----,%22%3E,%3C/form%3E>
PFLI supports pharmacist rights of conscience NOT to be forced to
dispense or counsel for chemicals which violate their sincerely held
religious, moral or ethical beliefs. For more info see:
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq
*** PFLI is the only pharmacy association which is exclusively pro-life.
It represents thousands of pharmacists and many lay supporters
in the USA, Canada and all around the globe. For membership info, key
PFLI texts, PFLI archives, late-breaking news, abridged newsletter excerpts
or general information, visit the PFLI web site at http://www.pfli.org.
Or e-mail us at mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** We do NOT send out SPAM. To subscribe to PharmFacts E-News, just
send an e-mail with the word
"subscribe" in the subject area or better yet, just enroll right from
our main news page at
http://www.pfli.org; to cease your subscription [although we can't
imagine anyone would!] self-manage your account at:
http://pfli.org/mailman/listinfo/pflienews_pfli.org
*** You may contact PFLI at any/all of the following: Pharmacists For
Life International,
PO Box 1281, Powell, OH 43065-1281 USA, 1-800-227-8359 [US & Canada only],
+1-740-881-5520 [voice] or +1-740-206-1260 [fax]; e-mail us at
mailto:pfli at pfli.org.
*** You can order our publications as well as begin/renew your
membership or donate right on our
secure website at http://www.pfli.org/shop <http://www.pfli.org>. Click
on the "PFLI Store" link on the toolbar and
follow the prompts! There you can also donate to PFLI as well as
purchase a wide range of publications.
* *
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 78028 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0004.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1369 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3132 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0006.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 2923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11831 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://pfli.org/pipermail/pflienews_pfli.org/attachments/20100106/3d9140a8/attachment-0007.jpe>
More information about the PFLIENews
mailing list