Science reveals the truth: abortion is truly harmful

The scientific reality about personification, pain and the inherent worth of human life from conception

I am responding to the letter by Peter Dingli entitled ‘Abortion complexities’ (February 7). In the letter, Dingli makes several claims that lack scientific accuracy (in addition to being inappropriately dismissive of philosophical and religious arguments). I am a neuroscientist who has been investigating abortion (and abortion-pill reversal) at the preclinical level.

Dingli refers to the “flawed personification of a foetus, which lacks neurological development…” Personification is not dependent on an individual’s capacity to be aware.

If an accident severs the nerves in your arm from the rest of the nervous system, your arm does not cease to be your arm. Neither does a person who later in life suffers from severe dementia and loses the sense of self stop being a person.

Likewise, the lack of awareness of the child in the womb does not remove the reality of their personhood. Moreover, we know, scientifically and experientially, that the understanding of self and self-awareness is a lifelong journey (that starts in utero).

If it were not, we would not spend energy researching the self-awareness (which ultimately is connected with meaning in life) in our efforts seeking to remedy negative mental health.

Dingli is also wrong in the statement pertaining to the capacity to perceive pain.

Firstly, the assertions reflect a scientific arrogance (common in the medical and academic world today) implying that we know everything there is to be known pertaining to the pre-born human being – which we clearly don’t.  Moreover, even those working in the scientific field pertaining to foetal pain have been forced to admit our ignorance in the matter (e.g., see [1] who reversed their earlier stance [2]).

In the 2020 paper they state “that the necessity of the cortex for pain experience may have been overstated,” and indicate that the “precise nature of foetal pain experience remains unknown and will, perhaps, remain forever unknowable”, discussing that additional brain regions below the level of the cortex, which develop earlier in foetal development, may be implicated in foetal pain perception.

At the end of their paper, they add that the evidence “points towards an immediate and unreflective pain experience mediated by the developing function of the nervous system from as early as 12 weeks”. Other scientific evidence points to even earlier time points.

Pertaining to the fact that the inherent worth of a human life from conception is not an objective fact, once again, Dingli ignores scientific reality. We know scientifically, objectively and with certainty that as soon as fertilisation occurs there is all the genetic material that is necessary for a new human being.

The lack of awareness of the child in the womb does not remove the reality of their personhood – Stephen Sammut

Nothing is added after fertilisation. That fertilised egg can develop into nothing other than a human being and therefore is, and remains, a human at an embryonic stage, at a foetal stage, etc., in a similar way that after the child is born, there are various stages (e.g., infant, adolescent, adult).

Moreover, interestingly, documents on the ethical treatment of perinatal animals, including at the foetal stage, still refer to them as animals. Why is this not applicable to a human foetus? Additionally, the same documentation reports that prenatal animals respond to reflexive pain at approximately embryonic day 17, equivalent to day 55 (i.e. ~7.5 weeks) of human gestation.

In reference to the mention of human autonomy, it is worth referencing The Belmont Report, which here in the US holds significant standing in relation to the ethical treatment of human beings in research.

The Belmont Report addresses the ethical principle of  respect for persons as being divided “into two separate moral requirements: the requirement to acknowledge autonomy and the requirement to protect those with diminished autonomy.”

Thus, based on the scientific reality of the humanity of the individual from conception, the embryo/foetus would fall under the second category requiring protection, as a person with diminished autonomy. 

Finally, arguments appealing to finances and health concerns etc., used by Dingli, would also fall under the category of “emotional appeal”. Given the hurt that most women resorting to an abortion are already undergoing and the reality that, in many cases, coercion played a significant role [8, 9], and given the evidence of potential negative consequences of abortion (including, but not limited to mental health), the Hippocratic principle of “First do no harm” would dictate that we should seek to avoid additional potential harm (i.e. the negative consequences).

This possibility is very real as is evident from both clinical and preclinical evidence including work from my own lab that showed depression- and anxiety-like behaviours in rats following mifepristone-induced pregnancy termination in addition to long-term physiological consequences [10].

Such experiments are not influenced by social pressure or religion but simply reflect the physical reality of a negative biological response/acknowledgement of an interrupted healthy physiological reality. 

While there is a necessity for appropriate sex education (though not the depraved version suggested by UNFPA [11]), maybe a return to teaching the value of human life, dignity, prudence, abstinence and self-control, and other virtues (which have been shown scientifically to assist in overall well-being), in addition to providing a true moral foundation and the truths evident in science, would be a more realistic answer to educating the public about the abortion issue.

Stephen Sammut

Stephen Sammut is Professor of Psychology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, US.

References

 1.⁠ ⁠Derbyshire, S.W. and J.C. Bockmann, Reconsidering fetal pain. J Med Ethics, 2020. 46(1): p. 3-6.
 2.⁠ ⁠Derbyshire, S. and A. Raja, On the Development of Painful Experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2011. 18(9-10): p. 233-256.
 3.⁠ ⁠Thill, B., Fetal Pain in the First Trimester. Linacre Q, 2022. 89(1): p. 73-100.
 4.⁠ ⁠Committee on Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, N.R.C., Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research. 2003.
 5.⁠ ⁠Hill, M.A. Embryology Carnegie Stage Comparison. February 8, 2025; Available from: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Carnegie_Stage_Comparison.
 6.⁠ ⁠Department of Health Education and Welfare, The Belmont Report. 1979.
 7.⁠ ⁠Kischer, C.W., When does human life begin? The final answer. Linacre.Q., 2003. 70(4): p. 326-339.
 8.⁠ ⁠Reardon, D.C., K.A. Rafferty, and T. Longbons, The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on Women’s Satisfaction and Mental Health. Cureus, 2023. 15(5): p. e38882.
 9.⁠ ⁠Reardon, D.C. and T. Longbons, Effects of Pressure to Abort on Women’s Emotional Responses and Mental Health. Cureus, 2023.
10.⁠ ⁠Camilleri, C., et al., Biological, Behavioral and Physiological Consequences of Drug-Induced Pregnancy Termination at First-Trimester Human Equivalent in an Animal Model. Front Neurosci, 2019. 13(544): p. 544.
11.⁠ ⁠International technical guidance on sexuality education – An evidence-informed approach. 2018, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); UNAIDS Secretariat; The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); UN Women; The World Health Organization (WHO): Paris, France; Geneva, Switzerland; New York, NY, United States of America.

Country singer releases moving song about brother with Down syndrome

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.

European bishops: there is no “fundamental right to abortion”

COMECE on the “ethical indefensibility” of an EU fundamental right to abortion

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. 

EU Bishops: ‘No such thing as a right to abortion’

EU Bishops: ‘No such thing as a right to abortion’

As the European Parliament prepares to discuss a second resolution reaffirming its support to the US 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade, which was recently overturned, the Catholic Bishops of the EU insist that abortion is not a fundamental human right.
 
See the full article here.

Part 3 of 4: Is It Alright—if the Mother’s Life is in Danger?

Is It Alright—if the Mother’s Life is in Danger?

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.

So, what do the experts say?

​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.”

Some may still argue otherwise—but not mothers!

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.

29-year-old Donna Hewetson was told that the baby in her womb was gradually killing her.

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.

This is indeed the pure love of a mother!

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:

  1. https://www.hli.org/resources/exceptions-is-abortion-ever-permissible-2/
  2. https://www.lifenews.com/2019/03/05/30000-doctors-say-abortion-is-never-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/
  3. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/02/49619/
  4. https://vigilforlife.org/2015/05/vfl-email-5-5-2015/
  5. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uk-mom-with-life-threatening-pregnancy-refused-abortion-advice
  6. https://nypost.com/2015/05/10/messages-left-behind-by-mom-who-made-ultimate-sacrifice/

Niċċelebraw lin-Nisa Kollha f’Jum Il-Mara

Niċċelebraw lin-Nisa Kollha f’Jum Il-Mara

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

https://fb.watch/45vcXw50Y7/

 

 

A Mandate to Deceive – Charlene Giordmaina

A Mandate to Deceive – Charlene Giordmaina

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 addition, abortion was not just on any electoral manifesto, but up till a very few weeks prior to the 2017 general election, both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party were insisting that abortion was not on the agenda.

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.

Matic Slaughter of Human Rights

Matic Slaughter of Human Rights

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 recommends state-funding for abortion as well as an end to the possibility for medical staff to resort to conscientious objection concerning the termination of pregnancies.

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

Life Network Foundation Tells Brussels: ‘Maltese Values Are Not For Sale’ by lovinmalta.com

Lɪғᴇ Nᴇᴛᴡᴏʀᴋ Fᴏᴜɴᴅᴀᴛɪᴏɴ Tᴇʟʟs Bʀᴜssᴇʟs: ‘Mᴀʟᴛᴇsᴇ Vᴀʟᴜᴇs Aʀᴇ Nᴏᴛ Fᴏʀ Sᴀʟᴇ’ by lovinmalta.com

 
Local NGO Life Network Foundation has responded to comments made in Brussels that it is getting funding from extremist groups in the US, Russia and the European Union. Here is their reply in full:
 
Have you ever been placed in the media spotlight? Surprisingly Life Network Foundation featured in an article in Lovin Malta last week. Was it a commendation for our charitable work in providing emergency residency to women in need? Was it for our important and valued service to the women in crisis pregnancy by offering them emotional and financial support? The time and resources given freely by our trusted volunteers? The babies saved? Not quite.”
 
 
In an article focused on an EU Parliament committee meeting held in a far-away Brussels boardroom, Life Network Foundation – which supports the charitable women’s shelter Dar Tghanniqa ta’ Omm at Mosta – was implied to be peddling foreign interference. Nobody had asked Life Network a single question, or even invited us to contribute a comment before going to print.
 
On the other hand, the content of the article, meant to be focused on the situation in our own country, was inflated with quotes from foreign MEPs, and from English activists. Both such sources are completely detached from any form of Maltese reality.
Open Democracy, who is cited in the article as investigative journalists, are in fact a UK activist blog. Their donor list boasts a rich supply of ideological US billionaires, including the Rockefeller Brothers, the Ford Foundation, and the world-leading abortion lobby IPAS.
 
Indeed, only one lonely voice garnished Lovin Malta’s buffet of international opinion. “Doctors for Choice”, the BBC reported in January, represents around 60 people in our country. Yet they were asked to speak for us all, not “Doctors for Life”, their pro-life counterparts who have over 670 members! The cherry-picked opinion blatantly attempts to override national reality. Surely this is a bitter dishonesty hard for even the most ardent Maltese abortion-supporters to swallow.
 
It is also worth noting that the same sources who consider mainstream pro-life organisations to be “extremists” coincidentally, have themselves, a radical pro-abortion agenda to push. Labelling pro-life organisations as “extremists” is merely an attempt to discredit the position which they espouse.
 
Life Network Foundation Malta rejects vehemently any implication of financial assistance from the foreign organisations mentioned in the article published in the Lovin Malta article. On the contrary, we gratefully received a €130,000 grant from our own Maltese Government, over a three-year period, which helps in the running expenses of our maternity home and amounts to approximately €43,000 per year.
 
Like the absolute majority of our islands’ population, we think that abortion is not the best option for the mother and her preborn child. We think that Maltese women deserve better. This view resonates as an integral and widespread Maltese value. Quite unlike the views in the article attacking us.
 
Furthermore, in the small print, towards the end of the article, we learn that this particular “journalistic attack” on us is not wholly from Malta; it is, at least partly, paid for by funds from the European Parliament!
How can this be right? That Brussels is funding biased media articles designed to undermine and influence our national laws and values?
 

Printed words are cheap, but our values are priceless. Buyers beware: the Maltese people are not for sale.

 

Pope Francis Opposes Argentina Bill Legalizing Abortions: Don’t “Eliminate Human Life to Solve a Problem”

Pope Francis Opposes Argentina Bill Legalizing Abortions: Don’t “Eliminate Human Life to Solve a Problem”

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.

“Is it fair to eliminate a human life to solve a problem? Is it fair to hire a hitman to solve a problem?” the pope wrote, adding that the pro-life women “know what life is.”

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.”

“Not so much because in the villa [shanty town] culture abortion is thought of as a solution to an unexpected pregnancy (Your Holiness knows well our way of assuming motherhood between aunts, grandmothers and neighbors),” the women wrote, “but because [the law] is oriented to cultivate the idea that abortion is one more possibility within the range of contraceptive methods and that even the main users must be poor women.”

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

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/25/pope-francis-opposes-argentina-bill-legalizing-abortions-dont-eliminate-human-life-to-solve-a-problem/