Screening Out The Unborn

Now that Barack Obama has been elected president, Catholics can expect the battle to defend the unborn to be fiercer than ever. Feminist groups like NOW will demand legislation that removes all restrictions to abortion, and they will find a sympathetic ear in the White House. Pro-life supporters will need to join forces to withstand the onslaught, and one group whose assistance would prove invaluable is the medical community. Unfortunately, this group primarily has remained silent in defense of the unborn.

This realization struck me yesterday as I read the Wall Street Journal’s “Letters to the Editor” section. Two doctors had responded to an October 25 Wall Street Journal article entitled, “The Toughest Test”, which discussed how prenatal genetic testing is influencing parents’ decisions on whether to abort their children. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238185398776759.html) Below are the two doctors’ letters in their entirety:

· “For-profit companies that offer prenatal genetic testing services are shameful; they play upon the fears of expectant parents, gladly accept testing fees, and then leave these parents and their (ill-equipped) doctors to deal with the aftermath.

I loathe the day that my daughter shows up at her first prenatal visit, only to be handed a list of "diseases" to test for, just to make sure that "everything is OK with the baby." This represents a giant step backward for modern medicine. We should remember that it is genetic diversity that is essential for the survival of all species, including human beings.”

Timothy P. Madion, M.D.
Fellow, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Chief of Surgery
Munson Medical Center
Traverse City, Mich.

· As a physician who daily performs ultrasounds and has delivered many babies over the years, I read with sadness that physicians "tried, but failed to persuade" a couple to terminate a pregnancy that they felt wasn't worthy and that 80% of women choose to terminate their pregnancies after receiving a positive diagnosis of Down syndrome ("More Prenatal Testing Brings New Worries," Oct. 25).

As one who took the original Hippocratic oath that directs physicians to "first do no harm" and "never proscribe abortion," I find myself trying to persuade couples of the value of each human life whether disabled or not.

Prenatal testing itself may put a physician in material cooperation with the destruction of a human life whose future is uncertain. Let us give the unborn the benefit of life and support through possible cures or through hospice until natural death.

Mark Druffner, M.D.
Hudson, Wis.

Granted there are physicians who would disagree with the above assessments. Yet, I suspect there are many more who would agree but who remain silent.

Someone needs to remind them that the unborn cry out for their voices.

Donald Tremblay

Me, Me, Me

The Entertainment & Culture section of today’s Wall Street Journal features an article from columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz entitled, “The Other Letterman Show”. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420423963143201.html) The topic of the piece is talk-show arrogance . . . which there is no shortage of in today’s mass media.

The majority of the article focuses on David Letterman’s vindictive response to John McCain’s last-minute cancelation of his scheduled Sept 24 appearance on “The Late Show”. Apparently Letterman’s ire was further stoked when he discovered that, conversely, McCain honored a scheduled appearance for that same day with Katie Couric. Here’s a snippet of Rabinowitz’s commentary:

“In the course of his complaints, Mr. Letterman lurched from fury to fervent wonder at John McCain's wartime heroism, to jibes that somebody had been putting something in the candidate's Metamucil -- a joke consistent with the Letterman show's now standard brand of comedy. It was impossible, needless to say, to mistake any of this for joking -- nothing in Mr. Letterman's tireless emissions on the subject spoke for anything but his rage.”

Arrogance is virtually a prerequisite in Hollywood, so Letterman’s response was typical. Rabinowitz relates how Arthur Godfrey attempted to bury young singer Julius LaRosa in the early 1950s because LaRosa—a regular on Godfrey’s popular variety show—had the audacity to hire his own agent: “Godfrey informed the audience that they had just heard LaRosa's swan song. In response to the tide of public hostility that followed, Godfrey announced that the problem was that the singer had ‘lost his humility.’”

Don Imus is also mentioned in the piece. Prior to his eating crow for calling the Rutgers’ women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hoes”, Imus had a reputation for personally attacking anyone who disagreed with him: “Over a decade ago, one of the most legendary names in broadcasting told me of the dangers of making any public criticism of Imus. ‘He'll never stop,’ he warned. ‘He'll go on and on, to attack every day. He won't care what he says.’”

Amusingly, it’s not uncommon to have a clash of egos among co-hosts themselves. Chris Matthews and former ESPN Sportscenter anchor Keith Olbermann—perhaps the king of blowhards—were both bumped from their MSNBC presidential election anchor chairs because of their rabid anti-conservative views and their personal animosity toward each other. So ridiculous had their spats become that former MSNBC anchor Connie Chung slammed both in the Wall Street Journal stating, “My reaction to that is: 'Grow up!' They have to just grow up." (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121989105850778775.html?mod=blog) In a laughable example of delusional self-importance, Olbermann allegedly demanded that the network provide him with bodyguards since he feared his life was in danger. Sorry, Keith, but the only protection you need is protection from yourself.

Lest anyone think talk-show arrogance and clashes of egos are solely a male phenomenon, let’s not ignore The View: a talk show dominated by four self-absorbed women who argue amongst themselves daily and who “view” the program as their personal soapbox from which to pontificate. It’s no wonder the show has replaced its hosts as often as the New York Yankees replaced managers in the 1980s.

Truthfully, it doesn’t matter who the host is or the genre of the talk show. Once a personality starts believing his/her own press clippings—watch out. Magically it becomes their world and the rest of humanity is merely permitted to live in it.

Donald Tremblay

The Day of the Triffids

The most dangerous people in the world are not those who knowingly commit evil, but those who convince themselves that their actions are noble despite evidence to the contrary. I’m amazed at the number of people I’ve encountered over the years who are capable of rationalizing the most ridiculous, the most hypocritical, and even the most illogical actions. Maybe its narcissism. Maybe it’s ignorance. I don’t know. But one thing I do know is that it’s frightening.

Case in point: We live in a world where with each passing year human life is further cheapened. Western society not only refuses to reject abortion, but seeks to spread its availability to developing nations. Assisted-suicide and euthanasia exist in Europe and are making inroads in the United States. Civil wars across Africa have killed millions, and now tens of thousands of Christians have been murdered by Hindus in India.

Yet, what is on the minds of the Swiss: plants rights.

According to the Wall Street Journal (“Switzerland's Green Power Revolution: Ethicists Ponder Plants' Rights”) Swiss scientists who genetically modify plants must now ensure that they are not “trampling on a plant's dignity”. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359549477921201.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Stop laughing.

Believe it or not the Swiss Parliament created a panel of various “experts” from a collection of disciplines—including philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians—to “establish the meaning of flora's dignity”. Among the examples given by the panel of immoral behavior towards plants is “decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason”.

Would that be a mortal sin or a venial sin?

After all if a young man is going to risk eternal torment for pulling a flower out of the ground to give to the woman he loves, he should at least be warned ahead of time.

Think the Swiss’ nuttiness ends here? Not quite. Here are a few other gems:

“Last month, Switzerland granted new rights to all ‘social animals.’ Prospective dog owners must take a four-hour course on pet care before they can buy a canine companion, while anglers must learn to catch fish humanely. Fish can't be kept in aquariums that are transparent on all sides. The fish need some shelter. Nor can goldfish be flushed down a toilet to an inglorious end; they must first be anesthetized with special chemicals, and then killed.”

Too bad the Swiss don’t have the same regard for the dignity of humans, as witnessed by their sanctioning of abortion and assisted suicide.

Perhaps the pro-life movement in Switzerland should change its approach: instead of arguing that a fetus is a human life, they should argue that it is a form of plant life. They’d receive more sympathy.

Donald Tremblay