file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0323.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 23 November, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve or the assistant editor Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Across the Pond - Belgium It is our regret to report the death of King Baudouin I of Belgium, who died from an apparent heart attack during his summer vacation in Spain. King Baudouin assumed the throne of Belgium in 1950, and was a practicing Catholic. He is most well-known for his action in 1990, when he refused to approve the law legalizing abortion in Belgium. Based on an obscure provision of Belgian law, the Cabinet suspended the King's authority for one day, passed the law without his consent, and then reinstated his power. May he rest in peace. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) From George Washington University: A Brave New World Scientists at George Washington University have succeeded in cloning human embryos: getting embryos to split into multiple copies of themselves. News of their technique and results has triggered a range of responses: from extreme concern to plans to offer the service commercially. The mainstream response is that this technique raises some deep ethical questions that society as a whole has not resolved. [Perhaps this is a hopeful sign: if mainstream society fully accepted the pro-abortion view, then there'd be no questions at all.] On October 13, Dr. Jerry Hall of George Washington University reported to the American Fertility Society that he had taken 17 human embryos and caused them to divide into 48 human embryos. He then destroyed them (although he notes that the original embryos were genetically malformed and would not have developed). Dr. Hall's motivation: to increase the number of embryos available in fertility clinics. This technique has been used before with cattle, but Dr. Hall's work is the first reported with humans. Details will appear in forthcoming issue of _Science_ magazine. Many fertility scientists and medical ethicists welcome this development. Dr. Norman Fost of the University of Wisconsin sees no problem: people should have the freedom "to make babies the way they want." Dr. Mark Sauer of the University of Southern California would have no problems using the technique. "I've always been one to agree with reproductive choice." Dr. Albert Jonsen of the University of Washington in Seattle, and also happens to be the Chairman of the National Advisory Board on Ethics and Reproduction commented that "I don't see any reason why [cloning human embryos] is morally wrong....Every odd question that one can ask about a new science becomes an ethical question. And that's dumb." [Given such statements, one wonders what kind of national _advisory_ board he runs.] Others express grave doubts. Dr. Arthur Caplan of the University of Minnesota worries: "When you deliberately set out to make copies of something, you lessen its worth....I think that marketplace ethics and pounding the autonomy drum are not sufficient when it comes to decisions of how to make future generations of children and their descendants." The right to privacy only protects "how people behave in their bedrooms." Dr. Edward Marut of Chicago's Michael Reese Hospital agrees. "You have to draw a line somewhere. It's a dangerous turn, trying to create the perfect child and then duplicating it. What do you do if you don't like the first child? Throw the cloned embryo away?" Dr. Mark Hornstein of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital is also troubled: "We've had a bad experience in this century with attempts to breed human beings." The mainstream community seems to agree with Dr. Robert Stillman (who supervises Dr. Hall at GWU) in calling for the medicine and ethics communities to come to a consensus about this issue before any more work proceeds. Some researchers express more ambiguous sentiments: Dr. David Meldrum of the Center for Advanced Reproduction wishes Hall's experiment had never been discussed. Nevertheless, now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag, work is proceeding. [Even mainstream media is somewhat wary about the implications. Want a child? Choose from a catalog! Customers from our clinic have a guarantee: if you lose a child, we'll give you an exact replacement; if your child needs some organs, we'll provide a donor who's a exact genetic match. The technology exists and is being implemented; Huxley's _Brave New World_ has arrived.] - Sean Smith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) No Need To Wait for RU-486 Recent research at the University of California, San Francisco has shown that a combination of two drugs already legal in the US induces "safe" at-home abortions. Dr. Mitchell Creinin and Dr. Philip Darney administered the anti-cancer drug methotrexate (destabilizing the uterine lining) followed by the ulcer medicine misoprostol (causing uterine contractions) to ten pregnant women, and succeeded in killing eight of the unborn children. Excited about these results (soon to appear in the journal _Contraception_), the University has started testing the procedure on more pregnant women (and unborn children). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) On the National Front (US) UPI Reports that Abortion is in the news again: In October, House lawmakers refused the $700 million appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. Calling D.C. the "abortion capital of this country," Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., said the bill should bar spending public funds on abortions for poor women. The appropriation is given to the city annually to offset the taxes the city cannot collect on federal property. The AP, on the other hand, reported that U.S. District Court Judge Neal McCurn ruled that (New York) Citizens Concerned for Human Life (CCHL) had the right to conduct demonstrations outside the clinics. CCHL has evidently been protesting the Upper Hudson Planned Parenthood clinics. More Recently, it seems that the 9th circuit court of appeals ruling has cleared the way for the National Organization for Women to go to trial over clinic blockades... Meanwhile a scientific controversy is brewing over abortion. The _Washington Post_ says the Religious Right is pushing a study indicating a link between abortion and breast cancer...even though few scientists put much stock in the study. [I guess we're all a part of the Religious Right, now, eh? For some reason, the words _Ad Hominem_ come to mind...For those who would like to read something on this, please ask for "BeforeYouChoose" from the editor.] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) From the Comics -- Icon and Abortion Icon is a superhero from the DC "Milestone" comics line, designed to spotlight minority heroes in their own mini-universe, labeled "Dakota." Icon flies, shoots lasers out of his hands, and is very strong -- your basic garden-variety superhero :). But he's in no way the reason I'm writing. Icon #8 is entitled "Rocket's Decision." Rocket, aka Raquel Ervin, is a friend of Icon's -- a 16-year-old high school student who can fly at high speeds, and who becomes pregnant by her boyfriend. I wanted to let you know how this situation is handled in the book. Her boyfriend is in the denial phase: he will not admit the baby is his, although Rocket had no other lovers. She had sex with him to prove that she loved him, and he betrayed her -- a story we have no doubt experienced in real life many times. She knocked him out, and there was an end to that relationship. Her mother (she lives with one parent) doesn't yet know she's pregnant. (I don't think her mother knows she can fly, either... She is convinced that her mother would kick her out, or maybe worse. Her grandmother will let her live with her, but will not help with the child -- she's raised too many babies already. She visits a women's clinic. She does not experience any of the "herding" that we occasionally hear about from aborted women turned pro-life. A caring doctor gives her a pregnancy test, confirms what she already knew, and then said "we receive government funding, so I'm not allowed to tell you what I'm about to tell you." What she told Rocket had nothing to do with the types of abortion methods available, or the state of the baby's development -- it was basically that abortions are not performed there, we farm them out to someone else, and you should consider having one in your present state. The abortion costs real money, so she visited Icon. Now, Icon, aka Augustus Freeman IV, is actually an alien who landed on Earth (a la Superman), but was not a humanoid -- instead, he took on the characteristics of the species that found his ship. He was found by a human -- a black sharecropper -- in 1846. So he's actually Augustus Freeman I, II, and III as well. Even from such a humble start as a human baby, over time Freeman accumulates some nice wealth, so he certainly has the money to pitch in and help Rocket. But Icon has a story of his own. He was married (as Augustus Freeman II) in the late 1800s. His wife became pregnant, and he determined (using the devices still working from his ship (yeah, right) that the baby would not inherit his human form, but would instead be shapeless. They decided to get an abortion -- which was, of course, both illegal and highly dangerous. The abortion left Freeman's wife sterile and affected her psyche profoundly. Rocket felt that Icon, being rich, would be conservative and would moralize about this decision. "Just give me the money." She also didn't believe a word he said about his own history, because it was too weird -- even though by all rights she shouldn't believe he can fly, either. But Icon did no moralizing, and made no recommendations. He just gave her the money. Now she can get the abortion. But wait! She decided not to. This decision (as all good cliffhangers should be) was made at the very end of the book. Here are the interesting points of the book, from a pro-life perspective: o We saw no protestors, no activists, no weirdos, from either side. o There was no exposure to types of abortion, or to the business within the clinic. In particular, there was no "herding" or pressure from clinic personnel to get an abortion, although it's worth money to them. o Rocket considered putting the baby up for adoption, but then bought into the urban legend "no-one adopts black babies." Even where this is true, as we know, it is a standard adopted by adoption agencies to keep families "racially pure" -- itself a racist standard. o The baby inside Rocket was never referred to in the first person until after Rocket decided not to have an abortion. It's as though Rocket was buying into the pro-choice myth of depersonalization of the fetus -- until she forced herself to face herself. Then she talked to the baby directly. It's another attempt by the comic book industry to be "reasonable" on the delicate issue, and I think they handled it in about as good a way as they could, although I would never call the book "pro-life." Of course, in this political climate, I often find myself settling for "neutral." The only other comic I have reviewed in which abortion was dealt with directly was _Ms. Tree_. I would be glad to submit this review if anyone is interested, but would be even more grateful for pointers to other comics. - Ron Graham ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) CALL Weekend in Bloomington Indiana University Students for Life will be hosting a "CALL Weekend" put on by Collegians Activated to Liberate Life (CALL) the weekend of November 19th-21st. The weekend will be a dynamic mixture of rallies, speakers, seminars and action. If you are just plain SICK and TIRED of CHILD KILLING and want to take some positive steps to STOP THE SLAUGHTER, then this is the weekend for you! The weekend will open on Friday evening, November 19th at 7:00 pm with the Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition speaking. Rev. Mahoney is one of the most energetic pro-life speakers in America, and will challenge each of us to commit ourselves even more to the babies and their mothers. On Saturday we will march through campus, and picket and pray at Planned Parenthood's abortion mill in Bloomington. We will have afternoon seminars, and student speakers will take the stage on Saturday evening. WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS TIME FOR STUDENTS TO STEP TO THE FOREFRONT AND SHOW AMERICA THAT THERE IS A STUDENT MOVEMENT DEDICATED TO THE PREBORN! Sunday will focus on a strategy session. Students from throughout the Midwest are coming - PLEASE JOIN US! The CALL Weekend is FREE, and includes lunch on Saturday and Sunday. Lodging is available with student pro-lifers. IU is located in Bloomington, Indiana, about 45 miles south of Indianapolis. To register, please call CALL at 608-256-CALL. For information, please call Lorraine Jamieson or Shannon Hall at 812-339-3206 or send e-mail at . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) Feminists For Life to Speak at Cornell Rachel MacNair, President of Feminists for Life of America, will be speaking at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY) on Saturday, November 13. Ms. MacNair's talk will focus on the pro-lifre stance of the early feminists and on abortion as violence against women. The event is sponsored by the Cornell Coalition for Life and is open to the public. For more information, please contact Karin Price . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Reader Comments Two follow-ups to the recent [v3n22] issue of Pro-Life news: Do you have specific information on that UPI article about NFP? In particular, do you have the exact reference to the issue of the British Medical Journal the article appeared in? [ It wasn't specified in the original UPI article. We're working on tracking down the original. Thanks for the request. Ed. ] Second, I want to make some cautionary comments about the references to Our Lady of Guadalupe. The [v3n22] article stated that "In 1531, Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared in Mexico to end the sacrifice of children." This is, I believe, a significant distortion. Spanish hegemony had quite effectively ended human sacrifce a decade before. Our Lady appeared to Juan Diego to preach the gospel to the natives, Spanish greed and brutality having weakened the appeal of Christianity. In California the association of Our Lady of Guadalupe with the pro-life movement has stirred up a great deal of controversy between anglo and hispanic Catholics. Hispanics charge (not unreasonably, in light of the above distortion) that anglos are ripping Our Lady of Guadalupe out of her cultural context to serve their particular needs. In some respects I think the hispanic community is over-reacting-- especially with their assertions that She is their cultural "property"--but I also believe that the anglos are not showing any respect or concern for the hispanic community's sensibilities. - Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "It makes no sense at all to say, as many people do, "I'm not in favour of discrimination against the disabled, but I think pre-natal screening and selective abortion must be available." If you are ambivalent about killing someone because they would grow up to be like me, how can you regard me as equal to you?" - Alison Davis, _From Where I Sit: Living With Disability in an Able-Bodied World_ Davis was born with spina bifida, and is confined to a wheelchair. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 1 - From the October edition of _Catholic World Report_ To subscribe, call | | (USA)800-825-0061 (UK+Ireland)0243-573648 (Mexico)5-271-5149 | | 2 - Sources include "Cloning Human Embryos," New York Times (National | | Edition), October 26, 1993, pp. A1 and B7, and "Scientist Clones Human | | Embryos," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 24, 1993, pp. A1 and A7. | | 3 - From an AP article in the [Pittsburgh] North Hills News Record, October | | 23, 1993, p. A3. | | 4 - From the 20 Oct 93 and 1 Nov UPI Reports, and 26 Oct AP reports. | | Unfortunately, Shirley Smith's headlines from the 1 Nov. reports had no | | accompanying articles. Many thanks to Claude Garner and Sean Smith. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.