Abortion debate

Catholic New Times, July 4, 2004 by Joe Modeste

I read with interest a recent article (CNT April 11), "Reproductive Health Care in Latin America," by Dr. Rosana Pelizzari, and would like to offer a few comments and personal observations.

My focus here is not on the so-called "pro-life/pro-choice" debate. I personally subscribe to the 'seamless garment' approach to respecting life on all issues. This concept was well covered in the last edition of CNT, including in an article by Fr. Andrew Greeley.

Rather, my question is directed at Dr. Pellizzari's statement that "it (the morning-after pill) is not an abortifacient."

The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops sees it differently. In a Nov.27, 2003 letter to Federal Health Minister Pierre Pettigrew. Bishop Pierre Morrisette of Baie Comeau, chairman of C.O.L.F., the C.C.C.B.'s family and life issues arm, expressed as one of his concerns.

"Pregnancy begins with conception, not implantation. It is thus inaccurate to refer to this pill (the morning-after pill) as emergency contraception given its potential to act as an abortifacient.

Other articles I have seen lately concur with the bishops that the 'morning-after' pill has the potential to inhibit implantation of the fertilized egg.

I am reminded of other global realities commonly reported on which I recently observed in Latin America. Why are so many in the world, especially women, vulnerable on so many fronts, faced with inadequate choices in such matters as clean water, adequate food, education and even personal Safety?

As citizens of the First World, how must our structures and behaviour change to enhance life-giving supports to the marginalized in our human family?

Joe Modeste

Ajax, Ont.