Here at the end of the year we remember the birth of Jesus. We often forget, however, how unexpected and unusual was Mary's pregnancy. It is good to remember the circumstances of this pregnancy. Mary was a faithful Jewish girl; and such girls did not fall pregnant before marriage. What did this betrothed-not yet married-young woman do, who now found herself mysteriously with child? Imagine the unkind looks and comments she (and Joseph) must have endured as Mary's pregnancy became more and more obvious. Yet out of love for God she carried that unexpected baby to birth, and delivered into the world our Saviour. Billions of peoples' lives have been improved both on earth and eternally by Jesus Christ. We thank God the Father for sending us the Saviour, and we can be glad that Mary was willing to do God's will for her by giving birth to Christ.
The life of Mary teaches us something more today. Note that God chose Mary for this unexpected task, to carry this unexpected (at least for Mary!) child. We thus see that no child is ever a "mistake", whatever the intentions of the man and woman who conceived that child. God has a unique and valuable plan for the earthly life of every child who comes into existence. Let us honor God by honoring His good intentions for each human life conceived. Like Mary, may women unexpectedly pregnant protect and carry to birth their children. Like Joseph, may the rest of us stand in solidarity with these mothers by supporting them through pregnancy, delivery and beyond (recall the difficulties Joseph had finding a room for the family on the night of Jesus' birth, and the family's flight from King Herod's attempt to kill the boy). As in the case of Jesus, God the author of life wants to do special things with each human person. Let us cooperate with Him in protecting and nurturing each human life. No to abortion, yes to life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Abortion and Memory
At this time of year, we remember and celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. For the one billion Christians alive today, this is an anniversary of joy for the coming of their Saviour.
For many post-abortive women, however, the anniversary of their abortion or the anniversary of what would have been their child's birthday is a date of grief, regret, and loss. These two dates haunt these women, sometimes for the rest of their lives. A survey published in 1994 found that 36% of the 252 post-abortive women surveyed strongly agreed that they were "preoccupied with thoughts of the child I could have had". That same survey found that 21% of 238 women surveyed strongly agreed that "negative feelings about my abortion became worse on the due date of pregnancy"; one out of four of 235 women reported stronger negative feelings about their abortions on the anniversary of the abortion itself.
A woman should be happy when she learns she is pregnant; this happiness should reach fulfillment when she gives birth to her son or daughter. Let us make sure no woman suffers anniversary grief over a child she destroyed through abortion. May we protect women and children from the death and despair of abortion; may we support them in our roles as husbands, fathers, siblings, parents, and friends. No to abortion; yes to life.
More information on abortion's effects on women is found at www.afterabortion.org
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
For many post-abortive women, however, the anniversary of their abortion or the anniversary of what would have been their child's birthday is a date of grief, regret, and loss. These two dates haunt these women, sometimes for the rest of their lives. A survey published in 1994 found that 36% of the 252 post-abortive women surveyed strongly agreed that they were "preoccupied with thoughts of the child I could have had". That same survey found that 21% of 238 women surveyed strongly agreed that "negative feelings about my abortion became worse on the due date of pregnancy"; one out of four of 235 women reported stronger negative feelings about their abortions on the anniversary of the abortion itself.
A woman should be happy when she learns she is pregnant; this happiness should reach fulfillment when she gives birth to her son or daughter. Let us make sure no woman suffers anniversary grief over a child she destroyed through abortion. May we protect women and children from the death and despair of abortion; may we support them in our roles as husbands, fathers, siblings, parents, and friends. No to abortion; yes to life.
More information on abortion's effects on women is found at www.afterabortion.org
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Abortion and Slavery
Abortion advocacy consistently claims a woman's "right" to choose an abortion, even as medical science makes it abundantly clear that a pregnant woman carries a living human person. A disturbing and illuminating parallel between abortion and slavery comes to mind. From its inception until the end of its civil war in 1865, the United States allowed white people to keep black people as slaves. The United States Supreme Court called slavery-the possession of human beings as property-a constitutional right in its 1857 "Dred Scott" decision. Abolitionists at the time argued that it is wrong for some people to keep other people as property. These abolitionists were told "You may not like slavery, you may think it is morally wrong, and you need not choose to keep slaves. But do not force your morality on slave owners. They have a legal right to keep slaves." Today, this argument sounds as absurd as it is morally repulsive.
Today's pro-life advocates assert that abortion is wrong, because no one has the right to kill an innocent person. In an eerily similar fashion, these pro-lifers are often told "You may not like abortion, you may think it's morally wrong, and you certainly do not have to choose an abortion. But do not force your morality on women who want to abort. They do (or should) have a legal right to abort their baby".
In 1858, Stephen Douglas ran against Abraham Lincoln for the presidency of the United States. The two of them engaged in a series of lively debates during the campaign. Douglas advocated letting each state choose to keep slavery legal or not. Lincoln answered Douglas this way: "No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong".
Abortion kills a human being. It often injures or kills the mother too. May the citizens of the Kingdom of Swaziland protect the right to life of all people, from conception to natural death.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Today's pro-life advocates assert that abortion is wrong, because no one has the right to kill an innocent person. In an eerily similar fashion, these pro-lifers are often told "You may not like abortion, you may think it's morally wrong, and you certainly do not have to choose an abortion. But do not force your morality on women who want to abort. They do (or should) have a legal right to abort their baby".
In 1858, Stephen Douglas ran against Abraham Lincoln for the presidency of the United States. The two of them engaged in a series of lively debates during the campaign. Douglas advocated letting each state choose to keep slavery legal or not. Lincoln answered Douglas this way: "No one has the right to choose to do what is wrong".
Abortion kills a human being. It often injures or kills the mother too. May the citizens of the Kingdom of Swaziland protect the right to life of all people, from conception to natural death.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Peace on Earth
We are approaching Christmas, the time of "Peace on earth, good will to men". In 1994 Mother Theresa, the nun famous for working among the very poor in India, addressed a breakfast meeting in Washington D.C. The crowd included then-President Bill Clinton and other Washington luminaries. During her address, Mother Theresa said "The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child...and if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
As we prepare to remember the birth of baby Jesus-the One who made peace between God and man-may Mother Theresa's words ring in our ears. For the sake of peace on earth and good will toward men (and women), may Swaziland say no to abortion and yes to life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
As we prepare to remember the birth of baby Jesus-the One who made peace between God and man-may Mother Theresa's words ring in our ears. For the sake of peace on earth and good will toward men (and women), may Swaziland say no to abortion and yes to life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Morning After Pill
When discussing life issues like contraception and abortion, truth is very important. Friday's (12 Nov) Times carried a full-page article discussing so-called "emergency contraception" pills. Readers were told that these pills can be used "to prevent an unwanted pregnancy".
We must note first that human life begins at fertilization (also called conception), which is the moment when the sperm and the egg join. The Letters page of the Times lacks the space to contain all the quotes from medical experts testifying to this fact, so one example will have to do. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni from the University of Pennsylvania (USA) told the US Congress in 1981: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception...I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life". Medical research and understanding has grown exponentially since that time, and all the gathered information confirms that human life begins when the egg and the sperm join. After conception (which usually takes place in the tubes leading from a woman's ovaries to her uterus), the new person travels to the uterus and attaches to the wall of her mother's womb. Nine months later, if all goes well, the baby is born.
I visited a prominent chemist in Mbabane on Saturday, and they graciously gave me an information page which comes in the box with the morning after pills. The information page says that the active ingredient (Levonorgestrel) in this pill (Norlevo) "acts as a contraceptive by inhibiting ovulation and preventing the nidation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine mucosa".
The information sheet is half right. "Inhibiting ovulation" means to stop an egg from leaving a woman's ovary. This is a contraceptive action, because if no egg is present then the sperm has nothing to join with, and conception is impossible. "Preventing the nidation of a fertilized ovum", however, is not a contraceptive action; it is an act of abortion. A "fertilized ovum" is nothing less than a new human being, as Dr. Bongioanni explained above. "Preventing nidation" means to make it impossible for the newly-conceived human person from securing herself to the wall of the uterus. In this way, the morning-after pill causes abortion. Senior Nursing Officer Gibson Sibanda was quoted in the Times as saying "After 72 hours conception may have taken place, and once fertilization takes place the ECP (morning after pill) is useless". The paper that comes with the pills indicates that the pill can still have an effect after fertilization--at that time it may prevent implantation. Sexually active women should have accurate information as to what effect this pill might have on a child she may conceive. The Times, FLAS, and the pharmaceutical companies would do well to provide accurate information in a form that does not require a university biology degree to understand.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
We must note first that human life begins at fertilization (also called conception), which is the moment when the sperm and the egg join. The Letters page of the Times lacks the space to contain all the quotes from medical experts testifying to this fact, so one example will have to do. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni from the University of Pennsylvania (USA) told the US Congress in 1981: "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception...I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life". Medical research and understanding has grown exponentially since that time, and all the gathered information confirms that human life begins when the egg and the sperm join. After conception (which usually takes place in the tubes leading from a woman's ovaries to her uterus), the new person travels to the uterus and attaches to the wall of her mother's womb. Nine months later, if all goes well, the baby is born.
I visited a prominent chemist in Mbabane on Saturday, and they graciously gave me an information page which comes in the box with the morning after pills. The information page says that the active ingredient (Levonorgestrel) in this pill (Norlevo) "acts as a contraceptive by inhibiting ovulation and preventing the nidation of a fertilized ovum in the uterine mucosa".
The information sheet is half right. "Inhibiting ovulation" means to stop an egg from leaving a woman's ovary. This is a contraceptive action, because if no egg is present then the sperm has nothing to join with, and conception is impossible. "Preventing the nidation of a fertilized ovum", however, is not a contraceptive action; it is an act of abortion. A "fertilized ovum" is nothing less than a new human being, as Dr. Bongioanni explained above. "Preventing nidation" means to make it impossible for the newly-conceived human person from securing herself to the wall of the uterus. In this way, the morning-after pill causes abortion. Senior Nursing Officer Gibson Sibanda was quoted in the Times as saying "After 72 hours conception may have taken place, and once fertilization takes place the ECP (morning after pill) is useless". The paper that comes with the pills indicates that the pill can still have an effect after fertilization--at that time it may prevent implantation. Sexually active women should have accurate information as to what effect this pill might have on a child she may conceive. The Times, FLAS, and the pharmaceutical companies would do well to provide accurate information in a form that does not require a university biology degree to understand.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 13, 2010
One Child Policy?
According to the Swazi News on 6 November, MP Johannes Ndlangamandla has floated the idea that limiting by law the number of children people can have will help Swaziland develop. The News did mention that "globally" some countries, like China, limit the number of children a couple can have. Policymakers and policy influencers (like the News) would do well to tread carefully in this area.
First off, note that no one lives "globally"; we all live in some particular place. The question is, do we want some policy from another part of the globe to become policy in our own country?
China does indeed have a one-child policy, but it has led to a numerous and serious problems. Population Research Institute says that victims and witnesses report the following government activities in China related to its one-child policy: "age requirements for pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs (the loop); mandatory sterilization; huge fines for breaking one's child limit (in one instance, a couple was fined approximately 500,000 Emalangeni for having twins after they already had one child); jail sentences; destruction of homes and property; forced abortion and forced sterilization." Such dreadful actions would not improve Swaziland's position on the Mo Ibrahim log for democratic governance. Additionally, killing daughters via abortion is common, since sons are highly valued in China and couples want to make sure they get a boy. Being killed precisely because one is a girl is the epitome of gender-based violence, and Swaziland (rightly) hears continuous calls for an end to gbv.
China's experience shows that bringing the force of law to bear in order to reduce the number of births is a bad idea. Swaziland has development problems, but limiting the number of children by law is not the way to solve them.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
First off, note that no one lives "globally"; we all live in some particular place. The question is, do we want some policy from another part of the globe to become policy in our own country?
China does indeed have a one-child policy, but it has led to a numerous and serious problems. Population Research Institute says that victims and witnesses report the following government activities in China related to its one-child policy: "age requirements for pregnancy; birth permits; mandatory use of IUDs (the loop); mandatory sterilization; huge fines for breaking one's child limit (in one instance, a couple was fined approximately 500,000 Emalangeni for having twins after they already had one child); jail sentences; destruction of homes and property; forced abortion and forced sterilization." Such dreadful actions would not improve Swaziland's position on the Mo Ibrahim log for democratic governance. Additionally, killing daughters via abortion is common, since sons are highly valued in China and couples want to make sure they get a boy. Being killed precisely because one is a girl is the epitome of gender-based violence, and Swaziland (rightly) hears continuous calls for an end to gbv.
China's experience shows that bringing the force of law to bear in order to reduce the number of births is a bad idea. Swaziland has development problems, but limiting the number of children by law is not the way to solve them.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Choose the Option that Gives You the Most Options
The book "The Art of the Long View" says "Choose the option that gives you the most options". This rule applies to the abortion debate. A mother carrying an unplanned baby faces the question, "Should I abort the baby or not?" Which option gives her the most options? Carrying her baby to birth means she can rear the baby herself, ask her parents to help with rearing the child, join the Swaziland's newly-created support group for single mothers, or marry the dad and have a complete family. The "birth option" allows the mom to view and influence her growing child, to enjoy the fruits of seeing that daughter or son mature, and to receive the support of her child in her own old age. The birth option also opens up all the small and large life choices to that child. The "abortion option" offers a brief and bloody end to the baby, often accompanied by long and short term physical and emotional harm to the mother. It offers the mother a lifetime of "what if" questions she will not be able to answer. In short, the choice of life gives mother and child the most options. Let us help moms and the babies they carry enjoy the maximum range of choices in their lives: let us help moms choose life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
more letters at http://letterstotheTOS.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)