Prayer for Nigeria in Distress

All powerful and merciful father, you are the God of justice love and peace. You rule over all the Nations of Earth. Power and Might are in your hands and no one can withstand you. We present our country Nigeria before you. We praise and thank for you are the source of all we have and are. We are sorry for all the sins we have committed and for the good deeds we have failed to do.

In your loving forgiveness, keep us save from the punishment we deserve. Lord we are weighed down not only by uncertainties, but also by moral, economic and political problems. Listen to the cries of your people who confidently turn to you. God of infinite goodness, our strength in diversity, Our health in weakness, our comfort in sorrow, Be merciful to us your people. Spare this nation Nigeria from chaos anarchy and doom. Bless us with your kingdom of justice, love and peace. We ask this through Christ our Lord, Amen.

Rochas’ abortion law MUST GO

This is a reply to A. Abimbola Adelakun article in the punch newspaper (online) on September 19, 2013 titled “Rochas’ abortion law should stay".

There are a few things about A. Abimbola Adelakun article on September 19, 2013 titled “Rochas’ abortion law should stay” that has compelled me to write this response. Large parts of it contained disturbing language, sentiments and soundbites that have long been used by professional and career pro-abortion campaigners to advocate for a procedure that even by her acknowledgement has a terrible physical and psychological effect on women. It hovered around the peripheral issues concerning the politics of abortion playing out in most countries, appealed to emotion and even delved into religion whilst expertly ignoring the “mighty elephant in the room”. This has always been the “modus operandi” of career abortionist.

Before I go ahead to deconstruct her arguments, I think it is important to deal with this “proverbial elephant”. When it comes to abortion, it is sometimes necessary to leave the politics out and deal with the substance. What we are talking about here is the Sanctity of Human Life, the rights accorded it and at what stage. Let me state three facts at this point. Firstly, human life begins from the moment of conception. None of us can point to any other moment other than conception and say “that is when I began to be me”. Abimbola did not tell us when human life actually begins. As human beings, it is important not to deny that our physical development at our present age is not the same when we were teenagers, adolescents, infants, babies or foetuses. Even the word Foetus which comes from the Latin word Fetura –ae, f means a young brood or offspring.  We all started (me and you) as one. ‘We are who we are now, physically, because we developed from what we used to be’. Once conception has taken place and an embryo is formed, if you give it time, let’s say 9 months or 28 years, the only other thing it could be is an infant or adult respectively. It cannot be something else, ever!

Secondly, in a civilized society, Human Life should be preserved, protected and nurtured from the point of conception to its natural end. Finally, every human life is bestowed with certain inalienable ‘rights’, the foremost amongst them: THE RIGHT TO LIFE. Any argument that doesn’t address these three premises directly would be begging the question. This was what made her article the more frustrating because at no point did she make any attempt to address any of these which is very crucial to the moral issue surrounding abortion, but was happy to dance around its politics –left vs. right, liberals vs. conservatives. Let’s forget this ideological label for once and face moral question of abortion. Being prolife is much of a leftist position as it is a conservative stance. It was Medhi Hassan who once wrote in an article for the Newstatesman: here

“Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and “defending the innocent”, while left-wingers fetishise “choice”, selfishness and unbridled individualism.

“My body, my life, my choice.” Such rhetoric has always left me perplexed. Isn’t socialism about protecting the weak and vulnerable, giving a voice to the voiceless? Who is weaker or more vulnerable than the unborn child? Which member of our society needs a voice more than the mute baby in the womb?

Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body – but a baby isn’t part of her body. The 24-week-old foetus can’t be compared with an appendix, a kidney or a set of tonsils; it makes no sense to dismiss it as a “clump of cells” or a “blob of protoplasm”. However, my motive for writing this column is not merely to revisit ancient arguments, or kick off a philosophical debate on the distinctions between socialism (with its emphasis on equality, solidarity and community) and liberalism (with its focus on individual freedom, autonomy and choice) …”

Let’s deal with the question of “choice” that is always bandied about by career abortionist. It might sound counter intuitive, but I am all for choice (i.e I am prochoice) and individuals acting freely, but as I have mentioned on another forum “When the term a ‘right to choose’ is used, it speaks to its very essence: the question of freedom. Even common law grants us this very essential faculty, but as in common law, this freedom is not absolute. This usually becomes clear when it involves two or more people. As a result, society has a mechanism to ensure the balancing of the very exercise of this freedom. To choose implies that there is more than one alternative. “So, if I am free to choose from more than one alternative why stop me from choosing in this case?” you may ask. Well, society has the responsibility to balance rights in order to ensure a sense of justice, equity, but more crucially to all facets of human society; to a sense of what is Right.  Make no mistake about this, when a woman is pregnant, the ‘rights’ of two (or more in the case of twins…) individuals are at stake.

Abimbola’s failure to address these facts, but instead portray everyone with a prolife persuasion as a religious nutter” doesn’t fly.  You don’t need to have a faith to recognize the importance of protecting life.  This is a subject that bothers on natural law and as such should imprint in the conscience of all people whether you are Theist, Atheist or Non-Theist. One of the world’s most renowned and celebrated Atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens was known to be very much prolife as with a lot of other people with no faith.  So, let’s get this straight, Abortion for whatever reason is an intrinsically evil act, faith or no faith.

An unwanted Pregnancy is not the end of the world. There are families out there prepared to adopt the child and take care of the baby should the mother be in a position not be able to. I cringed and almost leapt out of my skin when I read this in her article:

“And to those who make the banal argument of if-your-parents-did-not-give-birth-to-you-would-you-be-here, I ask in return, “Since your birth, what good have you done the planet?”

Abimbola, maybe you might not have done any good to the planet, I for one have and I am sure a lot of others have. While her comment that “Catholics are already ahead of the Vatican dictates” is about as silly a statement as you will ever come across. So, because some (very important qualification) Catholics  use contraception despite the church’s teaching does not in the same vain make  Catholics ahead of the Church because some Catholics ‘lie’ or ‘steal’. To be frank, I am not sure that comment deserved the dignity of a reply.

And on the question of Maternal Mortality Rate, abortion is not a medical treatment and there is no evidence to show that it saves life.  It is known in medical parlance that “Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother”. On the other, hand experience has shown that it leaves women in a worse state than they were before the procedure.

 It is important to clarify that there is no correlation between strict abortion laws and the rate of maternal mortality (MMR). It, on the other hand, depends on the quality and accessibility of healthcare to pregnant women. If you look at the chat (courtesy of the CIA) on maternal mortality rate (MMR) worldwide, you will notice that countries with poor healthcare system (African countries) top the chat. Countries like Poland, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland and so many others have a lower MMR than even the US or UK (with liberal abortion laws) with their very restrictive abortion laws. Chile with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world has a low MMR (almost comparable to that of the UK and US). Taking the Chile example, it was noted that the MMR has undergone a tremendous reduction over the last 50 years, despite the fact that it has continually tightened its abortion law over the last 25 years. It showed that MMR fell irrespective of the change in law. I think this is the point Gov. Rochas Okorocha should reflect on and as with education and other social infrastructure, healthcare especially for pregnant women (planned or unplanned) should be of pristine quality and easily accessible.

In the world today there is a momentum and a ground swell of popular opinion going against the abortion mindset. In the state of Texas (where Abimbola presently resides) a new law restricting abortion and which could lead to the closure of a lot of the clinics was recently passed into law.

Anyone who has seen a sonogram or seen when babies struggle for life during an abortion procedure will never deny the humanity of an unborn baby. That is why wealthy abortion providers are prepared to fight at any cost to prevent a change in law that will require women seeking to procure an abortion to sit through the ultrasound scan of the baby first, to prevent them having a change of heart. There have been numerous cases of women opting against having abortion after viewing the ultrasound scan. We know of the case of Abby Johnson (who herself had 2 abortions in her early 20’s), a planned parenthood Director in Texas who became prolife when viewing a baby struggle for life during an abortion procedure. There is also the story of Dr Bernard Nathanson, a doctor who was known to have carried out more abortion than any other doctor in his base of Newyork City. He went through a change of heart when viewing on an ultrasonic scan, the baby he was trying to abort, evade his clinical equipments. He vowed, from that day, never to carry out an abortion again. Norma McCorvey, popularly referred by her pseudonym of ‘Jane Roe’ of “Roe vs Wade”, the infamous supreme court ruling that paved the way for the legalization of abortion in the US, is now a prolife activist and unsuccessfully sought to have a judicial review of the 1973 judgment. These cases are replicate worldwide and are increasingly becoming the norm. This is the reason why a lot of abortion providers are struggling stop the law from changing and remain in business. Why would Nigeria then seek to be moving towards abortion when the rest of the world is trying to move the other way.

Contrary to Abimbola’s belief, opinion polls consistently show that more women are against abortion than men the world over. In fact a You-Gov poll conducted last year in the UK showed that 49 per cent of women, compared to 24 per cent of men, support a reduction in the abortion limit.  The “march for life” that is held regularly around the world is overwhelming dominated my women of all ages.

 As an indigene of Imo State, I would advice Gov. Rochas Okorocha to listen to the voice of his people and to do away with such dehumanising, vile and obnoxious law. He should strive to use his mandate to provide for and protect all human life to be best of his abilities from the “womb to the tomb”. After all he was put there by them to be their servant as he regularly reminds all in the media.

CHRISTAINITY AND SAME SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE

The following is my response to a tweet of someone I follow: Fiona Hanley @GreenClouds4. I have posted her original tweet first, followed by my response.

#equalmarriage Nobody's arguing that the bible is a complex document, that there are contradictions, that it has some daft stuff (killing infants etc) anyone with a lick of sense ignores. It was authored through centuries of oral tradition, and translated through several dead languages. So some confusion about what exactly was meant in what instance is understandable. Much more likely Jesus was discriminating against the one way street practice of patriarchal polygamy than against gay couples when he said marriage was between a man and woman. We just don't know. However for the prevention of doubt and given the complexity of what went before Him, Jesus had two laws. And He said "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." No wriggle room, no exceptions, no qualifications, no room for misunderstanding whatsoever. One of these laws was "Love your neighbour as yourself." So there is no "Separate but equal" (the clue is in the 'but'). Civil partnership is not marriage, it is less than marriage. Don't forget when equal marriage passes into law, the Church of England will still maintain that some people's love may be sanctified in the House of God and some people's may not. This is in direct violation of a very simple, beautiful and stern law Jesus was at pains to point out is inviolate. I hope some day Christian opponents of marriage equality will change their minds and in the meantime it behoves them to consider the above before lobbying politicians that some people's right to love is less equal than others.

RESPONSE
Before I respond, I would like to state that there are two arguments against same sex marriage – SSM (as opposed to equal marriage as no one is advocating un-equal marriage, certainly not the churches). One is based on the religious argument while the other is based on reason flowing from human nature, understanding and experience. However, because you specifically argued the religious (Christian) position, the focus of my response shall solely be the Christian position, which for avoidance of doubt, is unequivocal and not subject to doubt. I will address your points using the same sequence employed by you.

Number 1: Sacred Scriptures does not contradict itself. As Christians (Catholics specifically) we share a common believe that God either inspired the writings and/or writers of the pages of the Sacred Scriptures. So whether it’s a cultural legend, poem, historical narrative or account, vision, prophecy, letters, e.t.c, whatever the intention of the autograph (by the original writer / author) of the pages of Sacred Scriptures. Once it has been canonically established by the church that these particular writings has been inspired by God; collectively as put together, they tell us God’s word. Therefore, though Sacred Scriptures has several authors, there is only one primary author, God. If this is correct, the autograph of the pages of Sacred Scriptures did not err or misrepresent God’s message as He the Primary Author inspired the writings and/or the writers and since God cannot contradict Himself, it is safe to conclude that Sacred Scriptures, put down as intended in the autographs, all of whom/which were inspired by God, has no contradictions. This is what all Catholics Believe.

Number 2: If the position above is accepted, the critical challenge now is interpretation of these pages. Now, for it to be accurate and hence reveal God’s intention, it must take into consideration the context in which it was written, what the writers intended while writing and the type of writing it is (cultural legend, poem, historical narrative or account, vision, prophecy, letters, e.t.c).  Therefore a couple of things should be noted, First special care is taken, in the process of interpreting sacred scriptures. It is to this end that Pope Leo XIII urged correct hermeneutical methods should be employed in adequately interpreting these sacred texts.  In doing this he was affirming the solemn definition and confirmation of the councils of Trent, Florence and Vatican I. Secondly, the interpretation of Sacred Scriptures cannot be effective without the aid of Sacred Tradition (the Gospel which was put under the care of the Apostles by Christ himself and who in their own part and by their Oral preaching, way of life, observance and liturgy handed them on the Bishops their successor to preserve). By implication, correct interpretation of Scriptures cannot be done without the aid of Sacred Tradition. To this end, the works and examples of early church Fathers (those who were followers of the Apostles and/or followers of their followers) together with the works of biblical scholars, exegetes and theologians who in rendering their service to the church play a crucial role to scriptural interpretation. Since Christ entrusted his Holy Apostles with the task of preserving and passing on, unadulterated, his word and since the Apostles in turn handed on that responsibility to their successors, the Bishops, it behoves that the authentic interpretation on matters as related to faith and morals and as contained in Scared Scriptures or Tradition lies definitively with the Magisterium (the College of Bishops with the Pope as the visible sign of their unity) of the Church. This has been the belief of the Church and was reaffirmed by VATICAN II. This is what all Catholics Believe.
Note: The teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on Same Sex Marriage is a matter of public record and is unequivocal.

Number 3: I would like to move on to your interpretation of the relevant passages of scriptures. You said

‘Much more likely Jesus was discriminating against the one way street practice of patriarchal polygamy than against gay couples when he said marriage was between a man and a woman’.  We just don’t know.’

Ok, giving that Jesus Christ explicitly stated that Marriage should be an indissoluble union between a Man and a Woman (his wife) and this account is clearly reported by the writers of the Gospels attributed to at least Mathew, Mark and Luke, what can the rest of scriptures tell about Christ’s view on SSM? Focusing squarely on Paul’s writing (without considering all other texts both old and new which unequivocally condemns homosexual acts, to which makes it impossible to consummate a union of two people of the same sex). Paul, that tireless worker of Christ and Apostle to the Gentiles, explicitly condemns homosexual acts in strong terms in his letters to the Romans, to the Church in Corinth, to his companion, Timothy when exhorting him, under the inspiration and instruction of Christ. In using such strong adjectives, Paul confirmed what other scriptural writers had already made clear on God’s condemnation of such acts.

Number 4: The question of Love. When Christ was reaffirming the teachings of the 10 commandments to love God with all our hearts and minds and to love our neighbor as ourselves, was he talking about marital love or the need to be charitable to one another including our enemies. It would in fact have been highly inconsistent and contradictory of Christ to have been speaking of marital love in that instant and yet condemn polygamy. That would have been a direct affront against the 6th and to some extent the 10th commandment. What kind of Love was he talking about? It could be argued that during his time the understanding of Marriage could have tilted more towards propagation of generation and family life. It is therefore unlikely that Christ would have also made room for SSM when teaching to love our neighbors as ourselves’. Not to forget to ‘love our enemies as well’.

Putting all these in consideration, it is very surprising to maintain that Christian Morality as taught does not concretely condemn SSM.

Special Note: No Catholic is allowed under the guise of his faith to condemn, discriminate, abuse, insult, assault, torture, persecute or attack people who are inclined to have Same Sex attraction. The church absolutely forbids and condemns such acts. There is clearly a distinction between condemning Homosexual acts and attacking People with same sex inclination.

THE ABORTION DEBATE

This blog is a response to an article by @shecrownlita that appeared on ynaija on the vexed issue of abortion; an issue that society has always and continues to grapple with. You can read it here http://www.ynaija.com/shade-lawal-abortion-a-womans-right-to-choose-30-days-30-voices/#commentspost . There were a lot of claims in the article that I felt needed to be addressed. Most of the claims are routed, in what I would consider, to be a distorted notion and understanding of the fundamental principle that is critical to the aforementioned issue. However these claims are widely used to shut out any sensible debate (or discussion) on the fundamental principle on the true moral value of abortion.  

In order to proceed, it is important for us to agree on a certain principle, which is ‘every human person is entitled to certain rights, the greatest of which is the RIGHT TO LIFE’. Therefore, when the term ‘a right to choose’ is used, it speaks to its very essence: the question of freedom.

Even common law grants us this very essential faculty, but as in common law, this freedom is not absolute. This usually becomes clear when it involves two or more people. As a result, society has a mechanism to ensure the balancing of the very exercise of this freedom. To choose implies there is more than one alternative. So if I am free to choose from more than one alternative, why stop me from choosing in this case? Well, Society has the responsibility to balance rights in order to ensure a sense of justice, equity but more especially and crucially to all facets of human society; to a sense of what is Right (not wrong). When a woman is pregnant, are we dealing with a single individual or two (maybe more as in the case of twins)? Well, this point to the fundamental principle needed to engage in this discussion. Can the other party be considered to be a ‘Person’ or as they would like to point out, just a ‘fetus’ and essentially, is it ‘viable’? This is clearly the ‘Heart and Soul’ of the whole debate which certain influential groups (emmm…, let me see….., Marie Stope International, BPAS, Planned Parenthood, et al) try to and most times successfully, move society away from addressing; limiting the whole discourse to a distorted notion of freedom.

So what (or should we say who) is a ‘Fetus’?

My default position has always been, if in doubt; carry out an etymology of the word.

Fetus comes the Latin word Fetura –ae, f which means a young brood or offspring. 

Another word that needs to be clearly defined is the word viable. Viable means:

1. Capable of working successfully; feasible
2. (of a seed or spore) Able to germinate

Having gone through this semantic exercise, it is now time to clearly establish my first premise.  As human beings, it is important not to deny that our physical development at our present age is not the same when we were teenagers, adolescents, infants, babies or fetuses but our viability has never been in question or in doubt. We all started (me and you) as a zygote (no one skips that). ‘We are who we are now, physically, because we developed from what we used to be’. Once conception has taken place and a zygote is formed, if you give it time, let’s say 9 months or 28 years, the only other thing it could be is an infant or adult respectively. It cannot be something else, ever!!! The term trimesters used during pregnancy are just the stages of development of the baby once there is a presence of matter. All living organism go through this process (life cycle of living organisms: O’level Biology). Also it is interesting to note that, even in countries with liberal abortion laws, they prohibit abortion once it has passed a certain level of development (usually before the third trimester begins) depending on the circumstance or intention and there is even no consensus on the actual time. This for me points to a fundamental recognition of the question of life at even this stage of development.

Having clearly constructed my premise let me go ahead and address some practical issues that were raised in her article.

“The World Health Organization (WHO), estimated in a study conducted a few years ago, that “back-alley” abortions cause 68,000 maternal deaths each year in countries where abortions are illegal.”

Statistics does not seem to back up this assertion. It is important to clarify that there is no correlation between strict abortion laws and the rate of maternal mortality (MMR). It, on the other hand, depends on the quality and accessibility of healthcare to pregnant women. If you look at the chat (courtesy of the CIA) on maternal mortality rate (MMR) worldwide, you will notice that countries with poor healthcare system (African countries) top the chat. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html . Countries like Poland, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland and so many others have a lower MMR than even the US or UK (with liberal abortion laws) with their very restrictive abortion laws. Chile with one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world has a low MMR (almost comparable to that of the UK and US). Taking the Chile example, it has been noted that the MMR has undergone a tremendous reduction over the last 50 years, despite the fact that it has continually tightened its abortion law over the last 25 years. It showed that MMR fell irrespective of the change in law.

“Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued”

This is assertion is simply not true. Let me quote from a report on AN INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare held in Dublin recently. The full report can be found here:  http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html#.UFEFMNfy2dE

“Abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother”

It says:

Eamon O’Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway and a conference organiser, said its outcome would provide “clarity and confirmation” to doctors and legislators dealing with these issues.

The symposium was organised by the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, chaired by Prof O’Dwyer. Other members of the committee include Dr John Monaghan, Dr John Greene and palliative care nurse specialist Sinéad Dennehy.

About 140 medical professionals were at the event, including experts in obstetrics and gynaecology, mental health and molecular biology. They presented new research on issues surrounding maternal healthcare, with a focus on high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, foetal anomalies, mental health and maternal mortality.

Prof O’Dwyer and a panel of speakers also formally agreed a “Dublin declaration” on maternal healthcare. It stated: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

“We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

In a statement, Prof O’Dwyer also said no treatment should ever be withheld from a woman if she needed it to save her life, even if that treatment resulted in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Let me also give you a testimony that I came across on my twitter feed:

MaHelena LCeballos ‏@mariahelenalc
@LOcculta Of course!! I'm oncologist & we can even treat a pregnant woman with cancer chemotherapy. Abortion is never a solution

I think I should probably not add anything to this. It says it all for me.

“Contraceptive (Birth Control) failure: Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant.”

You are absolutely right. Artificial Contraception fails and due to this, there is always going to be a demand for abortion. For instance in the UK, it was estimated that there were close to c200000 abortion just last year alone even with contraception being readily available on demand on the NHS from your teenage years. It shouldn’t be hard to see if you advocate artificial contraception; you are bound to advocate for abortion. Why does it fail (risk compensation may be; et al)? Well I think that should be a topic for another day.

“Inability to support or care for a child and Lack of financial and moral support”

The inability to care and support a child either due to lack of financial and moral support should never be a reason to abort. Let me explain this philosophically. In every society there is a sense of what is right and wrong; good and evil. Now as moral agents, society always calls us to choose to do the right thing (good) and avoid doing the wrong thing (evil). Circumstances and Intention may drive us into doing evil but it does not take away the intrinsic value of the act (even if it sometimes it reduces our culpability). (Analogy) For instance, In Nigeria, assuming you have a graduate with no job (very common), social welfare or family member to support him. The circumstance is grave; his intention to get some money to feed himself and take care of his dying mother is good and noble; but It is never a justifiable reason for him to steal, rob a bank or kidnap someone (NOTE: with this analogy, I am not equating  both conditions but trying to extract similar elements related to the fundamental principle). Therefore it is important to state that if you cannot take care of a child there are numerous agencies and organization in Nigeria who are prepared to take that child and many couples looking to adopt babies. What we need in Nigeria is a promotion of the adoption culture. How do I know? There is an increase in the number of couples going for IVF treatments.

“To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.”

I have never envisaged a society that would condemn the weakest among them. Deformity is a condition and not a disease. It should not be a death sentence.  The Disabled have every right and should be granted the privilege of the dignity of personhood that we give the able-bodied, born or unborn. I am amazed that this would be offered as a reason for abortion on the same day that the president hosted our Paralympic athletes (some of whom were born with their condition) to a royal reception for doing the country proud in London when the able-bodied athletes had disgraced us woefully (I am blaming the officials though, not the hardworking athletes).

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/09/jonathan-gives-national-award-n5m-each-to-2012-paralympian-gold-medalists/

What kind of a country would classify its disabled (born and unborn) as 2^nd class citizens to the point of suggesting to abort them.

“For many young women, the cultural stigma of being a single mother is so strong that they feel they have to go to any length to avoid bringing shame and disgrace on their families”

Would it not be easier to advocate for a change in orientation than advocate for the legalization of abortion in culture that you have assumed to be conservative?  What is needed is a change in cultural orientation and mindset not more abortion, to ensure that society especially families support their daughter in the event of an unwanted pregnancy. I will always use the Genevieve Nnaji example as a shining light when at the age of 17 she became unexpectedly pregnant. She received the support of her family and well, it did her no harm.

“Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest”

I opted to tackle this last because of the sensitivity that is needed in addressing it and the nature of the crime. Let me first set this straight, rape and incest are extremely horrible acts and society should do all it can to prevent it and support the victims, in case it happens. In places where statistics on abortion are recorded, abortions due to rape or incest are very few. Victims of rape need all the care, love and support they can get from society. Governments and NGO’s have a key role to play in this as victims sometimes struggle to get the support that they need from their community most times due to prejudice about rape victims in general. Governments and NGO’s need to work hard, apart from providing immediate support to the victims, to also re-orientate society on this vexed issue. Despite the repulsive nature of rape or incest, it is highly unfair to visit the sins of the Father on the innocent baby. The baby is not responsible for the rape but only a product of it. It will be very harsh to pass the death sentence to the child while the perpetuator is still alive. Would it not be fairer suggestion to sentence the perpetuator to death rather than the innocent child? It is simply not true that abortion heals the emotional and psychological wound caused by rape and there is simply no evidence to suggest that it does. If nothing else, as testimony in most cases confirms, the woman feels a sense of guilt for having the abortion thereby adversely compounding her already fragile emotional state rather than heal it. In order words abortion makes the situation worse rather than better.

What kinds of support can we give a rape victim?

First and foremost, there must be a sense of justice (which must be done and seen to be done) and therefore the overwhelming full weight of the law must fall on the perpetuator.

Secondly, a mother who knows she doesn’t want to keep the child for whatever reason doesn’t need to. There are organizations (I can link you to one) that are willing to take the child into care or offer it to couples looking to adopt.

Finally, the emotional and psychological need of the victim should be looked after by the state and NGO’s as well as by society at large, so that together they can make an already hideous situation better. Children born as a consequence of rape grow up to be very lovely and decent people. There is no need to condemn them to the ultimate punishment of death.

Let me summarize, what we are talking about here is a pregnancy crisis. It is this crisis that actually lead women to consider having an abortion because they feel a sense of helplessness. When a woman gets pregnant that she least expects, what she needs at that point (many of whom are usually confused at this stage) is real help not abortion. I can tell you, in Nigeria there are organizations that offer this help even if government is not pulling its weight (as it does on most issues).  We also need to get government to address the ailing state of our health care system that sells our pregnant (wanted and unwanted) women short. This would actually lead to a drop in our already high MMR. The argument that we should make it legal because people would still have it illegally anyway (same argument used for hard drugs that simply is not working) will solve the problem is simply not true. People have abortion (legally or illegally) because they feel a sense of helplessness at their state. The key word here is real help not abortion. Without addressing the joke of a health care system we have; MMR will always be high, whether or not abortion is legal in this country.

You are truly missed, happy birthday Ebitari Tekenah.

Ebitari, today would have been a happy day for you as it would have been your birthday. Instead, today has made me realize how much you are still missed. I have all these memories rushing back to me today and I realize that I would never pick up the phone to call and have our usual chat.
MEN!, Tari, I miss you alot and I would like to tell you Happy Birthday as you look down on us.

Happy Birthday Mate,

One Love Big Guy.

RE: The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way

I recently came across an article by Riazat Butt of the Guardian titled “The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way” on 23^rd February, 2011. It was riddled with all sought of inaccuracies and misconceptions. It is important to stress ‘ab initio’ that, the Catholic Church is not a scientific body and as such need not be looked up to, to validate or invalidate any scientific theory. The Galileo experience, as she rightly pointed out, serves as a lesson. Now, it doesn’t prevent the  Church on the side, to actively seek to expand the frontier of knowledge even from the point of view of science in order to further her (she would say) understanding on the workings of God. That is why the Pope has an advisory body on science; The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, first formed in 1603 and whose members include non-Catholics such as its current president, Werner Arber and professor Stephen Hawking amongst others.

Having said that, let me first correct a false impression portrayed by the article, before I really address what I found quite disturbing about the piece as a whole. Riazat says;

“Alas, the much talked about collaboration between the Italian space agency and the Pontifical Lateran University has yet to launch. But the initiative is another sign that the Vatican wants to be taken (more) seriously on science.”

It is important to point out that this is actually not some thing new and that the Vatican has been interested in Astronomy since the 16^th Century and in fact runs one of the oldest astronomical institutes (The Vatican Observatory) in the world.

None of these misconceptions surprised me more than her attempt to impose an official position on the church on the theory of evolution and suggest it is has ever opposed (or even endorsed it), going further to equate this to the church’s opposition to certain procedures based on ethical grounds (ethical as opposed to scientific theory is highlighted intentionally).

Let’s address the issue of the Evolution Theory; The Catholic Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Now, unofficially she has said that she does not reject it as a possibility and that the theory in no way contradicts the teaching of the church on the source of creation and the dual composition of man (material and spiritual). You can refer to Pope Pius XII encyclical; Humani Generis article 36. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI even went further to describe it as a very sound scientific hypothesis in their speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and a group of 400 priests respectively. They all did not go ahead to endorse it as a proven fact which is what I perceived the article wanted the church to do. Even the scientific community (religious and non religious) has not accorded it that kind of status; or else it seizes to be a theory.

This can also be said about the churches position on the concept of Intelligent Design and the Big Bang theory which funnily enough was once considered to be religious concept, largely due to the fact it was first proposed a catholic scientist making him to be derided and sometimes ridiculed by some of his peers. Well, today we know how billions is been spent trying to validate the big bang theory by the lager scientific community.

It then went on to suggest that Catholics should have no mind of their own and that any opinion offered by any Catholic is elevated to the status of an official position. This is preposterous and as such, to suggest that the analysis of Cardinal Schönborn tilts the official position of the Catholic Church towards intelligent design is false (and that’s putting it politely). This is because I can also point to an article in L'Osservatore Romano considered to be the official mouth piece of the Roman Curia, where Professor Fiorenzo Facchini dismissed Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. We won’t because of the analysis of the priest in the article elevate it, even in the slightest manner, to an official position of the church. In a nutshell, the church does not validate or invalidate scientific theories even if her members weigh in on the debate. Catholics are free to explore and indeed espouse their opinions on scientific matters but are called to unity of faith in truth and reason.

Now to go ahead to equate this debate within and between the church and the wider scientific community to its stance on the ethical issues surrounding embryonic stem cell and the importance to uphold the sanctity of life at every stage of development is quite worrying. This concern drove me to write this.

FYI, while we are still on inaccuracies, the Catholic Church has not changed her stance on condom use, at least as far as Humanae Vitae and other church documents make me aware.