A country singer has released a new song about his younger brother with Down syndrome, celebrating the differences they have and urging for inclusion and acceptance.
John Paul Von Arx said on his website that he released the song and music video, which features his brother Sam, to “bring hope to parents expecting a baby with Down Syndrome and express [his] solidarity with families of people with special needs.”
Read the full article here.
In the context of the public debate on including a supposed right to abortion in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, COMECE publishes the statement ‘The Ethical Indefensibility of an EU Fundamental Right to Abortion’ elaborated by its Commission on Ethics.
Read more here.
Let’s look at the second scenario. When a woman is pregnant, her health and her life may, at times, be put at risk. Complications might arise, or medical treatment has to be stopped during the pregnancy. Pre-existing conditions sometimes turn into life-threatening situations. When things go wrong, a choice may present itself.
If the mother is to be saved, the baby may have to go. But if the baby has to stay, then the mother will possibly die, leaving the husband a widower and the baby—and any other children they may have—without a mother. Therefore, it would appear to be better if the baby was sacrificed, so that the woman is given a chance to live and be a wife and mother to her other children.
With the vast advances in medicine in today’s world, medical professionals say that there are never any conditions arising in pregnancy that can only be treated by performing an abortion. In fact, former Surgeon General of the United States, Dr C. Everett Koop, said:
“The life-of-the-mother argument surfaces in every debate concerning abortion. The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be non-existent.”
These medical experts emphasise that there is a fundamental distinction between an abortion, which is the direct termination of the baby’s life, and any other procedures or treatments they may need to resort to in an attempt to save the life of the mother. In the latter scenario, they will still do their utmost to save the baby’s life as well. If they are not successful, it is not an abortion, but a consequence of their attempt to save both lives.
“Abortion is never medically necessary.”
The above statement was a declaration by 30,000 medical doctors from the American College of Pediatricians, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and other medical groups. They claim that pregnancy should not be treated as a disease, and abortion is definitely not healthcare because it takes away a human life.
It is very uncommon that a woman’s health or life is put in danger in the late stages of her pregnancy. However, if there is an amount of risk, abortion is never the solution. In fact, late-term abortions can take days to carry out, and they bring their own complications, risking the mother’s life even further.
In a letter signed by these doctors, they state:
“After 20 weeks fertilisation age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life. In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is no time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two- to three-day process. Instead, immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labour induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician.
We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need. There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being through an inhumane abortion procedure, e.g., dismembering a living human being capable of feeling pain, or saline induction which burns off the skin, or feticide with subsequent induction.”
Countless mothers around the world refused to have abortions in spite of critical health risks. Some willingly gave up their lives for the innocent babies they were carrying. Why? Because that’s what a mother does for her child, whether it has been born or not!
Two months into her pregnancy, Brit Cheryl Anderson, 32 years old at the time, received a devastating cancer diagnosis. She knew that she would not be able to receive chemotherapy without endangering her baby’s life. Nevertheless, Cheryl refused to have an abortion. In fact, so as not to risk any harm to her unborn daughter, she merely resorted to paracetamol to relieve the crippling pain she was enduring.
Cheryl bravely struggled on, knowing that, the longer her baby was in the womb, the higher her chances of survival. At six months pregnancy, doctors performed an emergency Caesarean. Cheryl came around just in time to hear that her daughter Taylor had survived—and sadly, just hours after the birth, she passed away.
The shocking news from doctors revealed to the young mother that her pregnancy had triggered a life-threatening condition. The resulting hormones were producing large tumours in her vital organs. She also suffered a ruptured kidney and collapsed lungs. The medics urged Donna to have an abortion to preserve her life.
She refused, claiming, “My maternal instinct was too strong to even contemplate a termination.” At 28 weeks, baby Lily was born by C-section, amazing the doctors by being fully healthy. Donna then began receiving treatment and, despite her uncertain long-term prognosis, she was glad she had never given up on her baby.
When her cancer returned, Elizabeth Joice also rejected abortion for her baby, even if it meant she could not receive cancer treatment. Having previously faced the possibility of infertility, the tumours in her body did not deter her, and she bravely continued with the pregnancy. She did not want to lose her chance of bringing a child into the world.
Despite having surgery, the tumour returned, but at 34 weeks, baby Lily was by then big enough to be born safely. Sadly, the doctors then discovered that Elizabeth’s body had been overrun by more tumours, and it was too late for treatment. Merely seven weeks after Lily’s birth, her mother slipped out of this world, having given up her life for her daughter.
These stories are truly heartbreaking, but they reflect the natural maternal instincts which inspired these women to a truly selfless response to the threats they were facing. Regardless of the fact that their children were still in the womb, these and many other brave mothers gladly risked—and even gave up—their lives in order to give their unborn babies a chance to live.
It is true that the situation might be a little different for a woman or girl facing a pregnancy she does not want or expect. However, abortion can be avoided, because medical professionals can and do offer alternative treatments that safeguard both the lives of the mother and the baby. They may not always succeed in saving them both—but, at least, they would have tried!
Sources and links:
Il-mara, bil-ħiliet, l-intuwizzjoni, il-kapaċità li trabbi, it-talenti u l-maternità għandna napprezzawha kuljum. Kull sena, fit-8 ta’ Mejju, nonoraw lill-mara. Bħal-lum id-dinja tieqaf u tagħti r-rikonoxximent u l-ġieħ mistħoqq lin-nisa mill-isferi kollha tal-ħajja, ta’ kull età, razza, nazzjonalità, kultura u sfond soċjali.
Life Network Foundation tissieħeb maċ-ċelebrazzjoni tan-nisa kollha mit-tnissil sal-mewt. Din is-sena jkollna bilfors niċċelebraw online biss. Għandna messaġġi minn nisa favur il-ħajja li se nxandru permezz tal-media soċjali.
Parti mill-missjoni tagħna hija l-nagħtu l-ħiliet neċessarji lin-nisa li qegħdin jistennew tarbija – u li nsaħħuhom. Is-sena li għaddiet, permezz tal-fergħa tagħna li tipprovdi l-appoġġ, kellna l-privileġġ li ngħinu lil diversi nisa li t-tqala kienet se titfagħhom fi kriżi. Dawn in-nisa għamlu għażla favur il-ħajja u nistgħu niċċelebraw il-fatt li tletin tarbija ġew salvati.
Hija sitwazzjoni tat-tkexkix li fl-2021, minkejja l-ħafna kliem u l-battalji favur l-ugwaljanza bejn is-sessi, l-abort selettiv abbażi ta’ sess qed iwassal għall-mewt ta’ miljuni ta’ trabi. Studju ta’ ħames snin mill-pubblikazzjoni msejħa Down To Eath turi li hemm kważi 23.1 miljun mara fi tnax-il pajjiż Ażjatiku u Ewropew li, minħabba l-aborti selettiv, qatt ma kellhom ċans jitwieldu. Ġenerazzjonijiet ta’ nisa qegħdin jinqerdu qabel ma jroddu l-ewwel nifs, u l-umanità qiegħda tiċċaħħad minn ommijiet, aħwa, infermiera, għalliema, tobba, xjenzati u esploraturi.
Mela, f’Jum il-Mara ejjew niċċelebraw lin-nisa kollha, inkluża t-trabi nisa fil-ġuf – li hija l-mara ta’ għada.
Awguri, f’Jum il-Mara!
Life Network Foundation.
#ProWomenProLife
Agħfas hawn biex tara l-filmat bil-messaġġi minn nisa favur il-ħajja jiċċelebraw Jum il-Mara
Let us say a general election has just been announced and you are weighing your options as to which political party, or parties, you will be voting for when you cast your vote on election day. On what basis are you going to decide your vote? One element, amongst others, which should always play an important part when making such a decision would be to analyse what the respective political parties are promising to the electorate. Such promises come in the form of an electoral manifesto.
The late British Labour politician and former Cabinet Minister Peter Shore once described electoral manifestos as “a party’s contract with the electorate”, and that is what a manifesto is all about; it is about a political party entering into a contract with the electorate that, should it be elected to government, it will adhere to and ensure the implementation of those specific promises. An electoral manifesto is not just a piece of paper to make the political party look attractive and appealing to the electorate, it is much more than that. Irrespective of whether the majority of the electorate bases its vote on that manifesto or not, the party elected to government must ensure that it implements the promises made in that manifesto, nothing more, nothing less.
The rationale behind the political manifesto submitted to the public prior to a general election is clear – each respective political party officially declares what its agenda and priority areas in a number of fields shall be, should that political party be elected to government. Prior to the 2017 General Election, both parties presented their respective electoral manifesto. Let’s take the Labour Party’s electoral manifesto – LGBTIQ rights, decriminalisation of cannabis and prostitution, as well as the introduction of cremation were mentioned black on white under the civil rights section. One has every right to disagree with these proposals, but one of course cannot say that these proposals did not form part of the Labour Government’s agenda. The same can be said for the Nationalist Party.
One topic, however, which both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party electoral manifesto failed to address is abortion. So how can we say that the government, or the opposition, and much less so, an individual member of Parliament, has an electoral mandate to introduce abortion in Malta when this is not what the public voted for? To make matters worse, the decriminalisation of abortion bill was presented in Parliament by a member of parliament that first was elected to Parliament as part of a political coalition between PN and the short-lived PD, and then later resigned to become an independent MP. This goes against the principle of good governance.
In fact, in the first of a series of political debates organised by the Broadcasting Authority during the 2017 electoral campaign, Forza Nazzjonali, which was being represented by amongst others Dr. Marlene Farrugia herself as leader of PD, declared that it is categorically against abortion, because the parties (i.e. the parties constituting Forza Nazzjonali, these being the Nationalist Party and the Democratic Party led by Marlene Farrugia) believed in the sanctity of life. Having bound herself by this electoral pledge Dr. Marlene Farrugia would be shortchanging the very essence of being truthful to your electorate and outrightly violating any sense of political decency and honesty with the electorate. Dr Farrugia cannot decide to change track simply because it now suits her political agenda to do so.
The very least an electorate can expect from the political parties and representatives it elects to Parliament is transparency and clarity as to what their political agenda is. Promising one thing because at the time it might not be so popular to promise otherwise, and then doing the exact opposite a few years down the line during the same legislature just because you might feel that that topic is now more popular, or just because you are attempting to salvage your political future, is unfounded. This clearly shows that no political party, much less so an individual MP, has an electoral mandate to introduce abortion in Malta at present.
The Matic report was yesterday endorsed with 378 votes in favour, 255 against and 42 abstentions. The Maltese MEP vote was as follows: Alex Agius Saliba, David Casa and Roberta Metsola voted against, Cyrus Engerer voted in favour, and Josianne Cutajar and Alfred Sant abstained.
The Life Network Foundation, Doctors for Life, The Malta Chamber of Pharmacists, Malta Unborn Child Platform and various other had alerted the Maltese Members of the European Parliament as well as Maltese members of Parliament and/or issued press statements criticizing this report and urging them to defend the rights of conscientious objection of professionals to abortion and to defend the principle of subsidiarity and reject the Matic report.
The Matic report is a radical proposal framed in women’s rights language that seeks to undermine fundamental freedoms in many European countries today. It makes a frontal attack on the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of conscience, the right to freedom of religion, the right of parents as primary educators of their children, and, above all, the right to life for all people.
It requests that in member states sex education be made compulsory in primary schools, following the guidelines of the WHO, which might not be acceptable to many parents.
This is an alarming threat to freedom of expression. It also breaches the principle of subsidiarity whereby decisions are taken by the individual states. The sensitive topic of abortion should be discussed by the Maltese people and decided at a national level, and not imposed by some EU agenda. It should be emphasised that the Malta Protocol was included in the Treaty of Accession so that matters relating to abortion would always be decided by the Maltese people and no one else.
The endorsement of this report strengthens our resolve to work further in promoting the real issues setting women back in society, to increase our support to pregnant women and to educate to save lives.
The results of prolife work are visible and can be counted. They are women empowered, women restored, and newborn babies; new lives that give hope to a Europe facing a demographic winter.
Press Release by Life Network Foundation Malta
Photo by The Climate Reality Project on Unsplash
Pope Francis, answering the pleas of Argentine women who are fighting for the rights of unborn babies, wrote a public letter to his home country this week urging its leaders not to legalize abortions.
According to the National Catholic Register, the grassroots group of pro-life women recently wrote to the pope, urging him to “help us by making our voice heard” in opposition to a new pro-abortion bill. Their letter and the pope’s response both appeared in the newspaper La Nacion on Wednesday.
Argentina is facing renewed pressure to abandon its protections for unborn babies and legalize abortion on demand. Earlier this month, President Alberto Fernandez announced plans to introduce a bill to legalize abortions up to 14 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Buenos Aires Times.
Wide-spread public opposition stopped a similar bill from passing in 2018, and pro-life advocates hope to do so again.
In his letter Wednesday, Pope Francis praised the women who have been fighting for years to prevent the violence of abortion in Argentina.
“The country is proud to have such women,” he wrote. “Please tell them for me that I admire their work and their testimony; that I thank them from the bottom of my heart for what they do, and that they keep going.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
The women who wrote to Pope Francis began meeting in 2018 to fight pro-abortion misinformation and advocate for the lives of women and babies in their country. One survey that they conducted found that 80 percent of Argentines oppose abortion, according to the report.
They told the pope that poor women and their children will be hurt the most if the pro-abortion bill passes.
Here’s more from the report:
The women told Pope Francis about being filled with “cold terror” after the abortion bill was introduced to the legislature last week, “just thinking that this project is aimed at adolescents in our neighborhoods.”
They urged Pope Francis to use his voice to help them fight against the idea that “our life is the unwanted one and that we do not have the right to have children because we are poor.”
Currently, Argentina protects unborn babies from being killed in abortions. Exceptions are allowed in cases of rape or threats to the mother’s life. Most countries in Central and South America protect unborn babies from abortion, but Fernández wants Argentina to change that.
“Legalizing abortion saves women’s lives and preserves their reproductive capabilities, which are often affected by unsafe abortions, but it does not increase the number of abortions or promote them,” he said earlier this month.
None of this is true. Abortions destroy lives, they do not save them, and pro-abortion laws jeopardize the lives of more unborn babies by putting the government’s approval on killing them. Pro-abortion groups often overestimate the number of illegal and unsafe abortions that occur in countries across the world, and some have admitted to lying about the numbers. Growing research also indicates that access to basic health care, not abortion, is what really helps improve women’s lives.
Pro-lifers have been making their voices heard to lawmakers. In 2019, approximately 2 million Argentines participated in the country’s March for Life in Buenos Aires. Thousands more protested in March after Fernandez first announced his plans to legalize abortion on demand.
A similar proposal to legalize the killing of unborn babies in Argentina failed in 2018 because of strong public opposition. But pro-abortion groups, backed by some of the richest men in the world, continue to put intense pressure on Argentina and other countries to legalize abortion on demand.
This is a Righttolife.org.uk opinion piece
President-elect Joe Biden plans, on his first day in the White House, to enact four executive orders rolling back President Trump’s efforts on a number of issues, the campaign told Fox News on Monday.
The executive actions would include rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, reinstating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, rejoin the World Health Organization and repeal Trump’s travel ban targeting majority Muslim nations.
The pledge came after several media outlets, including Fox News, projected Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. As of Monday, the Trump campaign vowed to continue challenging the results, citing issues with ballots and the counting process.
Monday’s news signaled the beginning of a longer effort to undo a variety of policies pursued by Trump. Biden has vowed to repeal Trump’s tax cuts, for example, and said that he would reverse the Mexico City Policy, which Trump reinstated shortly after taking office in 2017.
FAUCI SAYS HE’S NOT LEAVING JOB AFTER 2020 ELECTION, EXPECTS COVID VACCINES BY END OF THE YEAR
The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Biden’s decision to re-enter the WHO reflected a broader effort to combat the coronavirus upon taking office. Democrats have decried Trump’s decision to exit the transnational organization in the middle of a pandemic. Trump has defended the move as a way to hold the organization accountable for alleged missteps during the pandemic.
In an official move, the president-elect formed a coronavirus advisory board dominated by scientists and doctors.
“The challenge before us right now is still immense and growing, and so is the need for bold action to fight this pandemic,” Biden said after being briefed on the virus. “We are still facing a dark winter.”
By Sam Dorman, Hillary Vaughn | Fox News
Ref: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-executive-orders-day-one
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
