Population trends: lessons for RP

By Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, SThD
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 19:47:00 01/02/2010

REMEMBER the population bomb? The new threat to the planet is not too many people but too few,” Michael Meyer reports on “Birth Dearth” (in Newsweek, Sept. 27, 2004). He continues: “The world’s population will continue to grow – from today’s 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we’re destined to learn much more about – depopulation – has already begun in a number of countries.”

In general, a total fertility rate (TFR or children per woman) of 2.1 is necessary to replace a country’s population. The UN Population Division (UNPD) states, “The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if combined with increases in life expectancy, is population ageing. It adds, “Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is expected almost to triple” between 2005 and 2050.

Population controllers never highlight population ageing and decline. In countries where these phenomena happen today, a huge number of elderly have to be supported by proportionally fewer working people. The pension fund and the social security system are overburdened. The local labor force grow older and less efficient, hence they need immigrants.

Having fewer and older people means a smaller market, especially for certain sectors such as baby food, clothing, vaccines and certain other medicines, sports facilities, office equipment, education, etc. –products and services the elderly employ less. More countries will soon need more coffins than cradles.

Below replacement levels

A population with an above-replacement TFR (that is, with 2.1 or more children per woman) will have a pyramid-shaped “population pyramid.” In this scenario, the economically active persons support their children and a small group of elderly dependents.

If a country’s TFR goes below replacement level, the wide bases of the pyramid are replaced by narrower bases each year, reflecting the fewer children born each year.

Continued below-replacement TFR will lead to a diamond-shaped figure.

By this time the economically active persons will have to support a relatively few children and a rapidly increasing number of elderly.

This condition contributes to the present economic boom of rich countries, since the workers will get to keep a big share of their earnings, instead of spending them for the needs of children and the elderly.

This is the situation that population controllers want us to foresee: They explain that the Philippines will become well-off when it reaches this stage. But they never explain what will happen beyond this stage, which, to say the least, is a disaster.

If the country’s TFR remains below replacement levels, the diamond-shaped population pyramid will become shaped like a toy top.

If the trend continues, the country will end up having an inverted population pyramid, with an extremely aged and shrinking population.

Babies needed

Because of an elderly and forthcoming collapsing population, Dr. Joseph Chamie, former UNPD director, said to the Population Association of America that governments were “adopting polices... to increase their child bearing,” including restricting or limiting contraception [and] abortion, match making, conducting public-relation campaigns for marriage

, childbearing and parenthood, and giving out cash bonus for the birth of a child.

They have not succeeded so far. But if ever they do succeed in increasing birthrates, their population “pyramid” will acquire the shape of an hourglass.

In this scenario, their workers will have to care not only for their big population of elderly dependents, but also for the increasingly big batches of children they want to have, the young dependents.

This will mean a double economic burden for them. Hence, these countries will soon be in a serious predicament: Continued economic woes and the nation’s extinction if they don’t produce more children and doubled economic woes if they do.

They hope to return to the scenario they were in 50 years ago: To have many babies who would eventually replace the work force, and in turn care for both the young and the elderly dependents. That is, they seek a normal population pyramid, shaped like a real pyramid, with a wide base and a narrow tip, and not like a diamond, a toy top, an inverted pyramid, or an hourglass.

In short, they want to revert to the type of pyramid that the Philippines still has – a pyramid that it will soon lose, as its TFR continues to decline. Within two decades, our country will fall into the same trap where ageing countries find themselves in and want to escape from right now, a TFR below the 2.1 replacement level.

Lessons

The UNPD figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early as now the Philippine TFR is already dangerously low.

Whereas in the early 1970s the average Filipina had six children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two.

Shortly after 2020, the Philippine TFR will sink below its specific replacement level of around 2.29 (higher than the usual 2.1 because of higher infant mortality and other factors).

It will be too late and useless to wait for the TFR to go below replacement level and then try to raise it up again. The only solution would be to try to prevent its further decline today – an effort that will probably not succeed within a few decades, but will hopefully at least lessen the impact of an ageing population. If approved, the bills promoting population control will certainly plunge the Philippine TFR further down.

The Philippine population pyramids of 2000, 2025 and 2050 (from the US Census Bureau website) reflect the TFR’s downward trend.

We can no longer sit back, relax and think of “just crossing the bridge when we get there,” because we have already reached the bridge. At the rate its TFR is declining, the Philippines will, within 20 years, join the other countries that have fallen into the river. It will be a point of no return, or at least, of extremely difficult return. Why go there in the first place?

It has to be stressed that the Philippine TFR will probably reach below replacement levels within two decades even without additional population control efforts.

Filipinos now marry later in life, marital unions have become less stable, emigration to urban centers makes rearing children more difficult, emigration to other countries is on the rise (physically subtracting members from the country, especially those of reproductive age, and reducing the number of children those left behind beget), decisions on how to spend money have left having more children out, and the mass media greatly influence spouses to have few children.

Population control

Countries that were already rich 30 to 40 years ago when their TFRs started to decline and are now ageing encounter extreme difficulty in solving their economic problems.

Their efforts to encourage their citizens to produce more children have not yielded acceptable results after a decade. They depend on immigration to maintain their population growth.

The Philippines is not a rich country and may or may not be rich within 50 years. How will it support its aging population? Will it also invite workers from other countries to replace its dwindling workforce? Will it also pay mothers for each child born? Impossible.

Even if it becomes rich by then, it will have to face the same problems rich countries face now and will have to tell the people to raise more children.

Graphically speaking, we cannot afford to have in the future a population pyramid like the rich countries’ and then, like them, wish to regain the population pyramid we have now.

Population control has to be ruled out as a quick-fix solution to poverty. This in no way means telling the people to have as many children as they can, to uncontrollably “go forth and multiply” (as some erroneously claim the Church teaches).

Rather, parents should be guided and supported to attain the number of children they can generously and responsibly raise and educate. For some spouses, this means having one child or two and for others, 5, 10, 12, or in some cases, 15 or even more. If they could really manage to properly care for them, why not?

Neither the government nor the Church may compel, instruct or encourage spouses to raise a specified number of children, as what population control programs definitely try to do. Rather, the government and the Church should form and guide the people to reflect on their actual circumstances and to freely, generously and responsibly decide whether or not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely.

Human capital

Any economic, social or political policy proposed to solve poverty should take advantage of, rather than suppress, our abundant human resources. As Dr. Gary Becker, 1992 Nobel Prize winner in economic science, says, “human capital,” which refers to the skills, education, health and training of individuals, comprises around 80 percent of the wealth of advanced countries and hence “can be neglected [only] at a country’s peril.”

Any solution to poverty, furthermore, has to take into account, support and promote our closely knit family ties, the time and dedication parents give to their children, the care children and extended families give to the elderly whom we truly love, the moral principles and holistic training children receive from their parents and all the other values that the Filipino family has until now maintained, in spite of the pressures exerted upon it by secularism.

The contribution to the national economy of these services and values that find their dynamism within the family is impossible to calculate, but they provide a key – the most important one – to good governance in the public and private sectors, a condition sine qua non to attain stability in society, reach economic development and diminish poverty.

(Gregory Gaston is a priest of the Archdiocese of Manila, professor and former dean of the Graduate School of Theology of San Carlos Seminary in Makati. He holds a doctorate in sacred theology. He presented this topic at the Society of Catholic Social Scientists’ annual meeting at the University of Mississippi School of Law on Oct. 31, 2009. This article is excerpted from “Familia et Vita” (2007), the Quarterly Review of the Pontifical Council for the Family [full text at www.safe.ph].)

---

A woman for our time?

CATHERINE PEPINSTER

It was one of the most poignant photographss o far of the US presidential race. Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’svice-presidential nominee, cradled herbaby, Trig, in her arms. A classic Madonnaand Child pose. But it was one for which MrsPalin was particularly vilified, simply becauseTrig is a Down’s syndrome baby.

 

Rather than be applauded for the courageand hard work it takes to raise a child withspecial needs, Sarah Palin was, according toCarol Fowler, the chairwoman of the DemocraticParty in South Carolina, chosen becauseher “primary qualification seems to bethat she hasn’t had an abortion”, while CintraWilson, a columnist for the online Salonmagazine, said that Trig was “the anti-abortionplatform that ensures [Palin’s] own politicalambitions”.

Mrs Palin is not the first woman in the publiceye to raise eyebrows over her decisionabout her baby. Cherie Blair chose not to havean amniocentesis test when she was pregnantwith her fourth child, Leo, because of the riskto the baby, despite the relative likelihood ather age of having a child with Down’s syndrome.This was a view that went right againstthe grain. As a newly published report fromthe worldwide charity Down Syndrome Education International (DSEI), reveals, government policy and pressure from themedical establishment has led to screeningfor genetic abnormality becoming the normin Britain. The study by DSEI shows that thisscreening, requiring invasive techniques,leads to miscarriage in between one in 100and one in 50 pregnancies, and that arounda startling 95 per cent of positive screeningsare wrong.

But what the charity is really concernedabout is not just the “normal” babies who arelost through this screening but whether geneticscreening for physical and mentalabilities and disabilities during pregnancy isacceptable. For behind that screening policylies a conviction that abnormality, any deviationfrom the “perfect”, has no place in oursociety. For years the political and medicalestablishment has promoted the idea thatscreening is a sensible, rational option. It isa given that if abnormality is found, then thechild’s life should be terminated. And just howthat view came to be so popular owes its rootsto a woman whose life and work is this monthbeing given what one might call, literally, astamp of approval. Marie Stopes is beinghonoured with a stamp issued by the RoyalMail.

Stopes is, of course,  best known for being a birth-control pioneer. The correspondencebetween Stopes and thousands of letterwriters who contacted her afterpublication of her bestselling volumes, MarriedLove and Wise Parenthood, reveal thedesperation many felt at having large familiesthey struggled to raise, the despairwrought by sexual ignorance, and the compassionfelt by her for their plight. But MarieStopes was not all that she seemed. (Indeedeven her title was misleading. That she wasDr Stopes suggested she had a medical background;in fact she had a PhD in fossilbotany.) Like many of the early pioneers ofabortion and birth control she was a eugenicist.Eugenics, while long associated with NaziGermany, has a lengthy history in Britain. Theword derives from the Greek, meaning wellborn,and its followers advocate the improvementof the human race throughintervention. Its beginnings can be linked toThomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle ofPopulation”, published in 1798, which expressedthe fear that the poor, unless checked,would outstrip food supplies. During the nineteenthcentury, as the size of richer familiesdeclined, followers of Malthus feared that thepoor would start to predominate in society.The solution was segregation of the poor inworkhouses, where husbands and wives were kept apart so that they had no more children.By the beginning of the twentieth century,the belief that those unfit to breed shouldbe stopped from doing so began to grow inpopularity. Preventive methods proposed includedsegregation, sterilisation, euthanasia,and abortion, as well as birth control. Thisdesire to control population was not entirelyfocused on the poor; while the working classesshould limit their families, many eugenicistsand Malthusians were dismayed that themiddle classes were having fewer children.

The well-off woman was seen as shirking herduty by not improving the stock.While the Eugenics Education Society was formed in 1907, it was during the 1920s and1930s that the eugenics movement grew, attractingwell-known intellectuals such as Sydneyand Beatrice Webb and Bertrand andDora Russell. Although the society’s leadinglights were on the left, and an unsuccessfulbill was put forward in 1931 by a Labour MP to sterilise the unfit, there was a certain suspicionamong Labour Party members that eugenicswas focused on eliminating theworking class. As indeed it was: ProfessorF.A.E. Carew, when giving evidence to the1937 Birkett Enquiry into abortion, urged thatthe “slum womb” be abolished.In contrast, as Ann Farmer recalls in hernewly published study of abortion and eugenicsBy Their Fruits, the WestminsterCatholic Federation told the Birkett Enquirythat it was social conditions, not the child,that should be changed. It was a plea thatwent unheeded among the proponents ofabortion. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and oneof the staunchest advocates of the right toabortion in this country, revealed in a paperon abortion given at Kent University that policymakers long focused on limiting the childrenof the poor, right up to the passing ofthe 1967 Abortion Act.“Parliamentary discussion of the AbortionAct explicitly discussed its use in preventingunfit mothers from having unsuitable families,”she told the one-day conference. “Contemporarymedical journals discussed thevalidity of legal abortion alongside the needfor a birth control plan for Britain to limitthe numbers of the poor.”Back in the 1930s, as Ann Farmer’s meticulouslyresearched account reveals, a networkof campaigners made up of Eugenics Society members belonged to a wide rangeof other organisations and worked across party political lines, pushing for abortion andsterilisation for just these reasons. 

In the midstof all this was Marie Stopes. Stopes came toprominence in 1918 with the publication ofMarried Love, which had sold 400,000 copiesby 1923. In 1921, she and her husband, theaviator H.V. Roe, set up London’s first birthcontrolclinic in north London and formedthe Society for Constructive Birth Controland Racial Progress. Her views went well beyondan interest in people’s sexual wellbeing.“Are these puny-faced, gaunt, blotchy,ill-balanced, feeble, ungainly, withered childrenthe young of an Imperial race?” she askedthe readers of The Daily Mail in 1919 in anarticle entitled “Mrs Jones does her worst”.“Mrs Jones”, she went on, “is destroyingthe race!” 

The following year, in her book RadiantMotherhood, she urged that “the sterilisationof those 

totally unfit for parenthoodbe made an immediate possibility, indeedmade compulsory.” Marie Stopes’ beliefs affectedher own family. She cut her son outof her will for marrying a short-sightedwoman, outraged at the harm it wouldcause to her own bloodline. “Mary andHarry are quite callous about both thewrong to their children, the wrong to my familyand the eugenic crime.”These beliefs took Stopes to Germany, whereshe attended the Nazis’ Berlin congress onpopulation science in 1935. They were beliefsshe maintained throughout her life, leavingher money to the Eugenics Society andhelping to set up the International PlannedParenthood Federation in the 1950s, arguingthat no society should allow “the diseased,the racially negligent, the careless, the feeble-minded and the very lowest and worstmembers of the community to produce innumerabletens of thousands of warped andinferior infants”.

Such extreme language might seem outdatedtoday, but Stopes would no doubtapprove of the 

screening for congenitalabnormality so heavily promotedby the NHS, whose end result is frequentlytermination. And yet the numbers of childrenwith Down’s is increasing. The number of babiesborn with the condition has risen by25 per cent in the past 15 years in Britain. Accordingto Frank Buckley, chief executive ofDSEI and co-author of the charity’s new report:“More people are living with Down’s syndromethan ever before, with over 600,000across Europe and North America andmaybe 4 million worldwide.”All kinds of reasons could explain the increasein the number of Down’s children.Women are having children later in life, thusincreasing the likelihood of chromosomal abnormality.They feel encouraged to have thembecause other parents and charities have lobbiedhard for better healthcare and better opportunities for their children.

Above all, these figures are a sign that wehave made progress in the twenty-first century– not because of genetic screening butbecause, unlike Marie Stopes, people havelearned that they need not fear those who they deem less than perfect.

Marie Stopes,honoured on a new postage stamp, is well known as a pioneer in the field of contraception.What is less well known is the influence on her work of her belief in eugenics – that bylimiting the numbers of the poor by birth control it would be possible to improve the English ‘race’A woman for our time?The Royal Mail’s stamp featuring MarieStopes: her belief in eugenics took her tothe Nazis’ Berlin congress on populationscience in 1935

---

Catechism on Family and Life Issues Celebrating 40 years of Humanae Vitae

“We are called to seek and embrace the truth. In ethical matters, this demands a willingness to understand the natural law and the moral code that is derived from it. When Jesus said “I am the truth” he was affirming the fact that this truth is of vital importance to each one of us. If we are seriously to come to grips with truth, then we need to find a way of dialoguing with one another which is devoid of any ambiguity. That is why words and the meaning of words matter.” (George Cardinal Pell, Endorsement of Lexicon).

Introduction

Forty years ago, on July 29, 1968 Pope Paul VI issued the Humanae Vitae against the expectations of the Secular World and even some Catholic circles. His words have proven prophetic. Since then the Church has waged a continuous battle in defense of the family and human life against the Population Control Movement’s racist agenda to pursue universal access to contraceptives and abortion. These enemies are determined to transform our laws and institutions into instruments for attacking the family and the sacredness of human life through a manipulative political process. Lest the Church people are caught unaware when a double-speak language cleverly used with words sweet to the ears but hiding a dangerous intent, the Pontifical Council of the Family published the Lexicon.[1] These essays written by experts on various issues of Family and Life to explain beyond ambiguity the meaning of confusing terms and jargon. This Catechism is therefore both a review of Humanae Vitae and a clarification of selected terms relevant to the current political issues the country is now facing.

What is the difference between Procreation and Reproduction?

Reproduction strictly refers to the biological reality implying that man is no different from animals. Procreation on the other hand is the proper term for human generation since it refers to the appearance of a new person and points to collaboration of parents with God as the ultimate source of this new life.

What is Responsible Parenthood?

Due to the profound link between the conjugal bond and the gift of life Humanae Vitae emphasizes the vocation of married couples to be parents and insists on openness to life. It is neutral concerning family size. Responsible parenthood refers to the decision to procreate or not to procreate signifying the following:

a) Exclusion of the use of contraceptives for every fertile conjugal act

b) Knowledge, primarily on the wife’s part of her own cycle of fertility/infertility;

c) In the case of an ethically justified decision not to procreate, abstinence from conjugal relations during the wife’s fertile period and the restriction of conjugal relations to the wife’s infertile period.

d) Exercising control over one’s sexual impulse to render it truly and exclusively expressive of conjugal love and the self-giving of persons. This decision to procreate or not to procreate is just (it is responsible) when two things are taken into account:

a) That the parents have the necessary and sufficient resources to secure a dignified life for their future child (including basic education);

b) That there are no grave considerations of health on the part of the spouses, especially the wife;

In the UN language Responsible Parenthood is the will, ability and commitment of parents to respond to the needs and aspirations of the family and children more particularly through family planning. Since family planning is understood as enabling people who wish to limit the size of families the term Responsible Parenthood is associated to family size limitation.

Why is contraception morally wrong?

Contraception is any action taken before, during or immediately after the conjugal act which is aimed at impeding the conception which the conjugal act itself is capable of. Contraception therefore separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. Conjugal sexuality by its very nature is an expression-realization of the total gift of self. In contraception the conjugal sexual act excludes from the gift of one’s person the gift of the capacity to become father/mother (it is the person that is fertile, not the body). Contraception makes the conjugal sexual act a lie.

Why is natural methods of birth control not contraception?

These natural methods simply enable the wife to ascertain when she is fertile and when she is infertile—scientific information placed at the service of either a procreative decision or a non procreative decision by the spouses.

What is Reproductive Health?

The UN defines Reproductive Health as the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction. (Cairo, Program of Action)

Strictly speaking reproductive health focuses on the biological dimension—when all the organic components of the reproductive apparatus are present and whole. It is therefore ridiculous to attribute “mental” and “social” dimensions to what is a purely biological reality. The surreptitious addition of these terms is connected with the stated aim of reproductive health—to have a satisfying and safe sex life. If having a satisfying sex life results in an unwanted pregnancy, the mental anguish this on the woman causes will negatively affect her mental and social well-being unless one has access to contraception and abortion. This is the convoluted reasoning behind the UN’s insistence that Reproductive Health necessarily presupposes access to artificial contraception and abortion. Thus in the Church judgment reproductive health is an ambiguous term. Despite of all avowals that abortion is illicit the inclusion of reproductive health in any law provides a backdoor for eventually legalizing abortion.

What is Reproductive Rights?

The term Reproductive Rights (RR) goes very often with Sexual Rights (SR) producing Sexual Reproductive Rights (SRR). Defined in terms of power and resources the latter refers to the power to have access to the necessary information and make sound decisions about fertility, procreation and child care, gynecological health and sexual activity, as well as the resources to proceed in a safe and efficient manner.

There are no international texts on human rights that mentions reproductive rights. The most fundamental document on human rights in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. The Population Control Establishment claims that Article 2 of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights introduces the generic “right to have rights” rather than providing a list of concrete rights. It is further claimed that the content of these rights can be determined through democratic activity of nations. Subsequent UN Conferences—Cairo, Beijing, etc. reinforced the idea that the right to make decisions about reproduction and the right of access to health services were fundamental human rights. Both men and women should have equal access to health servic es including those related to family planning, the right to decide family size as well as spacing of children.

The erroneous ideology that defines a law making process based on the will of the majority is Legal Positivism can lead to unjust laws because the will of the majority can be manipulated by interest groups. Society runs the risk of enacting into law something that is against the natural law—what is wrong becomes right. Abortion legalized through a referendum does not cease to be wrong just because of a majority vote. This approach has permitted the UN to use its formidable financial resources in the advocacy process to provide universal access to contraception and legal abortion in line with its racist pursuit of fertility decline in third world countries.

What are Sexual Rights?

Sexual Rights is difficult to define and is best illustrated by the list of rights that tend to be included in this category. The 1996 International Planned Parenthood Declaration of Sexual and Reproductive Rights include among others (there are eleven of them) the following:

· The right to exercise and enjoy sexual independence, according to one’s preferences as well as the right to due legal protection;

· Pleasant and recreational sex, independent of reproduction

· Appropriate knowledge and information sex and reproduction.

· Freedom from fear, embarassment, guilt and other imposed beliefs that inhibit the sexuality of a person or diminish his/her relationship.

Underlying this view is the radical separation of sexuality, procreation and the connection between men and women. Pleasure is identified as the ultimate goal of sexuality and procreation is reduced as a function of the health care systems. Men and women relate in temporary and modifiable agreements.

Men and women are persons before all else, and for this reason sexual behavior cannot be used only for pleasure for this would mean using a person as a source of pleasure. Moverover since God specifically designed that the conjugal bond be profoundly linked with the gift of life sexuality can be exercised only in the context of married life. The exercise of rights gives rise to corresponding duties. Sexuality has to be curbed within the limits of marriage for the sake of wife and children.

What is Abortion Rights

The right to abortion was defined and acknowledged for the first time in the ruling of the US Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade case—giving women the free choice to interrupt pregnancy because the right to do so is a fundamental element of the right to privacy. Previously abortion was allowed in some cases as an exception to the norm on the defense of human life. After this ruling the law ceased to be interested in the conceived child as a victim, and shiftedits interest to the mother.

The right to abortion is called many names—interrupted pregnancy, menstrual regulation, etc. mainly out of a desire to hide the truth about the nature of abortion itself. But the truth is brutally simple—it always concerns the killing of the conceived child and the destryong of his/her life.

What is Reproductive Education

In the language of the UN Reproductive Education is the process of acquiring complete, accurate and relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system, its functions and processes and human sexuality; and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. This also includes critically evaluating and discussing the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.

Thisdefinition shows the propagandizing aims of Reproductive Education. It is meant to overhaul society’s values, attitudes and beliefs regarding sexuality and procreation. It is meant to make young people see the religious and moral values taught by their parents as myths on sex and sexuality deserving of ridicule and disdain.

Though countries in the West do not have any population control programs their sub-replacement fertility is so low that they now run the risk of population implosion. This was a result of a drastic change in sexual morality due to sustained sex education programs. The Sex Education Program has been in place in the Philippines since the 1970’s. The current 3rd edition is now entitled Reproductive Health and is much more explicit on sexual techniques rather than values education. These modules were patterned after the Sex Information and Education Modules of the U.S. ( SIECUS) originally developed by Mary Calderone and Alfred Kinsey of Kinsey Institute implemented in the American schools in the 1960’s. In plain language its content is pornographic; Kinsey Institute supports materials like Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler based on the research work of Eichel and Judith Reisman.

It assumes that young people are also subject of sexual rights and therefore they have a right to value free information about human sexuality, contraception, etc. Ultimately the objective is to encourage early sexual activity among the adolescents and create a demand for contraceptives and abortion among the young.

Parents have a duty to teach their children how to live the virtue of chastity. Giving the age-appropriate biological information hand in hand with the moral significance of sexuality parents educate their children live their vocation to love responsibly.

What is Safe Sex?

The term “Safe Sex” created in California and New York—the hotbed of HIV/AIDS—designates the condom as the best method against contamination by HIV during sexual activity. The expression refers to all precautionary measures taken to diminish the risk of transmitting or acquiring sexually transmitted disease.

The media hype that has promoted use of condoms as safe sex ignores the scientific findings that shows that the male sperm can comfortably pass through the pores of the condom and the HIV virus which is even smaller, has an even easier passage. The facts also show that in countries such as Thailand, where condom usage is widespread, the incidence of HIV infection is reaching epidemic proportions.

What is Safe Motherhood?

The concept of “Safe Motherhood” is actually loaded with unmentioned elements making it a dangerous expression. The idea is that there is no Safe Motherhood without granting the mother the right to abort freely. This conclusion is arrived after a manipulation of statistics on maternal mortality rates to suggest that much of it is a result from illegal abortions performed in “unsafe conditions”. This is meant to lead to the conclusion that in order to reduce the risks inherent in motherhood it is necessary to liberalize abortion. The aim is of course to incite authorities to liberalize abortion.

Restoring the exact meaning to “Safe Motherhood” means defining it as the set of health requirements for pregnant mothers that would give women the ability to have a safe and healthy pregnancy and delivery. Safe motherhood is therefore a desirable goal and providing better treatments and equipment adapted for and available to an ever larger number of mothers all over the world is something everyon should work for.

What is Informed Consent?

The relationship between doctors and patients should be an interpersonal relationship and full of trust. In a society which has at its disposal all the resources this ought to imply that patients should be well-informed regarding the numerous side effects of contraceptive drugs, the long term consequences of procedures performed on them, etc. But the history of family planning is fraught with instances where patients do not receive complete information regarding the side effects of contraceptives:

• —Side-effects of the Pill:Premature hypertension, Heart Attacks and Strokes, Embolism; Carcinogenic (breast, cervical, liver cancer); leg cramps, nausea, infertility, bloatedness.
• The pill and the IUD are abortifacient;
• The condom has a high failure rate in preventing pregnancy, STD and HIV AIDS
• Tubal ligation: high risk for ectopic pregnancy
• Vasectomy: auto-immune response disorders
  

In some cases patients are even made to undergo, without their knowledge, interventions that mutilate them—for example surgical sterilization—and which are often irreversible.

Informed consent is a principle of medical ethics. The dignity of the patient implies a right to decide autonomously whether to accept or reject what is done to him both as to diagnosis and treatment. “Informed consent” consists is explaining to an alert and mentally competent patient the nature of the illness, the relation between its effects and the risks and benefits of the recommended procedures in order to obtain the patient’s approval or rejection of those procedures.

• The presentation of information should be understandable rather than cursory.
  
• The patient’s cooperation should be obtained without coercion and without the doctor taking advantage of his scientific prestige.
  
• The doctor should be attentive to the patient’s attitude (if she is well-reasoned, compatible with the principles of his life, that the decision is voluntary and free, not based on ignorance and that the patient is mentally competent to make the decision.

What is Gender and Sex?

Sex refers to nature and implies two possibilities—man and women; gender comes from the field of linguistics and includes three varieties—masculine, feminine and neuter. According to this radical gender feminist view masculinity and feminity are not determined by sex but by culture, a product of socially constructed roles and stereotypes that each society assigns to the sexes. This view capitalizes on the fact that in the past exaggerations led to discriminations and injustices for many women. Women were considered inferior and excluded from public decision, higher education and economic opportunities.

Breaking away from the natural concept of masculinity and femininity radical feminists assert the existence of four, five or six genders: male heterosexuals, female heterosexuals, homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality and trans-gendered. Any sexuality is permissible; heterosexuality would just be one of the possible sexual practices—its procreative role does not make it preferable. To achieve universal acceptance of these ideas the strategy is to achieve gradual cultural change through the ”deconstruction” of society beginning with the family and the education of children. Ambiguous language is used ot make new ethical presuppositions seem reasonable.

Experts tell us in the human person sex and gender—the biological principle and the cultural expression are not identical. This is particularly clear when looking at the three aspects of the process by which they are normally and harmoniously woven

together.

• “Biological sex” is the bodily aspect of the human person determined at the moment of fertilization by the XX chromosomes in the female and the XY chromosomes in the male. Medical science shows how different each cell of the female body is from each cell of the male body, including structural and functional differences between the male and female brain.

• “Psychological sex” refers to the human psychic experiences as man and woman—consisting in the consciousness of belonging to a determined sex. This is profoundly affected by education and environment.

• “Sociological sex” is the sex assigned to a person from the moment of birth. It is expressed as it is perceived in the surrounding persons. It signifies a specific way of acting of a man or a woman. It refers to functions, roles and stereotypes which are assigned in each society to diverse groups of persons.

These three aspects are not isolated from each other. They must be integrated into a wider process in the formation of one’s own identity. Persons progressively acquires, during infancy and adolescence, a consciousness of “being oneself”. They discover their sexual identity and in it each time more profoundly the sexual dimension of their own being. Coming to realize bio-psychological factors of one’s own sex and the difference regarding the other sex, they gradually acquire a gender identity and discover the psycho-social and cultural factors of the role that men and women have it society.

Intersexual states are anomalies with various clinical characteristics that tend to occur at a very early embryonic stage of human development. They are defined by a contradiction of one or more of the criteria of sexual definition. Transexual persons have a pathology in some of the links of the biological chain leading to sexual differentiation. They should not be used as propaganda to obtain the “deconstruction” of the foundations of the family and society. They deserve respect and appropriate medical treatment.

What is Gender Equality?

Capitalizing on the discrimination and exclusion of women from public decision making and from access to education radical feminists aim at gender equality—the elimination of the differences between male and female. Since they claim that gender is merely a social construct they attribute the discrimination against women to the physical difference between male and female. This is what makes reproductive health and full access to contraceptives and abortion a very important in the feminist agenda.

Since the human person is either man or woman “in the unity of body and soul”, masculinity and femininity extends to all areas of his/her being: from the profound significance of the physical differences of man and woman and their influence in corporeal love, to the psychic differences between both and their different ways of manifesting their relationship with God. It is not possible to determine with scientific exactness what is typically masculine or typically feminine. But men and women experience the world in different ways, carry out their tasks differently, sit down, plan and react differently, and each of the latter has a solid foundation in the biological constitution of both man and woman. Men and women have the same human nature, but theyhave it in different ways. In a certain sense they complement each other; they mutually need each other to fully develop their humanity. In the husband-wife relationship, the “submission” is not unilateral, but reciprocal.

It is a biological fact that only a woman can be a mother and only a man can be a father though to be a woman or a man does not consist solely in being mother or father. . God did not create men and women so that we can engender new human beings. Man created in the image and likeness of God, is capable of engendering so as to express and perpetuate that divine image reflected in his sexual condition.

What is Gender Equity?

Radical feminist make an issue out of the fact that women have been excluded from economic life and advocate women empowerment.

It is evident that many injustices against women have existed historically and some continue to exist in the world. This long list of different kinds of discrimination has no biological foundation, but rather cultural roots, and these must be eradicated. Social functions cannot be considered as irremediably united to genetics or biology. It is desirable that women assume new roles that are in harmony with their dignity. We have to reject the fixed biological notion that all roles and relationships between both sexes are fixed in one static model. The incorporation of women in the labor market is an advance that certainly creates new challenges for both sexes.

The term gender correctly describes the cultural aspects that surround the construction of functions of men and women in society. Yet not all of these functions are things that are biologically constructed. Some have larger biological roots. There one can appreciate the presence of a certain diversity of roles is in no way bad for women, since that diversity is an expression of what is specifically masculine or feminine. More than a privilege or a discrimination sex is always an opportunity for one’s personal development. Hence we should all aim to promote the welfare of women not only outside the home but within it as well. While it is certain that women are not only wives and mothers, many are or want to be, so one must create the possiblities for them to achieve these desires in a dignified manner. Women who have an active external professional life cannot be the sole model, the only ideal for feminine independence.

---

[1] “Lexicon, Ambiguous and debatable terms regarding family life and ethical questions” published by the Pontifical Council of the Family in Italian. The English version was published by Human Life International in 2006.

Evangelium Vitae #58-63: "Your eyes beheld my unformed substance" (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion

"Your eyes beheld my unformed substance" (Ps 139:16): the unspeakable crime of abortion

58. Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime".⁵⁴

But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby's cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb. And yet sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.

It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.

59. As well as the mother, there are often other people too who decide upon the death of the child in the womb. In the first place, the father of the child may be to blame, not only when he di- rectly pressures the woman to have an abortion, but also when he indirectly encourages such a decision on her part by leaving her alone to face the problems of pregnancy: ⁵⁵ in this way the family is thus mortally wounded and profaned in its nature as a community of love and in its vocation to be the "sanctuary of life". Nor can one overlook the pressures which sometimes come from the wider family circle and from friends. Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion: certainly in this case moral responsibility lies particularly with those who have directly or indirectly obliged her to have an abortion. Doctors and nurses are also responsible, when they place at the service of death skills which were acquired for promoting life.

But responsibility likewise falls on the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws, and, to the extent that they have a say in the matter, on the administrators of the health-care centres where abortions are performed. A general and no less serious responsibility lies with those who have encouraged the spread of an attitude of sexual permissiveness and a lack of esteem for motherhood, and with those who should have ensured-but did not-effective family and social policies in support of families, especially larger families and those with particular financial and educational needs. Finally, one cannot overlook the network of complicity which reaches out to include international institutions, foundations and associations which systematically campaign for the legalization and spread of abortion in the world. In this sense abortion goes beyond the responsibility of individuals and beyond the harm done to them, and takes on a distinctly social dimension. It is a most serious wound inflicted on society and its culture by the very people who ought to be society's promoters and defenders. As I wrote in my Letter to Families, "we are facing an immense threat to life: not only to the life of individuals but also to that of civilization itself".⁵⁶ We are facing what can be called a "structure of sin" which opposes human life not yet born.

60. Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act".⁵⁷ Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?". ⁵⁸

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life".⁵⁹

61. The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being in the mother's womb that they require as a logical consequence that God's commandment "You shall not kill" be extended to the unborn child as well.

Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth. All human beings, from their mothers' womb, belong to God who searches them and knows them, who forms them and knits them together with his own hands, who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos and already sees in them the adults of tomorrow whose days are numbered and whose vocation is even now written in the "book of life" (cf. Ps 139: 1, 13-16). There too, when they are still in their mothers' womb-as many passages of the Bible bear witness⁶⁰-they are the personal objects of God's loving and fatherly providence.

Christian Tradition-as the Declaration issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith points out so well⁶¹-is clear and unanimous, from the beginning up to our own day, in describing abortion as a particularly grave moral disorder. From its first contacts with the Greco-Roman world, where abortion and infanticide were widely practised, the first Christian community, by its teaching and practice, radically opposed the customs rampant in that society, as is clearly shown by the Didache mentioned earlier. ⁶² Among the Greek ecclesiastical writers, Athenagoras records that Christians consider as murderesses women who have recourse to abortifacient medicines, because children, even if they are still in their mother's womb, "are already under the protection of Divine Providence".⁶³ Among the Latin authors, Tertullian affirms: "It is anticipated murder to prevent someone from being born; it makes little difference whether one kills a soul already born or puts it to death at birth. He who will one day be a man is a man already".⁶⁴

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.

62. The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion. ⁶⁵ Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end".⁶⁶ John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative activity".⁶⁷ The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".⁶⁸

The Church's canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. ⁶⁹ The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that "a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication".⁷⁰ The excommu- nication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed. ⁷¹ By this reiterated sanction, the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance.

Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. ⁷² Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. ⁷³

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.

63. This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries. Although "one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but rather are directed to its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival",⁷⁴ it must nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person. ⁷⁵

This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically "produced" for this purpose by in vitro fertilization-either to be used as "biological material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.

Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of prenatal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favour a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of prenatal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.

And yet the courage and the serenity with which so many of our brothers and sisters suffering from serious disabilities lead their lives when they are shown acceptance and love bears eloquent witness to what gives authentic value to life, and makes it, even in difficult conditions, something precious for them and for others. The Church is close to those married couples who, with great anguish and suffering, willingly accept gravely handicapped children. She is also grateful to all those families which, through adoption, welcome children abandoned by their parents because of disabilities or illnesses.

Evangelium Vitae #1: The Gospel Of life

1. The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and culture.

At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news: "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Lk 2:10-11). The source of this "great joy" is the Birth of the Saviour; but Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world (cf. Jn 16:21).

When he presents the heart of his redemptive mission, Jesus says: "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (Jn 10:10). In truth, he is referring to that "new" and "eternal" life which consists in communion with the Father, to which every person is freely called in the Son by the power of the Sanctifying Spirit. It is precisely in this "life" that all the aspects and stages of human life achieve their full significance.