Compassion or control?

To the editor:

It appears that we live daily more and more the words of George Orwell, “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them,” or rather, people who think they are intellectuals.

Arguments, such as those separating being pro-birth from being pro-life, imply a lack of understanding of the intimate relationship that exists between the two. One cannot be pro-life and justify the killing, through abortion, of what we know, even scientifically, to be a human being.

Using religion/faith/Jesus to make pro-abortion, pro-death arguments is a pathetic descent into the profane. Compassion needs to start where Christ himself started, with the most vulnerable. You cannot invoke the name of Jesus and bring up the excuse of poverty and sickness, yet at the same time, ignore the life of the unborn.

Birth control and abortion do not resolve anything. The evidence is in the scientific literature. Contraceptives have physiological consequences: Women enjoy sex less, show an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, are more susceptible to infection because of effects on the immuno-protective secretions in the female reproductive system, and show an increased risk for heart attack and stroke. There are also social consequences. Contraceptives affect the fundamental core of society: The family, impacting marriage, leading one study to point to a significant relationship between contraception and divorce even after controlling for other potential confounding variables. After all, bonding has a chemical aspect to it.

From a very simplistic perspective, how could a person, even more so a scientist, argue compassion in regards to contraception when it is nothing more than a manipulation of the woman’s body? Who in their right mind would consider it to be safe and compassionate to alter the normal cycling of hormones to the point of flat-lining them? How is it possible that obliterating the regular cycling of hormones would be without negative effects on the woman when hormones control so many aspects of behavior and psychology?

Abortion has been linked to mental health problems, pre-term births, breast cancer, and increased maternal mortality. After all, how could one expect that, given the magnitude and extent of the changes in the woman (hormonal, physiological and behavioral) to prepare her for the life she is carrying, that terminating the life of a viable baby would be without consequences?

This is called compassion towards a woman? This is what we mean by first, do no harm? Where is the compassion in telling a woman “You’re too poor to have a child,” instead of “I’ll help you, even financially, to care for that child”? Is it not rather eugenics — controlling those we perceive to be weak?

Marxist ideology, which is what is being propagated, always seeks to utilize Christian social teaching to disseminate communism. This is a pathetic “appeal” to the sensibilities of Christian folk who are seeking to take Jesus’ words seriously. Christ was compassionate, but he was compassionate to all — born and unborn.

Stephen Sammut



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *


Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today