MAP: truths not told by Louisa Mifsud

The introduction of the morning-after pill in the Maltese pharmaceutical market is being presented as a pill similar to contraceptive pills already on the market and anti-campaigners are being told that they are creating a storm in a teacup. But this is only simplifying and misrepresenting the real issues in question.

MAP is being made to sound innocuous and promoted as the solution that will liberate women’s sexuality. Surely this is a seriously flawed argument: the right to freedom is not absolute and falls second if it hurts or abuses someone else.
I am more convinced into thinking that this ‘being liberal’ is becoming trendy and compelling us to behave like narcissistic teenagers, where appearing the coolest is what matters.

Why are we so quick to defend animal rights but easily falter in front of life at conception? Isn’t this a grave example of two weights and two measures? Or is it perhaps just simply a question of living in an age where defending animal rights has become more trendy than defending the embryo which by comparison is seen as passé and conservative?

Being invisible does not make it disposable. Shouldn’t we have arrived at an advanced conscious development of civilisation where values are not traded for mere superficialities?
Being liberal is becoming trendy and compelling us to behave like narcissistic teenagers, where appearing the coolest is what matters.

Another argument that is being used by the pro-MAP campaigners is that MAP is being introduced everywhere so why not Malta? How can this be a justification? How can this reasoning be seen superior to that of a teenager succumbing to peer pressure? I would like to think that the mature wise adult knows better. So rather than promoting further education and responsible adult sexual behaviour, Parliament is contemplating offering quick-fix solutions without a care for what is at stake, promoting reckless irresponsible attitudes and behaviours instead of adult responsible thinking and decision making.

Also, while definitions of the human embryo make it quite clear that “the development of a human begins with fertilisation, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote” (Sadler, 1995) the public is being made to believe that it prevents pregnancy and that life at conception is less valuable or ‘less human’ than other forms.

Firstly it is important to know that in some countries it is marketed in this way, because pregnancy in these countries is defined as starting with implantation, conveniently ignoring scientific fact that in a zygote contains all that is needed for human life to develop.

Secondly, MAP acts in a number of ways, many of which are not abortifacient, i.e. acting before fertilisation for example by suppressing ovulation. But, somehow what seems to be ignored is also the scientific fact that MAP acts also by preventing implantation of a fertilised egg.

As a research quoted by the Malta Chamber of pharmacists states: “Studies have shown that it is not scientifically possible to exclude that the MAP does not preclude implantation of a fertilised ovum in the endometrium” (Trussell et. Al. 2016). So why is science being ignored and a wrong deceptive idea being given to the public and for what reason?

Also, I ask why is MAP being presented as the solution for the women who fall victim to unplanned pregnancies, but very few are speaking about more life-giving and just options: such as adoption? So many couples who face infertility issues would love to adopt and find it so hard to find children in need of adoption.

Yes, a similar abortifacient contraceptive already exists in the market: the coil. But mature adults know that two wrongs do not make a right and what is legal is not always right.
Finally MAP is being presented as something that can only benefit a woman’s well-being and her sexual freedom and rights. This can’t be further from the truth.

WHO research describes routine post-coital contraception as “unsuitable primarily because of the high incidence of cycle disturbances”.

Also, the adverse side effects of MAP are well-documented and include significant weight gain (on average 15 pounds), depression, ovarian cyst enlargement, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, respiratory disorders, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy and death.

In some women, these serious adverse effects of levonorgestrel-type MAP could lead to further health risks for bulimia, anorexia, or clinical depression.

The Research Population Institute says: “Clearly, over-the-counter distribution of MAP would occasion misuse and overdose… The total number of women damaged by MAP throughout the developing world is untallied.”

And it concludes: “No doubt, the greatest risk of MAP is loss of human life. Packaging for MAP omits clear warnings of the risks and abortion-inducing function of the chemical.”

I’d like to call on the good reason of the public and the authorities to think through and decide wisely about the decision to introduce MAP, which is so far less innocuous than some would like it to appear.

I encourage the choice to promote adult ethical reasoning and decision making taking into account the true complex matters at stake and acting justly and with true wisdom of theheart when deciding on such import-ant matters.

Louisa Mifsud is a mother and a psychologist.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160805/opinion/MAP-truths-not-told.621081

Case of shameful hysteria? by Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon

 

Almost seven years ago, in September 2009, the Times of Malta reported that Joseph Muscat, the current Prime Minister, said he disagreed with the morning-after pill even in cases of rape. He added that he could not accept any method, including the morning-after pill, that stopped life.

Such a stand did not seem to ruffle the feathers of the public, not even highly educated women, Alternattiva Demokratika, the Humanist Association or any of the feminists who so vociferously cry out for women’s rights. None made their voice heard.

Yet, today the climate has changed, although the facts have not. The morning-after pill is a contraceptive but, if fertilisation has occurred, it has an abortifacient effect. In a culture where abortion is accepted and legalised, such a reality does not bother the public conscience.

As Ivan Padovani put it so eloquently (July 3 “If you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either.”)

So far, Malta is different. It does not accept abortion. Should we be ashamed?

I can understand that some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use. However, I am dismayed that so many women are willing to swallow hormonal drugs and implant devices in their wombs and even resort to abortion, all in the name of women’s so-called emancipation.

Some men are perfectly happy that women bear the responsibility of getting pregnant and are totally indifferent to whatever method they use

In an article of the Guardian (November 2014), Holly Grigg-Spall is decidedly against contraceptives. She writes: “When we take the pill our sex hormones are suppressed and replaced with synthetic versions, released in a steady stream. Gone are the fluctuations we experience monthly.

“This means every system related to our hormones is disrupted – our metabolic and endocrine systems and our immune system. This is what leads to the insidious, slow-build side-effects that women can experience. That’s the science behind the headlines.”

She adds: “A lack of feminism more widely might explain why research that connects the pill to increased risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer and pulmonary embolism leading to stroke or even death is more likely to get swept aside as anomalous or negligible.”

She concludes that women shouldn’t be expected, let alone encouraged, to sacrifice their health and well-being.

If anything, in the light of such facts, I would expect women to clamour for a male pill and place the onus of all the physiological and psychological disruption in the male camp. That would really be revolutionary and… equally stupid.

Even so, would women trust men who claim they are ‘on the pill’? The only pills men may be keen to take are those like Viagra that enhance their sexual potency.

Again, in 2009, Carl Djerassi, one of the key researchers who developed synthetic progesterone that led to the ‘pill’, outlined the “horror scenario” that occurred because of the population imbalance, for which his invention was partly to blame. He said that, in most of Europe, there was now “no connection at all between sexuality and reproduction”.

The fall in the birth rate in his country, Austria, he said, was an “epidemic” far worse but given less attention than obesity.

Scientists also point out that many so-called contraceptives have an abortifacient effect by preventing implantation of the embryo. Spanish doctor José Maria Simon Castellvi refers to the “devastating ecological effects” of the tons of hormones discarded into the environment each year, adding that sufficient data exists to show that one of the causes of male infertility in the West is the environmental contamination caused by the products of the ‘pill’.

Finally, contraceptive methods violate at least five important rights: the right to life, the right to health, the right to education, the right to information (its dissemination occurs to the detriment of information about natural methods) and the right of equality between the sexes (responsibility for contraceptive use almost always falls to the woman).

If such facts are branded hysterical and if criticism of contra­ceptives and abortifacients are criticised as shameful, then so be it. I hope that people who think rationally will conclude otherwise.

Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160718/opinion/Case-of-shameful-hysteria.619194

Emergency contraceptive pills by Dr. Mario Saliba

The issue of emergency contraception has been around for decades but up until now our laws did not allow doctors to prescribe such pills as they are not available in a single pill form wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’. I am writing this piece in my capacity as a family doctor. As GPs we are the first doctors to encounter requests for such measures as emergency contraception.

First of all I must say that contraceptive pills have been on the local market for decades and some doctors use them as a form of emergency contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies after a couple would have performed sex a number of hours before. This is done by giving more than one and up to six contraceptive tablets in one dose depending on the brand, followed by a second loading dose 12 hours later. These can be given up to 120 hours after intercourse. So we must not illude ourselves that emergency contraception is not practised in Malta.

The problem arose when a single pill wrongly called ‘morning-after pill’ of whatever brand was proposed to be made legal. These emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) can be taken up to 120 hours after intercourse and can still be effective, so it is not just the morning after. On the international market there are three types of such pills.

Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation

There are, the combined containing both, oestrogen and progestin, progestin-only and others containing an anti-progestin. The latter are out of the question for many women, as they are used as abortion pills and currently only available in Armenia, China, Russia and Vietnam. So the first thing which should be cleared is which of these will be available.
They have different mechanisms of action, effectiveness and side effects. What is most important in my opinion is their mode of action. It is known that combined pills can inhibit or delay ovulation provided you take them before ovulation.
Now the time of ovulation is difficult to calculate and there is no easy and practical way of knowing. So these are very effective if taken during the first half of the menstrual cycle, before ovulation has occurred. In this case they are purely preventing ovulation and there is no question of being abortive.

But if taken later on they act by impairing endometrial receptivity to subsequent implantation of a fertilised egg. So we are speaking of a life which has already begun even though a bunch of cells. Scientifically we know that life begins with fertilisation but the pro-ECPs lobbyists say instead pregnancy begins with implantation, which is totally different.

At this stage human life has already started, so these pills have an abortive effect. Also, these combined pills are as effective as it is claimed because they must have a mechanism of action other than delaying or preventing ovulation.

Regarding the other type of pills, the levonorgestrel-only pills, their method of action is dual. If taken before ovulation the primary mechanism of action is blockade and/or of ovulation. So in such cases only, they are purely contraceptive and they have no abortive effect. But the reduced efficacy of these pills with a delay in treatment suggests that interference with implantation is likely.

These are the objective facts.

My point is that, no matter what is their mode of action in general and how this is stated on the package insert, every pill when taken acts on a unique way on a particular patient.

Nobody knows what really happens, whether a prevention of ovulation or prevention of implantation has occurred. Both things can happen.

In the latter case it is abortion.

Dr. Mario Saliba is a specialist in family medicine.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160707/opinion/Emergency-contraception-pills.618002

The presence of a human life by Dr. Ivan Padovani

The presence of a human life

Mark Anthony Falzon (June 19) makes a creditable argument in support of the introduction of the so-called ‘Morning-After Pill’ (MAP) in Malta.

I agree with his view on accreditation. I would go further, in fact, and lament the haste with which people seem to deliver themselves of their uninformed, often severely prejudiced, opinions, only adding fuel to the confusion of already-complex subjects, to the detriment of all involved.

The main problem with Mr Falzon’s perspective is that he makes the same error that hordes of others are making in the course of this discussion. This error centres on the acceptance of a tacit presumption that merely editing the definition of when a pregnancy officially begins has any bearing on the presence or otherwise of a human life. This detail is so exclusively crucial to the entire issue of the properties of the MAP that it must be looked at a lot more closely.

Years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists chose to re-define the origin of pregnancy as the point at which the fertilised egg, following passage through the Fallopian tubes, is successfully implanted in the uterus.

This newly minted definition chimed so well with the emergence of the MAP that it remains anybody’s guess as to whether it was purely coincidental or not, but the fact of the matter is that it meant that this pill, from being something that could end a pregnancy, was transformed overnight into something that only ever prevented it from occurring.

The trouble began once the work of re-defining the initialisation of pregnancy had been completed. Little further thought seems to have been given to the status of the human embryo from the moment of its conception, through its lonely journey down the Fallopian Way, up to the point of implantation.

Consequently, it was left to a universal audience to subconsciously infer that this entity had ceased to be of significance. In fact, the entire construct of the pill’s modus operandi is predicated on an insidious suggestion that the state of pregnancy and the existence of a human life are co-dependent and interchangeable terms. This is, quite simply, untrue.

At the beginning of fertilisation, a new human being begins to exist

So-called ‘test tube’ babies are living proof of the presence of a newly created human life independent of any pregnancy.

The point is that the definition of the commencement of pregnancy may be tinkered with from time to time but the moment of creation of a human life is scientifically beyond dispute.

The ‘Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development’ are often referred to as “the Bureau of Standards” of human embryology. They are verified and documented by the international Terminologia Embryologica committee, which consists of more than 20 experts, academically credentialed specifically in human embryology, from around the world. After reviewing the latest research studies in human embryology, their deliberations are published in the international Nomina Embryologica, part of the larger Nomina Anatomica.

It is clearly acknowledged that at the beginning of fertilisation, when the sperm penetrates the oocyte, a new, living, genetically unique, single-cell human being begins to exist. This has been known scientifically for almost 130 years, (e.g., in the work of Wilhelm His.)

These are the long-known and long-acknowledged objective scientific

facts of when sexually reproduced human beings begin to exist. They have been and remain the international standards used today.

The notion that the very existence of a human life is dependent on the current definition of a pregnancy, and that the absence of one necessarily defines the absence of the other, is the core fallacy of the MAP campaign.

Broadly speaking, there are three mechanisms of action attributable to the MAP. Two are exclusively contraceptive in nature. The third, however, is abortive and it is this that is the focus of all objections.

Essentially, if it happens that fertilisation has already taken place, i.e., an embryo exists, the MAP prevents it from implanting – and death follows.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, professional opinions on this, the third mechanism of operation, are not unanimous. There seems to be evidence that it may not operate as claimed. But there is a whole lot more that indicates it does.

In conclusion, if you don’t have a problem with abortion as a form of birth control, then you won’t have a problem with the morning-after pill either. But if you do, then it’s a matter of very serious concern.

What does emerge clearly, however, is that if the principle of informed consent still has any meaning, then the least that the MAP’s manufacturers and proponents owe to society is a realistic confirmation of its full potential.

When all is done and dusted, it may well turn out that Gift of Life were nearer the mark than many were led to believe.

Dr. Ivan Padovani is a board member of Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160703/opinion/The-presence-of-a-human-life.617526

Let’s celebrate life by Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon

It is rather disconcerting and depressing to witness the manner in which the so-called liberal agenda is being forced through in Malta. The latest attempt to undermine the value of the fullness of life is the judicial protest by a group of women clamouring for the ‘right’ to have the ‘morning after pill’ available in Malta.

Labour whip Dr Godfrey Farrugia dismissed their arguments that the ‘morning-after pill’ is a reproductive right, adding that: “Freedom of thought, opinion, liberty and to assemble are human rights, but interfering with the very origins of life do not fulfil those rights.”

Malta always seems to be in a hurry to adopt lifestyles and cultures that have proved so damaging to the social framework elsewhere. The facts speak for themselves.

Pope Paul VI cautioned about the consequences of the contraception culture that was ushered in with the widespread use of the ‘pill’ in the 1960s. He prophetically warned that contraception would lead to promiscuity, loss of respect for life, marriage and the family, and breakdown of essential social structures.

Statistics clearly show the close link between divorce rates and abortion with the use of contraceptives. Besides undermining the family, their use has resulted in a demographic catastrophe in Western countries where the birth rate is so low that there are not enough young people to run the economy and sustain an increasingly ageing population.

Yet the powerful financial interests of the pharmaceutical giants downplay the side-effects of contraceptives, some of which are very serious indeed, such as the higher predisposition to breast, cervical and uterine cancer and vascular disorders.

The West has succumbed to forces lined up against human life, marriage, the family and religion.

This is obvious in the aggressive inclusion of contraceptive and abortion programmes linked to so-called aid to poorer countries. The cheap way to help the under­privileged is to deny them having children rather empowering them to escape the cycle of poverty.

Yet those who challenge the contraceptive culture are branded as suppressing liberty of women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Behind the fine talk of ‘the woman’s body’ and ‘woman’s choice’ lie the egoistic interests of men who are only too ready to leave reproductive responsibility in the lap of women. Women are saddled with taking powerful hormonal drugs, with inserting devices in their womb and then being scolded if they get pregnant – as if this was an unforeseeable result of sexual intercourse. They are then often faced between choosing abortion or being abandoned.

It is therefore essential that we educate young people to treasure life in its fullness and realise the importance of appreciating their human dignity. Young women in particular should cherish their bodies as they carry the sanctuary where life begins, is nurtured and grows.

Young people have to realise that their happiness depends on the loyalty and security that only love in all its totality can bring. People are being sold the false idea that respect, responsibility and sacrifice diminish the joy of life.

Women sell themselves cheaply when they willingly reduce themselves to commodities readily available with no strings attached to any transient romance that comes their way.

The callous disregard of some people at the possibility of destroying life with contraceptive drugs is a sad reflection of the sorry state of our society and the depths to which we have allowed ourselves to sink.

Contrary to what many think, such negative trends are not inevitable. Countries like the US are increasingly aware of the negative consequences of a contraceptive culture and the tide is turning as the younger generations become more aware of the consequences of irresponsible life choices that result in broken relationships and abortion.

Let us celebrate life by educating our youth to cherish their sexuality and find the discipline to cultivate relationships that are life-giving in all their dimensions and are underpinned by passionate love that does not wane in spite of the challenges that life inevitably brings.

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160626/religion/Let-s-celebrate-life.616779

Press Release in response to the judicial protest to call for the legalisation of the morning-after pill in Malta

Press Release in response to the judicial protest to call for the legalisation of the morning-after pill in Malta.

Human embryonic life starts from conception. The egg released from the woman is fertilised by the sperm and the embryo created continues to grow as the new human life travels down to implant in the mother’s womb.

One of the effects of the morning after pill or emergency contraception is the  alteration of the lining of the womb such that the embryo will not be able to implant and is thus intentionally lost.  This is called the anti nidation (anti nesting) effect and is abortifacient.

The sale or use of abortifacients is prohibited by law.

In Malta, human life has always been protected from conception by successive governments.

Let us continue to keep the unborn protected from conception.

Co Signed by

Dr Miriam Sciberras

Life Network Foundation Malta,

Mr  Paul Vincenti

Gift of Life Foundation

Mr Anthony Mifsud

Malta Unborn Child Movement

‘Women on Waves’ denies plans to fly abortion drones over Malta, could possibly visit by boat

Pro-choice group ‘Women on Waves’ has denied that it will be flying drones over Malta which drop abortion medication, as it did recently in Poland, but did not exclude visiting Malta on their infamous boat.

Women on Waves appropriately made waves after they flew ‘abortion drones’ from the border of Germany over Roman Catholic Poland, dropping abortion medication. The group considered it a success after it was found that two Polish woman had ingested the abortion pills.

“Just a few months ago the human rights committee [United Nations] had stated that making abortion illegal is a violation of women’s human rights, so Malta is violating human rights as well. They should start changing their laws to be in line with other European countries and legalise abortion,” said Dr Rebecca Gomperts, founder and director of Women on Waves.

A United Nations Committee on Human Rights ruled that in the case of a Peruvian women who was denied an abortion even though her child was sure to die within days of being born, her human rights were not respected and ordered the hospital in question to compensate her. This was a landmark case which “affirmed” the UN’s position that abortion is a human right, according to The Huffington Post.

The Amsterdam-based group describes itself on its online platform as:

“Women on Waves aims to prevent unsafe abortions and empower women to exercise their human rights to physical and mental autonomy. We trust that women can do a medical abortion themselves and make sure that women have access to medical abortion and information through innovative strategies. But ultimately it is about giving women the tools to resist repressive cultures and laws. Not every woman has the possibility to be a public activist but there are things we can all do ourselves.”

Medical abortions refer to ingesting medication that can induce abortion. This differs to surgical abortion, which tends to be done later at a more developed stage and involves an invasive procedure.

In Malta, if found guilty of having an abortion, women could face a three-year prison sentence, while carrying out abortions can land a person four years in jail, and a doctor could have his licence to practice medicine removed.

Dr Gomperts revealed that Women on Waves receives around 65 e-mails per year from Maltese women asking for assistance on unwanted pregnancies.

An article published in the Christian Post said that Women on Waves will be targeting Ireland and Malta next; however Dr Gomperts has denied this.

Asked why Malta will not see ‘abortion drones’ flying over its airspace, she said that “Malta is far away” and the drones do not have the reach to be sent from Sicily or Italy to Malta. She stressed however that the group does not exclude visiting the island again by sea. She also said that the group will continue to fly their drones.

“Basically Women on Waves always look for innovative ways to get abortion pills to women in need. We use the ship, the WOW online project; the drone is another tactic we are using to bring the medication to women,” she said.

Back in 2007, Dr Gomperts came to Malta and held a press conference at Castille. Her visit was met with opposition by a pro-life group called ‘gift of life,’ together with other conservative sections of society.

Many media reports had emerged at the time stating that Dr Gomperts’ pro-choice group would be visiting Malta by ship to provide women with medical abortions and counselling.

They would have remained in international waters in order to provide this service – however it was anticipated that due to their licensing requirements, which needed a regional hospital agreement, this could be an obstacle.

It was largely believed that no hospital in Malta or Gozo would agree to this; however it was reported that such an agreement with a Sicilian hospital could allow them to provide abortive services in international waters.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2016-05-23/local-news/Women-on-Waves-denies-plans-to-fly-abortion-drones-over-Malta-could-possibly-visit-by-boat-6736158182

An interview with Fr. Ian Boyd

On August 27, Campaign Life Coalition interviewed Fr. Ian Boyd by telephone. Fr. Boyd, editor of The Chesterton Review, was a founder of Campaign Life in 1978. We talked to him about the pro-life movement over the past 35 years.

 

Campaign Life Coalition: 35 years ago, together with a group of other pro-life activists, you founded Campaign Life. Why did you come together to create this new prolife group?

Fr. Ian Boyd: There was a crisis, and that was the abortion law that had been passed by the Trudeau government (in 1969). We felt that ordinary people should take some strong measures to see what could be done to defend life, since their representatives weren’t doing a very good job in speaking up for the unborn. That is what motivated people, and it was an immensely popular, and truly grassroots, movement. We believed that most Canadians were on the side of life, but that unfortunately many of them were picking up very bad ideas from a corrupt culture. According to Chesterton, cultures need to be evangelized because ordinary people generally pick up their ways of thinking and behaving from the culture they are immersed in. Fifty years ago, when the culture was basically healthy, even the atheists were pro-life. Fifty years later, rather good people were wounded by a toxic culture and started mouthing ideas that their parents and grandparents would never have accepted. It wasn’t that people have become worse in those fifty years, the culture had become worse and it was having that bad effect on us.  It was a counter-cultural effort that the Campaign Life people were making, and I think that’s basically why we met.

 

CLC: You developed the first draft of the CLC Questionnaire. These questionnaires have been such an important tool in informing the public on where candidates stand on the life and family issues. In the past, politicians were more willing to answer them. Nowadays, they refuse to even address these issues in conversation. What are good ways to engage in dialogue with politicians, and how can we get feedback from them.

Fr. Boyd: It certainly is a serious difficulty. Politicians are terrified of permanently alienating any part of their electorate, and as long as the pro-life issue is simply one among others, then they will be reluctant to say anything. You must remind them that for a certain part of the electorate, it’s an issue that is so basic, that it will actually disqualify the candidate from consideration, regardless of his other good qualities. We need to tell the politicians that if they can’t see the need to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, then they simply do not deserve support no matter what other views they have. Pro-life voters must also be taught that like human sacrifice, matricide, etc., abortion is a disqualifying issue. Furthermore, the unwillingness to take a good stand on the protection of human life, whether it’s regarding abortion or euthanasia, and the refusal to answer is in itself an answer, and a very bad one. Even if we have trouble getting everyone to agree, we want a law in place to remind people, to teach people, and to help bring people to their senses about the wrongness of abortion. Of course we would like to end all abortions right now, but we are realists and we know that in a bad situation, this sometimes is a slow process, but we will not tolerate a politician or give our vote to a politician who refuses to protect life.

 

CLC: You once said that nowadays it’s more difficult to approach people from the head, now you have to do it from the heart. Can you elaborate on this statement?

Fr. Boyd: Human beings are not rational animals only, we are emotional animals, and we have to touch people’s hearts as well as their heads if we are to motivate them. That is why, for example, the recent scandal in Philadelphia had such a terrific effect: when the police stumbled on Kermit Gosnell’s office, suddenly people found out in graphic detail what was happening to these little children. They found out what “pro-choice” means. That was an appeal to the human heart. In our pro-life effort, it is important for us to remind people of the reality of abortion. It’s unspeakable, but we have to render a picture of it to people. The pro-life movement is prophetic in a way, and prophecy doesn’t mean, strictly speaking, predicting the future. It’s speaking the truth to people who have become deaf and blind to realities. You have to wake them up, and I think that’s the great mission of the pro-life movement. We are doing what our elected leaders have neglected to do.

 

CLC: Over the years, there have been many ups and many downs. How would you describe these years and can you share some thoughts about some of your experiences in the pro-life trenches? What would you say were some success and failures you were involved in?

Fr. Boyd: I find that the prolife movement has always been divided into two groups. One group, the principled people opposed to all abortions, that never would they agree to take the life of a single innocent human being no matter what stage of life they are at. I’m all together with them. The second group, I refuse to despise, they are also absolutists, but they say we can work towards that goal and in the meantime, we should do everything we can to cut down the number of abortions, even before we get rid of abortion absolutely. You feel unprincipled if you start talking about cutting down the numbers as if it makes it sound as you are willing to accept any, but we do want to cut down numbers, and we do want to do everything. We take into account the current situation and the way in which some people are slow learners, and we gradually teach them and we do what we can.

The other thing is the ecumenical dimension of the pro-life movement. People who do not agree about some doctrinal questions find themselves fighting together in the trenches of the culture war, and that’s bringing them closer together.

The pro-life movement should also get back in print, read again, and draw people’s attention to notable writers. Authors such as Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are writers who make a huge difference, and we should be instruments of God by putting good literature into the hands of people, especially young people. Chesterton’s prophetic writing about the pro-life issue is a constant, great help to us. From the beginning of Chesterton’s career, he predicted that we were going to face a culture war far more terrible than anything that had occurred in the past. He said: “before the liberal idea is dead or triumphant we shall see wars and persecutions the like of which the world has never seen.” He predicted that the next great heresy would be an attack on morality, and especially on sexual morality.

In Canada, one of the heroes of the pro-life movement is George Grant, and was a great spokesman. Malcolm Muggeridge was another great figure. Fr. (Alphonse) de Valk is a national treasure. He knew the complete history of the abortion question in Canada, wrote a book about it, and kept a complete file of what politicians did.

Those great minds and writings should be remembered.

 

CLC: What words of advice would you offer to someone who wants to get involved in the pro-life movement?

Fr. Boyd: My first advice would be that we are always more effective in a community than as single individuals, to get in touch with Campaign Life, with a pro-life group, that it multiplies your effectiveness a hundredfold when you bring your talents to the group. Don’t remain an isolated individual. The other advice would be letter-writing. I don’t mean a form letter, I mean, especially if it’s a hand-written letter to your local politician, and not on some general question, but on some specific issue which has come up, and remind the politician that you don’t usually write letters, but there are a thousand people like you who feel strongly about this very issue. Politicians take a letter like that seriously, one that doesn’t come from the organization but comes from the individual.

For example, there was something on CBC television that I objected to. I wrote a personal letter, not to the producer of the program, but to the chairman of the corporation, Mr. Johnson. I put a post-script in the letter and said, I know that you will take this letter seriously because my brother in law Vince Dantzer, who worked with you years ago in Regina told me that you were an honourable man and that he thought highly of you. I told him we had Campaign Life, a pro-life lobby, and we raised money to send people to Ottawa to lobby the politicians. CBC Television paid practically no attention to the lobby, and only mentioned it, but they made a great deal of a little feminist group who was also there. Johnson personally wrote me back and said that he would set up a group to look into this matter and have them report back to him. I think that had an effect.

A move like that, how can I put it, chilled the enemy, when they get pushed back from people they are afraid of, or from people who are in charge of them. Make use of every personal connection you have, if someone knows a politician, if someone has worked for a party, anything, you know we are a connected people, so never despair. Quoting Chesterton, if you remember the battle of the white horse where he compares Christians to hares being chased by hunters, the hare says “though they hunt us like hares on the hillside, the hare has still more heart to run than they have heart to ride,” so you know we’ll keep on fighting and be cheerful too. We are people of hope, we are Easter people.

  

About Fr. Ian Boyd

A priest of the Congregation of Saint Basil, Father Ian Boyd is an internationally recognized Chesterton scholar and author. He was Professor of English at St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan for many years. He was a founding member of Campaign Life Coalition (formerly Campaign Life) in 1978, and as pastoral advisor to Campaign Life, drafted the first CLC questionnaire. Father Boyd is the Founder and Editor of The Chesterton Review and the President of the G.K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture based at Seton Hall University. For more information about the work of the G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture and its journal The Chesterton Review and to subscribe, please visit: www.shu.edu/go/chesterton.

For the full transcript of the interview go to www.TheInterim.com.

– See more at: http://www.theinterim.com/issues/pro-life/interview-with-fr-ian-boyd-observations-on-the-pro-life-movement/#sthash.ZHCAIJXq.dpuf

6th Annual March for Life – Rome, 8th May 2016

Drs. Miriam and Mark Sciberras, on behalf of Life Network Malta, will once again be attending the March for Life being held in Rome on the 8th of May 2016.

 

Marcia per la vita

 
Dear Miriam Sciberras,

In less than two weeks-time the March for Life will be held in Rome.

The March unites representatives of pro-life movements, from all corners of the globe, in the capital of Christendom. The 2016 March will take place on Sunday, May 8th, starting at 9 am, departing from piazza Bocca della Verità, arriving at noon to St Peter for the Regina Coeli.

It is only through the firm commitment of public testimony, through standing up publicly to defend Life, that we will be able to fight today’s culture that, as stated by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, strives for hegemony, where a crime becomes a right. The battle for Life has taken center-stage in the court of public opinion; consequently, the support of each and every individual to this March for Life becomes critical to the survival of a society founded on Life, rather than Death.

As done with past Marches, also that of this year will be preceded by the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva on Saturday May 9th, starting at 8 pm.

We really hope you will be able to attend the March.

Looking forward to meeting you in Rome, we send you our best wishes.


March for Life – Italian Committee –  

 
Website: www.marciaperlavita.it – E-mail: info@marciaperlavita.it

Comitato Marcia Nazionale per la Vita – Piazza Santa Balbina 8 – 00153 Rome