Friday, October 10, 2008

Vote according to your conscience

Live concert tonight! During Eucharistic Adoration (7 pm), Jim and Michele Cowan will perform praise and worship music. Last year’s concert was thoroughly enjoyed by many here, and we are hoping for the same tonight. Please join us!
----------------------------------------------
Regarding the upcoming elections, the primary resource which Catholics should use to help form their consciences is a statement from the U.S. bishops: "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States".

To view the statement, please go to: www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Also, to view a video about Faithful Citizenship, please click on today’s title, and scroll down to the video, “Faithful Citizenship: A Matter of Conscience”

As was posted recently by a blogger, here are two excerpts from the bishops’ statement:

"In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidates commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching."

"As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support."

30 Comments:

At 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The opening paragraph of an interesting commentary:


By NICHOLAS P. CAFARDI, Religion News Service
Published:
September 30, 2008

"I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obam."

Editor's note:
Nicholas P. Cafardi is the second high profile Catholic legal scholar who is staunchly anti-abortion yet says he supports Barack Obama. Douglas Kmiec, Ronald Reagan’s constitutional lawyer as head of the office of legal counsel for the Department of Justice, publicly argued a similar case for Obama several weeks ago.

Commentary:
I believe that abortion is an unspeakable evil, yet I support Sen. Barack Obama, who is pro-choice. I do not support him because he is pro-choice, but in spite of it. Is that a proper moral choice for a committed Catholic?

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2058

 
At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find the article referenced above to be, among other things, insulting and dishonest for many reasons. These are three reasons why it’s insulting to our intelligences and dishonest:

1) Writing that “Obama supports government action that would reduce the number of abortions” when he has promised that the first thing he will do as president is to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). FOCA would eliminate all restrictions to abortions in the United States which will obviously INCREASE the number of abortions.

2) Making the point that the current Pope opposed the war in 2003 without including his statement in 2004:

“ Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

3) Presenting Obama’s position on abortion without presenting his record of actively supporting partial-birth abortion. Obama’s view on abortion is much more radical than most Americans. A vote for him is support for “abortion-on-demand” (FOCA) and partial-birth abortion.

 
At 10:31 PM, Anonymous Think positive said...

While neither candidate supports ideals that match every citizen's beliefs and needs, we must not loose sight of the fact that we are a very lucky nation; we have a choice in our leadership. Many don't.

Persoanlly, as the candidates enter their final campaign days, they both have my prayers. The President of the United States has a difficult and controversial position; one that will never please everyone.

When the winner is announced, I will either clap with enthusiasm or frown with concern, but either way, I will pray that our ability to live in a democratic society continues, and that someday there will be world peace. I will also be thankful for the vote I was allowed to cast.

 
At 8:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My son wrote a paper for a government class one year that began with John Quincy Adam’s words:

“Where annual elections end, there slavery begins.”

It’s true- we are privileged to live in a society which gives its voters a voice, but we should never loose sight of the fact that we have a responsibility to those who are not yet able to speak for themselves.

 
At 8:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unrelated to the post, but I think timely-

In the past, I have questioned the “value” of tithing. I understand that the church needs to pay for lights, electricity- the repaving of parking lots, etc. but beyond that, I really questioned the whole 10% thing. I thought- there’s many ways people give that can’t be perfectly calculated, so why a formula for this?

Then I heard someone explain it in a way that really made sense to me. He was speaking about how the economy has affected people’s giving, and made a statement that startled me. He said, “It’s when we have hard economic times that tithing is most important.” I was like- whaaat? He said that God gives us each a bucket within which we collect all our blessings. When we hoard what’s in our bucket, kind of put our arms around it to protect others from taking any of what might be inside, we are also blocking our ability to gather what is available to us, for God’s abundance is always raining down. If we fill our bucket, then empty it out to share with others, eventually God will see that we are good stewards of His gifts and give us even bigger buckets. This man explained that this shouldn’t be our motivation, but it is how God works. We are meant to significant share what we have.

On another note, a spokesman for the World Bank was interviewed about the economy. He said for most of us, the economic crisis will hit us in a way that may determine whether or not we buy a larger plasma screen TV or buy a newer car. For the world poorest, the economic crisis will have lifetime consequences. Now, I’m not minimizing the painful affects of all this to some of our 401K’s, but, for most of this, the crisis will be relatively short term. We really do, even in hard times, still have a responsibility to others.

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger CynthiaBC said...

From EWTN:

Bishop: Proposed Freedom of Choice Act Would Increase Abortions
Kansas City, Oct 2, 2008 (CNA).- Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph in Missouri, writing in his diocesan newspaper, has discussed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which he said would overturn all existing federal regulations on abortion. Claiming the passage of the act would lead to an increase in abortions, he also questioned whether pro-life supporters of pro-choice politicians have their priorities “backwards.”

Writing in his latest column for The Catholic Key, Bishop Finn said “It is clear that FOCA would immediately make null and void every current restriction on abortion in all jurisdictions.”

Though Bishop Finn did not mention any presidential candidates by name, Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama has pledged to pass FOCA as his first act as president.

The legislation, which was first proposed in 1989, was reproduced in its current form by Bishop Finn in his October 1 column:

“A government may not (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose – (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

According to Bishop Finn, the bill would overturn many state laws, such as abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states. It would additionally overturn states’ laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on later-term abortions, conscience protection laws for individual health care providers, bans on partial-birth abortions, conscience protection laws for institutions, requirements for counseling before an abortion, and laws providing ultrasounds to distressed women before an abortion.

Bishop Finn said there is “very significant evidence” that the passage of parental involvement laws and ultrasound requirements help reduce the number of abortions, particularly among teenagers.

The bishop then turned to the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which in Bishop Finn’s description says “that electing candidates who have permissive or clearly pro-choice stances in support of abortion, but are determined to provide more assistance to poor and vulnerable women and families would actually help to reduce abortions in the United States.”

He said he believes the group “has its priorities backwards.”

“It seems unlikely that candidates advocating full access to abortion – which attacks the most vulnerable poor, the unborn - will at the same time have a consistent or principle-based plan for helping other poor people,” the bishop remarked.

“When a candidate pledges to provide ‘comprehensive sex education’ to school children and promises to promote – or to ‘sign immediately upon taking office’ - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate’s determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year.”

Referring to a pastoral letter jointly authored with Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, Bishop Finn wrote:

“If we are inclined to vote for someone despite their pro-abortion stance, it seems we are morally obliged to establish a proportionate reason sufficient to justify the destruction of 45 million human persons through abortion. If we learn that our ‘candidate of choice’ further pledges – through an instrument such as FOCA - to eliminate all existing limitations against abortion, it is that much more doubtful whether voting for him or her can ever be morally justified under any circumstance.”

 
At 11:24 PM, Blogger fran said...

I, too, find the aforementioned article offensive.

It seems to me that the author has a bone to pick with the Republican party, abortion aside. Saying that he can "help to achieve" the minimization, if not the eliminization of abortion, "without endorsing Republicans' immoral baggage," speaks volumes. To me anyway...
Does he see the irony in his statement? Is there anything MORE immoral than taking the life of an innocent unborn child?

I think this article provides somewhat of a counterpoint to Mr. Cafardi's: "Unholy Messaging," by Douglas Johnson.

"For a candidate who talks so often about 'hope,' he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America."
- Governor Sarah Palin

 
At 6:36 AM, Blogger fran said...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-Declaration of Independence

Referencing Mr. Cafardi's article, he suggests that "a vote for Obama is not somehow un-Catholic." I'll let others be the judge of that. I think the better question is whether or not denying (through abortion) any of God's creations their unalienable Rights is un-American.

 
At 12:00 PM, Blogger CynthiaBC said...

Because no measure will land on the President's desk without the support of Congress, we should take note of the positions taken by the candidates for Maryland's eighth district.

The ubiquitous League of Women Voters' Guide doesn't ask about candidates' positions on abortion. [Perhaps the Economic Crisis has knocked the issue off the cooktop.]

Given his voting record, incumbent Chris van Hollen likely would support FOCA.

The website of his Republican opponent, Steve Hudson, does not clearly state his position on this issue - it just has some blurb about "children are our future." According to the website votesmart.org [about which I'd not previously heard, so I can't vouch for it] Mr. Hudson supports abortion only to save the life of the mother.

I suppose Mr. Hudson isn't trumpeting this position because - well, this IS Montgomery County, and an unabashedly pro-life candidate isn't likely to win an election. That said, I hope that folks don't stay home because they think their votes will be for naught. We can, and should, vote our conscience even when what we know to be right isn't popular.

I'll be serving as an election judge (as a "non-Democrat") at a precinct within our parish. I hope I'll have a busy day.

 
At 1:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am the Research/E-Campaign director for Steve Hudson, the GOP candidate for District 8. He is pro-life, he is a Doctor of medicine, in the Navy, and an attorney. He is solid on the views of the Church, I asked before I began working for him his views on the social issues, he has the endorsement of MD Right to Life, etc. He isn't running on a pro-life platform, as it is Montgomery County, but is looking at ways to present it so that people will understand, probably presenting it on the affects of women's health (since he is a doc) and not so much as a morality/church issue.

 
At 5:56 PM, Blogger fran said...

The following is an excerpt from an article I researched and wrote for a crisis pregnancy newsletter, last year, addressing abortion and women's health issues.

"The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (vol. 10 no.4) Winter 2005, reports that "induced abortion is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer, despite the stong and pervasive bias in the recent literature in the direction of viewing abortion as safe for women." It adds that studies "refuting the abortion-breast cancer link are found to embody many serious methodological flaws sufficient to invalidate their findings." A 2007 Breast Cancer Prevention Institute pamphlet explains the link between breast cancer and abortion. This explanation can be denied by those who provide or promote abortions, or find it inconvenient to their activities, but it has not and can not be scientifically refuted.* The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, January, 2006 published a study concluding that "abortion in young women may be assiciated with increased risks of mental health problems." This included depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders. Although there are no current studies to support the link between abortion and a future risk of infertility, it is a fact that NO abortion is risk-free. Infection following an abortion is the most common cause of infertility.
*http://www.bcinstitute.org/reproductive.htm

 
At 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If we didn’t go to medical and dealt the emotional and spiritual regarding abortion, what would happen? As someone who was counseled, albeit NOT by someone like Fran, I can tell you- ABOSLUTELY, my perspective was strained. What directed me in the internal debate regarding abortion/carrying to term was confusion. All around me told me abortion was the reasonable thing, but I held out. I thought, regardless of what I was told about what was my given right to my particular future, life must matter- THIS life must matter. I was ostracized as a result of my decision and went through that difficult ordeal alone.

Now- I have so much respect for women who make that hard decision- IT IS A HARD DECISION! As much as we’d like to think it not so, our society gives more credibility and merit to young women who “take back their life” than for the ones who “give life.” It makes me sad, for if I had made a different decision, the world would be so much the less.

 
At 6:39 AM, Blogger fran said...

...and let's not forget the men, the fathers of the unborn.

"More than anything else, the U.S. Supreme Court has shaped the role of men in abortion. The Court has held that a woman's right not to procreate trumps a man's right to procreate, making his involvement in the abortion decision irrelevant. In Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth (1976), the Court dismissed the validity of a husband's involvement in his wife's decision. No state allows a husband to be informed of his wife's impending abortion."

"Abortion leaves indelible footprints in the texture of masculinity, in the recesses of a man's heart, and in his reproductive history. A father is a father forever, even of a dead unborn child. In the aftermath of abortion, the real choce for men is whether to accept this biological reality, grieve the loss and seek forgiveness, or to continue denying what is inwardly known and swell the ranks of the hollowed men. Irrespective of the law, both man and woman co-created the pregnancy, and both will live with the aftermath, regardless of how some may try to celebrate "choice."

- "The Hollow Men": Male Grief and Trauma Following Abortion"
by Vincent M. Rue, Ph.D.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of our presidents (perhaps Reagan) made a comment to the tune of - Only the living can think and speak on abortion. The simplicity of the statement hit home.

 
At 2:17 PM, Blogger fran said...

I wish that all of our pro-abortion, pro-choice politicians would take some time to volunteer in a crisis pregnancy center, and take a call where the individual asks, "How much do you charge for an abortion?" as I just did, moments ago.

It is a chilling question that pierces me to the core, each and every time I hear it. I wonder, how they would answer? Would they just reel off a number? What would they say? How, if they have any conscience at all, could they give a young woman the answer she is seeking, knowing that it will forever extinguish the life a child, created in His own image and likeness?

"Father, forgive them, they know not what they do."

 
At 6:38 PM, Blogger Bethany said...

For those who think that FOCA would increase abortions, did you not read the results of the WHO's study on the relationship between abortion laws and the number of abortions? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
No offense to the bishop who I'm sure did just as comprehensive a study, but there is no correlation between the legality of abortions and the actual number of abortions. There is a significant difference in the number of women who die. While there are some who are so vindictive as to want confused and misinformed women to die, I'd like to think that Catholics don't.

I believe that fewer abortions will be accomplished by better education, greater access to family planning, healthcare that enables a woman to safely go through pregnany and birth, and economic situations that allow a woman to feed that new baby, not by pushing an "us vs them" "good vs evil" argument that goes in circles and accomplishes nothing.

McCain says that he's against abortion but what has he done to actually decrease the numbers? Being a community organizer in the inner city where a lot of girls get pregnant and can't afford medical care or a baby is one way to help cut down on abortions. Yelling, sadly enough, doesn't help accomplish the goal of fewer abortions.

 
At 11:22 AM, Blogger fran said...

With all due respect, ( and not the least bit of a raised voice )Bethany, I find some of your commentary to be conflicting. Notably this:

"Being a community organizer in the inner city where a lot of girls get pregnant and can't afford medical care or a baby is one way to help cut down on abortions."

The community organizer is the same person who is running for president who will sign the Freedom of Choice Act. How can the number of abortions be "cut down" by giving women more freedom to obtain an abortion? It just does not make sense.

On FOCA, and in the words of Cardinal Justin Rigali, archbishop of Philadelphia and chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Pro-Life Activities:

...there is one thing absolutely everyone should be able to agree on: We can't reduce abortions by promoting abortion...We cannot reduce abortions by insisiting that every program supporting women in childbirth and child care must also support abortion. No one who sponsors or supports legislation like FOCA can credibly claim to be part of a good faith discussion on how to reduce abortions."

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger Bethany said...

Fran,
Did you read the article that stated that there is proof from the scientific community that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of abortions? Making something legal is not the same as promoting it.

How does being a community organizer help cut down on abortions? By making it easier for those girls to not get pregnant, have great self-esteem so that they don't need to look to sex for self-worth and have an easier time resisting pressures, encouraging men to be fathers to their daughters sot hat they grow up with a male presence telling them that they're worth more than their bodies, bettering the community so that those who do get pregnant have a better chance at getting health care to get through pregnancy and eventually raise a kid without suffering extreme financial hardship.

That's how you reduce the number of abortions. You go and improve people's situations.

With McCain it will be harder than ever to afford healthcare and health insurance. You know what's cheaper than childbirth and medical bills of pregnancy? An abortion.

I don't want people to think that their only chance is an abortion. I want people to be able to afford to be pregnant and to be able to afford to raise a kid. Mostly, I want people to have some hope so that they have enough esteem to wait to have sex. Most teens who have abortions also suffer from low self-esteem and an early age for their first time. There's a strong correlation. Let's better our communities and make it so that abortion isn't the more attractive choice. Let's make it so these girls aren't even getting pregnant.

That would be progress and hope.

If you need the article again, I can repost it. I can probably even find a link to the full WHO study if you want. I try to go for scientific organizations when I'm looking at how to change the practical world for the better.

Moral arguments don't work in a world where people have different morals. If you want to change the world, you need to work within it and offer people better options so they don't choose the one that we see as wrong. To not provide options to these women and girls shows them that abortion really is their only way out. My conscience cannot live with such a burden.

 
At 12:16 PM, Blogger fran said...

Both Barack Obama and John McCain's voting records can be viewed online @ votesmart.org. Essential reading if one is to be informed more thoroughly than what the mainstream media would have us think.

I would also like to add that while it may appear that yelling and an "us vs. them" mentality exists regarding abortion, (again because of the way the media portrays things,)
this is NOT what we espouse at the CPC.

When women call and ask for the price of an abortion, we gently and compassionately tell them that we are not abortion providers and that we would love to have them make an appointment so that alternatives and all varieties of support can be discussed. If the woman indicates that she does not wish to visit with us, then we let her go. We do not coerce her in any way, shape or form. We do not judge and we do not proselytise. We do none of these things, but we do do this:
In being the compassionate counsellor, we believe we plant a seed. A seed which may provoke some thought upon which these young women, at such a difficult crossroads, may re-think their decision. And then, most importantly, we pray - not with them, but for them, that they may be open to God's infinite mercy and grace which is available to all of us.

 
At 12:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bethany, you wrote, "there is no correlation between the legality of abortions and the actual number of abortions."

One has to look no farther than our own country to see that that statement is not true. In 1973, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that in the year that abortion became legal in the U.S.(1973, Roe v. Wade) there were over 600,000 reported abortions. In 1990, there were over 1,400,000 abortions in the U.S. (probably more like 1.6 million, according to The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI which is more accurate). The number of reported induced abortions has declined since 1990; in 2005, there were approx. 1.2 million.

From 600,000 to well over 1,000,000each year since legal abortion in the U.S. Check it out at: Therehttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Also, one of the key words in these stats is INDUCED abortions. One of the main reasons that there has been a decline in the number of induced abortions since the 1990s is because of an increase in the number of chemical abortions, thanks in large part to the Clinton Administration's full marketing of the abortion pill, RU-486, in 2000.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger fran said...

"Making something legal is not the same as promoting it."

No, it does not, but it does make it easier. And when we talk about health care on Senator Obama's terms that is exactly what could happen if he becomes President. His national health-insurance plan which includes reproductive health care (AKA abortion), encompasses the Freedom of Choice Act, which will make it easier for a young woman to abort her child.

I agree that young women do suffer from lack of self-esteem which in turn results in many an unwanted pregnancy. And, I do know this first hand, because by volunteering at the CPC I try and do something about it - offering young men and women moral options so that they will not find themselves in such a difficult situation ever again.

I beg to differ, Bethany, but it is about morals. As Dr. James Dobson puts it:

This election "is about issues that, at their core, are profoundly moral in nature and transcend politics."

I find my inspiration in religious, theological or spiritually based organizations to making a difference.

 
At 2:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Moral arguments don't work in a world where people have different morals.”

Christians are always negatively charged with trying to “impose” their religious opinions (morality) on others. But isn’t that what law making is about, lawmakers trying to convert opinion on either moral or pragmatic subjects into law? Slave owners employed similar arguments in defense of slavery- “Don’t impose your morality on us.” It was Christians who were at the forefront of abolition. There are many positive examples in our history when ideology was key to what we now see as positive and humane change.

Did you know that some doctors and nurses who oppose abortion are forced to learn abortion techniques in order to obtain a medical license? Did you know that there are Christian hospitals who a required to perform abortions? There are Catholic agencies that are forced to violate their own principles in the teaching of birth control and same sex adoption? So, does the’ “don’t impose your morality” argument only have validity when it cuts to the right?

 
At 5:20 PM, Blogger fran said...

I recently received an e-mail from my sister-in-law which included a link to a beautifully put together and thought provoking video. To view it go to:

www.catholicvote.com

 
At 6:40 PM, Anonymous Tom said...

Did you read the article that stated that there is proof from the scientific community that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of abortions?

The article doesn't say there is proof from the scientific community that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of abortions.

The article discusses a study -- done not by "the scientific community" but by two pro-abortion organizations -- that "concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not."

Even if the conclusion were true -- and the article mentions some of the methodological problems with the study -- it would not follow "that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of abortions."

 
At 12:52 AM, Anonymous Maryann said...

Wow! A heated topic. Here's yet another comment to add to the collection:

Following Tom's thinking, drawing conclusions from that which we read can be challenging to say the least. There are numerous variables that must be included and accounted for when conducting research. Based on the previous posts, I think it behooves us to remember that publication bias is a very real issue. I believe, as we read articles and compositions of thoughts, we must remain cognizant of publication bias.

Factors to be considered when reading an article based on either research or personal interests may include, but are not limited to:

Definition of the issue, in this case, abortion. The reader's definition of abortion may be different than that of the author. Technically, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. An abortion is either induced or spontaneous. An induced abortion is the willful termination of a pregnancy. I believe this is the type of abortion being discussed here.A spontaneous abortion occurs when a woman's body cannot support the pregnancy. I think most people refer to this type of abortion as a miscarriage. By definition, both are abortions; however, they are the result of two totally different mechanisms. Both have an impact on the lives they touch.

We must consider sample size, mental and physical status of patient sample, race, religion, ethnicity, education, financial status, support system, health care systems' rules, resources and financing, patient's readiness to accept diagnosis, and, a very important factor that is often overlooked, the medical provider and researcher's experience, beliefs and skills. Studies are often conducted on the same topic for this very reason. Even then, conclusions can be misleading.

Here is the statement made in 2003 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the national medical organization representing over 45,000 members who provide health care for women: " ACOG's review of the research on a link between abortion and later development of breast cancer concluded that studies on the issue were inconsistent and difficult to interpret, mainly due to study design flaws. Some studies showed either a significant decrease in breast cancer risk after abortion or found no effect. The most recent studies from China, the United Kingdom, and the US found no effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk." (www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm)
I can't help but wonder what other studies on this topic concluded.

The crucial point here is that almost any study can be structured to deliver the desired data. Knowing how to interpret a study's results is imperative to a sound and balanced understanding of a topic.

 
At 8:09 AM, Blogger fran said...

On a MUCH lighter note...

The ubiquitous "Joe the Plumber," is going to play in Mike Huckabee's band, at the end of his program on FOXNews tonight.

For additional laughs, check out the video of Obama and McCain "roasting" one another at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, a few nights ago, @ catholicvote.com

And Sarah Palin, is scheduled to be on SNL tonight, playing herself.

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Bethany said...

Just to clarify, the WHO is generally considered scientific. They collaborate with NCI and other scientific organizations in specific countries.

I have nothing against morals. I just have seen much more good come from telling friends with different morals that I'll support them and help them financially than my saying "that's wrong" because usually they know it's not a great thing to do and think it's just the better of two awful options.

And yes, the prolife group did not like the study because it disagreed with their beliefs. Then again, the pro-heliocentric universe idea was pretty well condemned by leading theologians as immoral.

And yes, I've known for a long time that doctors need to learn abortion procedures. There are cases where it can save he mother's life. I'd like to think that's an area where it would be wrong for anyone but God and the mother to impose their morality.

 
At 5:47 PM, Blogger fran said...

Imposing Morals vs. Compassionate Caring


To say "that's wrong" is not to impose one's morals, rather, it is to judge. On the other hand, to gently inform another of something which is morally important to you, which in turn may result in that person making changes in his or her lifestyle is to care; about their health, their safety, their well-being. Dare I say their salvation?

It does not seek to judge and it does not impose one's personal morals. It does not put the other on the defensive. It only seeks to compassionately nudge another to take a look at something from another perspective - maybe something that the person has never even considered before.

Similarly, sharing our thoughts or discussing our presidential candidates' views on [Catholic] moral issues does not impose one's morals, it only seeks to inform another of perhaps a different way of thinking about or viewing something which is very important to them.

On the topic of pro-life Catholics possibly supporting Barack Obama, it compassionately asks, "Have you considered this?"

 
At 9:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pro-abortion groups have had a hand in the licensing regulations for OB/Gyns, and it’s naïve to think that doctors are forced to learn abortion techniques, some of which are rarely (if ever) employed to save a woman’s life.

Both NARAL and Planned Parenthood oppose a new rule proposed by the Dept of Health and Human Services that would allow doctors and nurses to act with their conscience when it came to performing abortions. Doctors and institutions had been at risk of losing gov.’t funding if they refused to perform abortions. The way medical guideline had been written, if an Ob/Gyn did not perform abortions, he could have been considered incompetent, adequate to terminate a medical license. Doctors were put in the position of choosing standing over a healthy conscience when dealing with a patient who wanted an abortion. Some doctors do not believe an unwanted pregnancy is an illness. There are doctors who believe it morally repugnant to terminate a life, and yet, the pro-abortion groups think it okay to override their morality.

They can’t have it both ways.

One more thing- NARAL and Planned Parenthood said they opposed that rule b/c they were worried it may affect a woman’s ability to obtain birth control, even though the language in the rule directs the rule to abortion ONLY, this is what they are really worried about :

"... the availability of abortions is diminishing because fewer doctors are willing to perform the procedure." – The Washington Post

"Those who run abortion clinics, even in large cities, say that recruiting doctors is now their most serious problem." – The San Francisco Chronicle

"Abortion is a matter of choice in this country not only for women but for physicians as well. All over the country, most physicians are choosing not to do it …" – American Medical News

Laws may not be changing, but hearts are…..

 
At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Tom said...

The following are empirically verifiable facts, which it would be unscientific to deny:

1. The WHO officially favors legalized abortion.

2. The WHO's study is not methodologically rigorous.

3. The WHO's study does not prove that legalizing abortion does not increase the number of abortions.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home