The Tasmanian Surrogacy Bill 2011 and the Surrogacy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 offer no protection for unborn children, who can by power of the mother, have their lives ended, by abortion. If the unborn child is found by prenatal diagnosis to have disabilities, imperfections or to be of the non-preferred sex they are in threat of being aborted. This goes completely against the Tasmanian Criminal Code Act 1924, which states that:
“The termination of a pregnancy is legally justified if
(a) two registered medical practitioners have certified, in writing, that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman than if the pregnancy were terminated;”[i]
The practice of aborting unborn children, who have genetic abnormalities or are of the non-preferred sex, not only ends the life of an innocent human being but is in fact of great physical and psychological danger to the mother. For example, the risk of breast cancer later in life is increased; women who have had abortions have a 50% greater risk of getting breast cancer. There is more than double the risk if a woman's abortion was before the age of 18 or over the age of 30. [ii].
1-14% of women will require a blood transfusion due to bleeding from abortion, and hepatitis can occur as a result of the blood transfusion. Anywhere from mild fever to death can occur as a result of an abortion (1-4 – 1-50 women) A woman can have an ectopic pregnancy, which is a pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus, if it is not discovered early enough, it will rupture, and the mother can bleed to death(if she does not have emergency surgery).[iii]
After an abortion there is a 30% greater chance of having an ectopic pregnancy and after two or more abortions, the increased risk of having an ectopic pregnancy is 160%. 1 out of 20 women suffer cervical damage due to abortion, this causes a 50% chance of miscarriage in the next pregnancy (if not treated during the pregnancy).Women who have had greater than two abortions have double the chance of first trimester miscarriages and ten times the number of second trimester miscarriages, following a vaginal abortion. There is a whole range of other physical complications that can occur to the mother, a few of them include bladder injury, bowel injury (which can cause death if not treated early enough), perforation of the uterus and sterility.[iv]
A child that is born with a genetic abnormality or disability can be rejected by both the birth mother and the future parent(s) with whom she had an agreement. The child could then be left without parents, as none of the parties would take the parental responsibilities of care for the child.
Furthermore, the lives of unborn children may end by abortion when more than one child has been conceived and only one is desired by the commissioning parent(s). Such a case arose in 2001 in the United Kingdom when the birth mother, carrying twins, sued the commissioning couple from California who disavowed the contract when she refused to abort one of her babies.[v]
[i] Criminal Code Act 1924, 164, (2)
Medical Termination of pregnancy
http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=69%2B%2B1924%2BGS1%40EN%2B20110706130000;histon=;prompt=;rec=;term=
[ii] Daling J.R., Malone K.E., Voight L.F., White E., and Weiss N.S., (1994), Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: A Relationship to Individual Abortion, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 86: 1584 - 1592.
[iii] Before you choose abortion - Heritage House Literature., http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp
[iv] Id.
[v] “Surrogate mother sues California couple”, 14/8/2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/08/13/surrogate.dispute/index.html
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Surrogacy and Adoption
The evidence that surrogacy is not in the best interests of children comes in the first detailed study on the similar issue of donor insemination, entitled My Daddy's name is donor:
[Y]oung adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused, and feel more isolated from their families. They fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse. Nearly two-thirds [65%] agree, “My sperm donor is half of who I am.”
Young adults conceived through sperm donation (or “donor offspring”) experience profound struggles with their origins and identities. [iii]
Children born as a result of donor insemination, similar to the children born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement, suffer from the lack of knowledge of their real parents, a lack of identity, a lack of belonging and a lack of their origin. “ More than half (53 percent) agree, “I have worried that if I try to get more information about or have a relationship with my sperm donor, my mother and/or the father who raised me would feel angry or hurt.””[iv]
The study also shows that children long to know their real parents:
Nearly half of donor offspring (48 percent) compared to about a fifth of adopted adults (19 percent) agree, “When I see friends with their biological fathers and mothers, it makes me feel sad.” Similarly, more than half of donor offspring (53 percent, compared to 29 percent of the adopted adults) agree, “It hurts when I hear other people talk about their genealogical background.”[v]
Overall, adoption exists primarily to assist disadvantaged children, whose birth parents have died or are incapable of providing them with the necessary care they deserve. Secondarily, adoption can alleviate the pain of infertile couples of not having biological children, while keeping the rights of children to have the care of a mother and a father and keeping open the option of knowing and having a relationship with their biological parent(s).
[i] Fair and Responsible Surrogacy Reform Media Release
David Bartlett MP, Attorney-General, Tuesday 15 March 2011
http://www.media.tas.gov.au/print.php?id=31824
[ii] Id.
[iii] Marquadt, E, et al., My daddy’s name is donor: a new study of young adults conceived through sperm donation, Institute for American Values, 2010, p 5-6;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32495612/My-Daddy-s-Name-is-Donor
[iv] Ibid, p 7.
[v] Id.
Surrogacy and the Rights of Children
Surrogacy is an issue that, while many may not realise, will greatly affect society at all levels.
Australia and western civilisation have for centuries recognised and upheld some key principles, such as the natural human rights of children to have a relationship with their real (biological) mother and father. Society has also upheld that mothers and fathers have distinct characteristics and traits that children respond differently to, and that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable.
Mothers and fathers are essential in the lives of children for their full development. Societies across the globe and throughout the ages have always recognised that biology is the primary way parenthood is defined and while the state recognises parentage it does not control or assign it.
Surrogacy will bring untold damage to future generations of children by taking them away from their real and biological parents. Children are not the property of the State nor are they the property of their parents. They are, however, entrusted to the care of their real and natural parents. It is right and just that children are cared for and nurtured by their real parents. It is in fact the child's natural right to know and have a relationship with their real parents.
For the State to separate children from their natural parents without the child's consent is a violation of their human rights. It is well recognised and scientific studies have shown that children have an intrinsic need for both a mother and a father. Most Australians support this view, as shown in a 2009 Galaxy poll where 86% of those surveyed agreed that children should be raised by their own mother and father. Children also need to have knowledge or the right to pursue knowledge of their natural biological mother and father, as is often the case with adopted children.
Surrogacy sets children as a commodity and a right of adults and not as individuals in which their rights are paramount and override the "needs", or more correctly put, the wants of adults. Children's rights need to be respected and protected.
Moreover, it is not in the best interest of children to allow surrogacy, in which children are deprived of their real mother, their real father or both. Noting that the roles of mothers and fathers are different, however complementary, they are not interchangeable, and thus children should not be deprived of the care of their real mother and a father.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Do Not Redefine Marriage
 |
| The Seven Sacraments, Rogier van der Weyden, ca. 1445. |
Marriage preceded all religions and government systems and it is clear that its roots lie in nature and is harmonious with the Natural Law. Moreover, it encompasses all beliefs from Theistic to Atheistic. It does not originate in the will of judges, politicians, parliaments or lobbyists and is therefore an intrinsic truth which cannot be changed or redefined.
The majority of citizens of this country [Australia] and most other countries in the world, and the United Nations do not express a desire for the definition of marriage to be perverted, but rather wish to see its dignity recognised, promoted and upheld.
While some people in homosexual unions wish to gain acceptance from mainstream society of their homosexual lifestyle, redefining their unions as marriage is completely inappropriate and inaccurate. Homosexual unions cannot be termed as marriage and neither are they equal to married couples.
Homosexual couples fail to fulfill the mandatory criteria which unambiguously describe marriage, and therefore, are not capable of being recognised as married couples. Married couples possess the following natural characteristics and qualities:
Firstly, married couples possess the natural biological complementarity. Secondly, they have an inherent and natural biological capacity for procreation which is the prime function of marriage; this contributes to the well-being and guaranteed growth of society, notwithstanding the infertility of some couples. Thirdly they are able to fulfill the inalienable rights and needs of children. The child needs to have the knowledge of their natural mother and father and to know that they are born out of love between their parents.
Irrespective of how good or skilled a homosexual person might be, they undeniably lack the intrinsic qualities which are extremely important for the physical and psychological development and nurturing of the child.
Marriage is not a right but a gift between a husband and wife. It must be made clear that people with homosexual inclinations are not barred from marriage to a member of the opposite sex. Simply said, homosexual unions cannot be considered equal to marriage.
To deny or belittle the need of children for a mother and a father will subject the most vulnerable, who are our children and future generations, to untold and irreversible damage, for example in the case of the stolen generation. The truth does not change with time. What is false in the past is still false in the present and in the future. An intrinsic truth cannot be changed by opinion polls.
If homosexual couples lack the necessary prerequisites to be accepted into the institution of marriage it means they are outside of marriage. The primary argument is not about equal rights but appropriate and just distinctions. To blur the distinctions and say they are the same, is to be unfair and unjust. We must differentiate between the two, because there are serious differences which should not be glossed over but acknowledged.
The emotive arguments that homosexual couples put forward are based on the vague and simplistic idea of fairness, like “why can’t I have what you have?” We must not be misled but use clear thinking and stand up for the rights of the future children of this country.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
'Euthanasia means killing someone’: Sydney Cardinal issues blunt pro-life challenge
Article from Life Site News
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eut...pro-life-chal/
George Cardinal Pell (Source: Archdiocese of Sydney website)
and
You Shall Not Kill
http://www.sydneycatholic.org/news/l...610_1278.shtml
Also sign the
Australian Christian Lobby's petition
Care Not Killing
regarding Senator Brown's Territory rights (Voluntary Euthanasia) Bill
http://www.makeastand.org.au/campaig...campaign_id=37
Australian Bishops Statement on abortion as ALP policy
The following is statement is taken from the book Australian Catholic Bishops' Statements since Vatican II St. Paul Publications 1985
Adoption of abortion as official ALP policy.
July 24, 1984
The Australian Bishops are greatly disappointed by the ALP National Conference decision on abortion.
Archbishop Francis Rush, president of the Australian Bishops' conference, says this in a letter to the prime minister, Mr. Hawke.
Archbishop Rush says the Catholic Church insists that human life is to be respected from the very beginning.
Here is the text of the letter released by the conference Secretariat:
The a prime minister,
He used a great disappointment to the Catholic Bishops Australia that he Australian Labor Party has made off by shall party policy to support " the particular rights of women to choice of fertility control and abortion."
We even question the logic of making abortion by choice party policy at the same time as insisting that it is a question which each member will decide according to conscience.
Whether intended or not, it constitutes pressure on the conscience of members who disagree.
We believe that the supporters of a right to abortion make themselves part of a strange "Establishment" which, in the name of a right to choose, flies in the face of proven scientific facts and denies the right of the most defenceless human beings.
There is no need to tell you where the catholic church stands on abortion. We insist, as we have always done, that human life is to be respected from the the very beginning.
The burden of proof is on people who assert that the embryo is not human. Until they micro their case they have no right to run the risk of killing a human being.
Four years ago the Australian catholic Bishops wrote:
" There is no human being so defenceless as an unborn child.
Yet there is none at greater risk in Australia today.
Statistically, the most dangerous place forum of Australian in 1980 is a mother's womb."
What was true in 1980 is more obviously true in 1984.
Yours sincerely,
Francis Rush
Archbishop of Brisbane
President of the Australian Episcopal Conference.
Labor/Green Pro-Abortion Policies
Australian Labor Party Policy on Abortion
Source: ALP Party Website
National Platform and Constitution 2009
Chapter 6: Preparing Australia for the health needs of the future
Sexual and Reproductive Health
44 To improve reproductive health for men and women, Labor will:
• Support the rights of women to determine their own reproductive lives, particularly the right to choose appropriate fertility control and abortion and ensure that these choices are on the basis of sound social and medical advice.
To view full document click on this link.
http://www.alp.org.au/getattachment/.../our-platform/
“The Greens in Victorian Parliament have indicated that they will vote in favour of decriminalising abortion…”
Source: Australian Greens Website
http://vic.greens.org.au/front-page-...on-of-abortion
The Greens have also brought in bills attempting to legalise Euthanasia (Dying with Dignity Bill 2009 in Tas.) and also to legalise Same-Sex Marriage(Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 and 2010 in the federal Senate) and (Same-Sex Marriage Bill 2008 in Tas)
Other Parties not to be voted for are Socialist Alliance (Strongly support Abortion), the Democrats(support Abortion and want universal laws across all states that legalise voluntary euthanasia) and some Liberal Party Candidates.
Early Church Fathers
 |
| St. Polycarp (69-155 AD) Source: Catholic.org |
A reference to the writings of the early Church Fathers
http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/ref.htm
Documents available from New Advent
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
and Early Church Fathers
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/INDEX.HTM
Friday, July 1, 2011
ZENIT Articles on Abortion
A collection of articles from ZENIT.org on abortion.
Trend to Kill Baby Girls Gets UN Attention
International Groups Look at Sex-Selective Abortion
June 29 2011
Promoting Abortion in the Year of Youth
Vatican Daily Warns of Aim to Break Parent-Child Bond
August 24 2010
http://www.zenit.org/article-30146?l=english
East Timor Resisting Legalized Abortion
UN Committee Calls Current Policies "Discriminatory"
May 25 2009
http://www.zenit.org/article-25993?l=english
Bishop: Abortion TV Ads "Deeply Damaging"
Decries Proposal of UK Advertising Authority
March 26 2009
Why Is India Short 40 Million Women?
U.N. Population Fund Maintains a Curious Silence
Catechism of the Council of Trent on the Eucharist
Again in perfecting the other Sacraments there is no change of the matter and element into another nature. The water of Baptism, or the oil of Confirmation, when those Sacraments are being administered, do not lose their former nature of water and oil; but in the Eucharist, that which was bread and wine before consecration, after consecration is truly the substance of the body and blood of the Lord.
Credo of the People of God on the Eucharist
From the Credo of the People of God:
"We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.35
Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,36 as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.37
The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us."
35. Cf Dz.-Sch. 1651.
36. Cf Dz.-Sch. 1642,1651-1654; Paul VI, Enc. Mysterium Fidei.
37. Cf S.Th.,111,73,3.
 |
| Pope Paul VI |
"We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.35
Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,36 as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.37
The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us."
35. Cf Dz.-Sch. 1651.
36. Cf Dz.-Sch. 1642,1651-1654; Paul VI, Enc. Mysterium Fidei.
37. Cf S.Th.,111,73,3.
Reception of Holy Communion
 |
| Coat of Arms of Bl. Pope John Paul II |
“The Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honour”
(Code of Canon Law, can. 898)
“Sacred ministers may not deny the Sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.
(Code of Canon Law, can. 843 §1)
“Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.”
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 91, 2004)
“Each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue at his choice.”
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, 2004)
“If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful”
(Redemptionis Sacramentum 92, 2004)
“Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.”
“The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)