WEDNESDAY
May 17, 2000
volume 11, no. 94

Dr. Frank Joseph's Pro-Life Prescriptions: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL!        

INTRODUCTION

    We've enlisted Frank Joseph, MD, a committed retired Catholic physician from Southern California to write a special pro-life column for the DailyCATHOLIC which will appear each Wednesday exulting the Catholic beliefs on creation and procreation in upholding the Sanctity of Life.

    For past columns by Frank Joseph, MD, click on Pro-Life Prescriptions: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL! Archives
If you want to send him ideas or feedback, you can reach him at DFJosephMD@aol.com


For the life of me, the law and logic don't add up!

        I have a problem and I need help.

        Picture this: A woman is pregnant and her baby is viable, but she no longer wants to keep him/her for a myriad of reasons -- in other words, she wants her baby dead. She arrives at her decision with the same reasons she would give to an abortionist -- pick one out. Makes her nervous, or a good job opportunity, or she found out her unborn baby has a defect, or a hundred other physical or emotional reasons that a person or doctor can come up with.

        So, she stabs her baby through her abdomen -- the blade pierces the baby's skull at the base of the brain and the baby dies, but she lives. As a matter of fact, there was this exact case on an episode of the TV show, "The Practice" a couple of weeks ago. In the show, the mother was prosecuted for murder and the jury came back with a guilty verdict.

        Or, we can go another route. Let's say she asks her boyfriend to do it, or she pays someone to kill her baby by stabbing her abdomen. In each case the baby is stabbed at the base of the brain. Whatever the case, she lives, but the baby dies.

        If she kills her baby, she can be prosecuted for murder. If her boyfriend kills her baby, even with her PERMISSION, he will be prosecuted for murder and she would be an accomplice to murder. If she pays someone to kill her baby, that person will be prosecuted for murder, even though the mother gave her PERMISSION and she will be prosecuted as an accomplice to murder.

        Now, here's my problem: If the mother gives her permission and pays a doctor to kill her viable baby by a stab at the base of the baby's brain, the doctor CANNOT be prosecuted for murder.

        Now, someone out there in the vast reaches of the web, please tell me, what in the world is the difference between the prior cases and the one involving the doctor. I know there are lawyers, who are reading this column. Maybe you can tell me, so I can rest easier. I would like a legal reason that makes the doctor's murder acceptable and the others prosecutable.

        All of these cases are exactly the same -- reasons for the killing were the same -- permission was given. The only difference was the position of the baby, when killed. When stabbed through the abdomen, the baby was 100% in her uterus, but when the doctor did the killing the baby was 75% born, which makes it even worse. Everyone would be prosecuted for murder, but NOT the doctor.

        Remember, I'm not talking about a case where the mother is assaulted, but a case where she gives her PERMISSION, because, as in an abortion, she wants her baby dead.

        Also, if any of you have friends in high places, will you give this message to them, with the hopes it will get to the attorneys arguing the partial-birth abortion case, currently before the Supreme Court. I would JUST LOVE the Justices to answer this question. Do you think they would have the gall to say, "ah, the doctor went to medical school and has a license to kill." What other answer could there possibly be?

        One thing that I do know and that is the liberal justices will NOT adhere to the Constitution. If they did, this case is a "slam dunk" for "life." Somehow, for political reasons, they will dishonor their robes and justify murder. I hope and pray that I'm wrong, but the things that have happened during the Clinton/Gore administration, lead me to that conclusion.

        Partial-birth abortions are NEVER needed to save the life of the mother, nor to ensure her health. It is not an emergency procedure. This procedure requires that the cervix be dilated 2-3 days in advance. So, if the mother's life or health is in danger, who can wait even one day, or one hour. It is absolutely ludicrous. Even so, to placate the pro-aborts, there was a clause in the ban that it could be done to save the life of the mother. But the Clinton/Gore people want a health clause in the ban, which would make the ban useless. All the mother has to say is, "this pregnancy makes me nervous." That's it -- she can have her baby legally killed.

        Partial-birth abortions are done for two reasons only:

    • 1 - If the mother changes her mind late in her pregnancy, she can still have her baby killed, "legally." This is tragic and it is sick.

    • 2 - This barbaric procedure ensures whole baby parts that can be sold to the highest bidder, so that Planned Parenthood and all the other death camps can make even more money. This is even more tragic and rivals Hitler in sickness.

      Dr. Frank

              

May 17, 2000
volume 11, no. 94
Pro-Life Prescriptions: LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL!


Return to the current English edition

To review past English issues in Archives



Return to the current Russian edition

To review past Russian issues in Archives