HPV Vaccines - Just for Girls?

Is it just me, or am I missing something. We now have a vaccine for HPV. It does not protect against all strains of HPV, but does offer some protection against some of the worst strains. But it is being offered for young girls. Now I understand that young girls (and women of all ages) are affected more seriously by this virus than boys are; however, HPV can cause problems for young men too, and women might be better off if fewer men were spreading the virus.

Why is the vaccine only being offered to young women and not young men?

Should ability to pay determine legality?

George Michael, the recording artist, recently reported that he was having trouble cutting back on his marijuana habit. He admitted that he smoked far more than he felt that he should and needed some help getting this monkey off his back. From his own words (not quoted here) it is clear that he is addicted to the drug and is having trouble cutting back.

George Michael also said that it would be easier if marijuana was legalised. He felt that it was not affecting his ability to work and he could afford it.

How many out there have a career where they can decide when or if they want to show up for work, except for a few contractual requirements for evening gigs? How many make millions at their job? How many make residual money from work they have already done and from that are able to relax and do what they want when they want to and not worry about their next paycheck?

I appreciate that George Michael did work hard to get where he is now, I respect his talent and have enjoyed his music, but the majority of marijuana smokers do not have his financial cushion, and most do not have jobs with the flexibility he has. The reality is that his drug use has been affecting him greatly, but he is not in a position where the affects are imminent or problematic. But for the rest who are not so fortunate, this drug does cause huge problems.

This drug is addictive and does cause problems whether or not it leads to harder drugs. For me the greatest evidence comes from advocates of legal drug use who do not seem to realise just how strange they sound when expressing their opinions.

My best teaching tool against drugs has been to let my children listen to talk shows where marijuana activists are speaking. It does not take long before my children are giggling at this person who has no idea just how foolish he or she sounds.

I think that if I were dying, I might like to try marijuana or some other interesting drug, but I also would not be worried about getting caught and going to jail for it. I value my brain and hope to live a long life and I wish more would respect their own brains and bodies.

The Politics of Disease

I find it interesting that now that someone has developed a vaccine for one or more of the many strains of Human Papillomavirus (HPV), suddenly it is a problem that requires the attention of all parents to get their daughters vaccinated as young as nine years old.

I warned family members and friends that HPV was a serious problem long before the vaccine was developed. HPV can lead to cervical cancer in women and can also cause genital warts. Most importantly, it is transmitted skin to skin and is not stopped by condoms - the area of transmission is reduced but not eliminated unless you are wearing a condom that covers your entire torso and thighs. While not anywhere near as deadly as AIDS it is far more prevelant, and it can kill - hundreds of young women die each year from cervical cancer - this could have been avoided by regular testing and early treatment - or better yet, abstaining from sex until ready for committment.

The Vaccine is a great idea, but it only treats some strains, not all of them (not all cause cancer). HPV because it is associated with genital warts, there is a risk of it becoming a gateway disease like Genital Herpes. Herpes is not a life threatening disease at all (mostly just embarrassing and annoying), and like HPV is also transmitted skin to skin. But, Herpes causes lesions that can leave the body vulnerable to other diseases. HIV (which can lead to AIDS) is also transmitted skin to skin and if lesions are present, then the process is much easier and condoms are not going to be very useful.

My concern is that while vaccines are not a bad thing, there is a danger that girls who are vaccinated against this sexually transmitted disease (or at least certain strains of it) are going to think that they are safe and be less careful in their choices and sexual practices.

I have a daughter and when she is old enough, I will not be taking her to get vaccinated. I will instead be educating her on the important matters concerning her sexuality. I will be stressing the purpose of sex and the responsibilities that go with it. In time, I will let her know what is out there and what she needs to know to make her own informed choices. In time, she may want to get vaccinated and that will be fine with me. I hope to raise my daughter and my sons to be responsible human beings, but I cannot speak for their eventual partners.

Does Too Many Brothers Make You Gay?

I firmly believe that it is important to study and learn as much as possible. Ignorance is not bliss. I also hold to the idea that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Case in point - a recent study was released that suggested that a potential factor in determining homosexuality was the quantity of older biological brothers - the greater the number, the greater the chance that the youngest would be gay. This information was further "processed" into the idea that this could prove that homosexuality develops in the womb and that women may develop an immune response after having "too many" boys. All sides of the gay rights debate appear to be grabbing onto this overblown idea - the anti-gay rights side are even claiming that this proves that homosexuality is not a normal condition.

Really. Of course, while the study is interesting, it provides a small piece of the puzzle, not a causative factor or proof of anything. You see, just opening your eyes and looking around provides a better backdrop to this matter. Notice that Michael Jackson has a lot of older brothers, does that explain anything? Mr. Jackson's family has also been rumoured to be somewhat disfunctional, perhaps abusive. Donny Osmond also has a lot of older brothers, and one younger one, yet no member of his family is rumoured to be gay or deviant in any way. They are all married with children of their own and their family is rumoured to be stable. Then there is the fact that not all gay men have any older brothers, much less a large batch of them - George Michael (singer/songwriter) has sisters. Then we can always look at our own families and friends - my mother's family had seven older brothers in a row, then a string of sisters, and then one more brother - none are gay and the family is fairly normal and well-adjusted, all the children were wanted and loved. I know a family from my old neighbourhood, where one son was gay, but while he did have brothers, he also had an abusive father and disfunctional family. I know another who comes from a smaller family, but was the product of an affair - he was rejected by both his biological father and husband of his mother. Then there is basic biology, if a mother is having an immune response to her child, the immune response is to attack and destroy the perceived invader, not mutate it into a gender confused individual; further, the biological imperative is to produce, not place barriers to future reproduction for the offspring.

There is a lot of misinformation that is floating around out there and this is the cause of much confusion and resentment in the matter of homosexuality and gay rights. There are elements of truth in both sides of the equation and it is important that all aspects be considered in the discussion and the develoment of gay rights issues. For example, homosexuals do not choose to be gay, nor are they born that way. They are made that way from a very early age (after birth), through no fault of their own. There is also so much more that needs to be considered before claiming a particular stance on gay rights issues. And much more to be learned. I am thinking that Europe has some better options than our current approach in Canada.

Legal Murder

Murder is a legal term and it applies to abortion until a law is passed that says otherwise. That courts do not charge abortionists with murder has to do with the fact that it is legal, not that it isn't murder. For murder to apply, one human being kills another human being. The pre-born child is a living human being from conception, this is a biological fact - ducks come from ducks, frogs from frogs and humans from humans - FACT. Also, the fact that pre-born have limited rights is a legal choice, after all, in Canada, women were not "persons" under the law until into the 20th century and had very limited rights (just like pre-born children today), yet if someone killed a woman, they could still be charged with murder, unless a law was passed to legalise the murder of women (thankfully this did not happen). In the US, blacks did not always have the legal status of "personhood", yet a person could be charged with their murder; however, depending on when and/or where this occurred, the penalty might not be the same as for murdering a "white" person. Even an illegal alien can be "murdered" - citizenship is not a prerequisite. It was decided that certain persons were less equal than others and, therefore, treated differently. Blacks, Jews, Women were not and are not subhuman and do not deserve to be treated like animals or worse; the same is true for babies that are still in the womb -they are not sub-human, inferior, or alien - we all started as a zygote, we all developed in basically the same way and will continue growing through many stages of development until we die, either of old age or cut short by accident, disease or someone else's choice. (As posted elsewhere)

Luck of the Draw

We live in the age of ultrasound, 3-D imaging, more powerful forms of stethoscopes - we know more about fetal development than we did 30 years ago. The fact is that not only is abortion murder, many forms of abortion are more sadistic and brutal than any form of torture imagined in our brutal past. We used to believe that the developing child had an "immature" nervous system and, as such, it would not "feel" the pain of an abortion. WRONG!!! Although it takes time for all of the nerves to be fully formed, as each nerve forms and is connected to the developing brain, there is an "all or nothing" response - once the nerve is activated, there is no "shut-off" or "dampening" mechanism in place to reduce or minimize the pain felt. Unlike us, mature adults, the developing child, and even the new born child, feels pain much more intensely than we do and cannot stop the pain. In-utero surgery used be done without anesthetic, and many pre-born children died of shock from the intense pain - doctors didn't know that they needed to deal with the pain first. Now many procedures are performed with suitable pain relief measures in place and the outcomes are much more successful. Circumcisions used to be performed without any pain relief measures, due to ignorance. Some still do, but many now recognise (due to actual studies on this matter) that baby boys do feel pain VERY intensely and need a superior pain relief measure than an older child or adult would.Sadly, a wanted child will receive all the care and attention during these difficult situations. But, for the unwanted (or inconventient) child - the method of execution is often worse than anything we would inflict upon our worst serial killers.If a pro-lifer views abortion more seriously than war or famine or any other social or international problem - it is because there is no greater problem. Abortions kill more than wars, more than famines, more than disease - and its done intentionally and legally. So long as we are capable of so brutally destroying a young human life, how can we expect anyone on this planet to seriously reject wars, stop famines, deal effectively with disease, poverty, violence. (as posted elsewhere)

My Body, My Choice... Part 2

Self ownership is important to all humans. We love our freedom and should fight to keep it. No one has the right to remove your kidney without your permission. No one has the right to tell you what to think. No one has the right to kill another human being for any reason, especially not to inherit or otherwise obtain property, or to remove a rival in business, or a rival or impediment for any other kind of success, whether in love, professional, or personal ambitions. In the pursuit of this personal freedom, we have abolished slavery in this country. We have laws to protect us from each other (most of the time). And, to most, it would be unthinkable to allow the death of another for want of money or possessions. Yet, our modern society with all of its social concerns, still thinks it is acceptable to not only allow the death of our youngest members, but to proceed with their termination under the most gruesome of conditions for even the most frivolous of reasons. When a woman becomes pregnant, she conceives a totally new and distinct human being. This person has DNA that is not like the mother or the father, even if there are some similarities. This person will have a distinct personality and appearance, both of which are already determined within the unique DNA that is present at conception - the genotype is set, the phenotype may be somewhat influenced by outside forces, but will not be identical to either parent. The child may be dependent upon the mother for the duration of his or her stay within the womb (and, possibly, for a lengthy period after that); but, the mother does not "own" the child the way she owns her kidneys or heart or limbs, or even her womb. Slavery has been abolished. A mother does not have the moral right to "evict" her tennant in a way that will cause the child to die. Where I come from, landlords of buildings are not legally permitted to evict their tennants if the eviction will harm (or kill) the tennants due to unfavorable weather conditions. Lawyers may say otherwise; however, consider what many people think about a 1000 lawyers at the bottom of lake.Children do not "invade" their mother's womb - the act of sex invites them. If any sexually mature individual out there does not know that the biological function of sex is to produce offspring should go to their medical doctor and request to be sterilized for the sake of improving our gene pool.
As posted elsewhere on 6/09/2006 2:37 PM

It's Alive!

Prenates (unborn babies) are sentient with functioning senses by the end of the first trimester, so says Sir William Lily (pioneering father of fetology) and Dr. Arnold Gesell of Yale (both have passed away and did their groundbreaking work prior to the legalization of abortion in North America). Prenates have an awareness of their surroundings and respond to changes in their surroundings (and just like other children, they appear to like sweets). This is born out by modern observations made possible through the use of ultrasound technology. Amniocentesis performed at about 16 weeks gestation is performed with the use of an ultrasound machine in order to locate the fetus, the intent is to draw amniotic fluid, not harm the developing baby. During these procedures, which are done routinely, it has been observed that the baby will deliberately move away from the needle, even though the needle has not touched it, and if the needle does nick the baby (accidently) the baby will respond by swiping at the barrel of the needle with its fist. These actions demonstrate a clear awareness on the part of the baby to its surroundings and, while reflex may play a part in the baby's defensive action against a nick, the responses cannot be attributed to a simple reflex action. There has been the suggestion that the babies cannot feel pain until much later, despite EEG and ECG recordings and other observations during painful events, due to the later maturation of the cortex. Yet, according to Patton et al, Intro to Basic Neurology, W.B. Saunders Co. 1976, p. 178, the cortex is not an essential component - you can remove the cortex and still feel pain - so long as you have a thalamus which is functioning by eight weeks gestation. There is a difference between organic (physical) pain and psychological pain - they are connected, but it is not necessary to have both components to "feel" pain. For example, if you accidently touch a hot burner on a stove, you will have pulled your hand away before you are cognisant of what has happened. However, if you think back, you will note that you felt the pain first, then the defensive reflex was initiated to pull your hand away from the painful stimulus, then the pain registered in your brain and you became intellectually aware of the pain and then noticed that you had a burn on your hand and then you took action to alleviate that pain by putting your hand under cool running water. The reflex was triggered by the pain and the reaction was completed before it registered, but the pain was felt first and if you really think about it, you will remember that the pain was felt first on a physical level, before being "experienced" on a conscious level. You can remove the conscious level, but you will still feel the pain and it will hurt.Prenates under 30 weeks of age are hypersensitive and so feel pain much more intensely than those with mature brains. Normally, in the womb, there is no need for protective measures that develop later, there should be no safer place for a developing baby. This is born out by our experience with premature babies. Neonates from 22 weeks to 30 weeks are noticably hypersensitive to all stimuli (light, sound, touch) and respond well to measures designed to mute such stimuli, including the use of anaesthetics during invasive procedures. Why does anyone believe that a healthy fetus in the womb is less affected by stimuli than its prematurely born counterpart.
As posted elsewhere on 6/05/2006 2:52 PM

A Matter of Perception

How low have we fallen. I know that there are some who would like to believe that babies do not feel pain in the womb, and I have seem some studies that seem to support that, if only I were ignorant enough to believe them. On paper, whether a baby "feels" pain has more to do with whether the child is wanted and/or if the doctor supports the abortion industry. For example, if your baby was planned and precious and long awaited by all parties and something goes wrong, requiring in-utero surgery to fix it - you will want to sign that little document that allows the medical team of crack surgeons to use top of the line anaesthetics to ensure an improved medical outcome (the survival of your little bundle of joy). Now maybe you can be fooled into thinking that this young child lacks the specific structural developments to "feel" the pain or, more precisely, "recognise" the pain it feels on an intellectual level (apparently it isn't smart enough yet to recognise why it is writhing in agony). But the child fares much better if it is not exposed to the pain it is not supposed to be able to feel yet. That is practical medical reality, not wishful theory.Of course, if the child is unwanted and a royal inconvenience to your plans to go to where-ever to do whatever, then any abortionist will tell you - of course it can't feel pain - everything is there (the brain, the nerves, etc.), but the brain just isn't developed enough to recognise the pain for what it is.Bull!!!! This arrogance was behind the practice not only of performing in-utero surgeries without pain relief measures, but also performing circumcisions on young boys without pain relief measures. After all, those very studies that suggest that babies do not feel pain until after 29 weeks, also say that we really don't develop the cognitive ability to recognise pain until well after we are born. Yet, an experiment designed to test baby boys and their response to circumcisions under various methods of pain relief had to be stopped very early in the testing stage because it became immediately apparent that the babies did feel pain to a much greater degree than adults do. The remaining patients were given their circumcisions with the maximum pain relief measures. And modern in-utero surgeries do make use of pain relief measures for the baby.The mistake was that "everyone" assumed that the developing brain lacked the ability to feel pain until it was older, that all the parts weren't all working together yet; when the reality is that developing brain lacks the ability to deal with the pain - the brain can't shut it down. The Baby may not be able to identify what the pain is the way that we can as adults - but, the pain is not only present but much more intense in developing babies.I don't know exactly when babies do begin to feel, but I would not touch a fetus after seven weeks gestation - after 12 weeks, your doctor would have to be a cruel, sadistic SOB to proceed with an abortion (either that, or just old and out of touch with modern medicine). I would even wonder about babies as early as seven days when the neural tube begins to form, but I can at least hope that one week is too soon.We try to protect animals because they lack our intelligence and understanding. But, we recognise that they feel pain. Why do we assume for humans that it doesn't really hurt until it can be identified and labelled.
As posted elsewhere on 5/31/2006 3:13 PM

My Body, My Choice...

Here's a thought. We always talk about "my body, my choice" and a woman's right to determine who may or may not "occupy" her womb. I have lived in areas where it is illegal for tennants to be evicted from their place of residence for any reason, during periods of time where the outside conditions (weather, temperature, etc.) might cause the death of the tennants. Landlords must wait until suitable weather arrives before evicting undesirable (unpaying, etc.) tennants. The basic biological function of sex is to create new life. When any two persons of opposite gender engage in an act whereby a baby may be created, they have extended an invitation to that person - it's not like the baby just dropped in of its own accord. Just how and when did it become a "right" for any human being to murder another human being for any reason? Regardless of when philosophers think that life might begin (biologically it begins at conception), whether at forty years, birth, when the heart starts beating, etc.; we are still talking about a human being. Given the direction that our culture is heading in, I fear that soon, we won't just be knocking off our babies. How long before we start putting a "value" on everyone's life, and pulling the plug on any who do not measure up?
As posted elsewhere on 5/29/2006 7:29 PM

Choice or No Choice?

Pro-Abortion is NOT Pro-Choice. Choice means that a woman can choose to not have an abortion, but every person that I have encountered who favours "choice" does not support a woman's right to choose to have her baby. Not only are they reluctant to support adoption rights or provide economic support to women in difficult situations, they also reject the basic right of "informed consent". I know many women who have had abortions and they sufferred dearly for their "choice" because of the decision of their medical practitioners to withhold basic information that might have altered their decision to have the abortion. Sometimes, the information might have only made the abortion process safer, but it was not deemed important to the abortion provider that the "silly" woman know the little details like how to care for yourself after a second or third trimester abortion. I nearly lost a friend because the hospital staff didn't consider it important to teach her how to prevent an infection after the abortion, nor what signs to watch for should there be complications - she owes her life to two pro-life friends with first-aid training, including one who served as an army medic.It was never about "choice", it was always about "money", and I am tired of women being victimized by this ancient and barbaric practice known as abortion.
Posted by me on another blog on 5/16/2006 2:50 PM

Its Hurrican Season - Go Oilers Go!

It's a little windy, but my boys can handle it. They just need to remember, that it is the team that scores the most goals, not the team that blocks the most goals, that wins.

Who's kidding who? Revised Sunday

I can't help wonder if the whole world has gone nuts. As I mentioned previously, I have watched the push for population control in countries where population was not really an issue. The whole world recoiled in horror when newstories around the globe reported on a baby being grabbed from its mother's arms and drowned in a mud puddle right in front of her and her family - this was the solution to parents who broke the one child per family rule in China. Usually, the mothers were dragged into clinics and forced to undergo an abortion prior to giving birth, but never let a live birth get in the way of progress. I have heard similiar stories from other countries where governments have involved themselves with direct population control measures on their citizens. So why do we have organizations going into other second and third world nations pushing for even more countries to enforce abortion rights. Have they not figured out that many women in less developed countries do not have the luxury of "choice" where abortion is allowed? I suspect that many abortion rights adherents are just plain ignorant, and really do mean well.

Another problem that has me stymied is the AIDS/HIV epidemic. Again, people are so busy jumping on bandwagons that they are missing the boat. I am a Catholic and my Church not only opposes abortion "rights" around the globe, especially in countries where women might be vulnerable to government interference, it also opposes the use of condoms and other forms of artificial birth control. Now many get up in arms over that. They scream bloody murder, accusing the Church of causing the death of millions due to AIDS and other diseases. Yep. Never mind that the Church also opposes all of the typical methods of spreading the disease and that the lack of condoms does not "cause" HIV or AIDS, people seem to be ridiculously selective on which rules to obey. If you are going to commit a sin that the Church has already warned could cause you to go to hell, such as pre-marital or extra-marital sex or sodomy, why are you going to obey the Church's commandment on condoms? Some groups even blame the Church for the most amazing things - I read a BBC transcript after watching a documentary that left me dumbfounded. The documentary reported on a number of cases in Africa that highlighted the problems with the Church's stance on condoms. One such case was a father who was sexually molesting his two young, teen daughters. They were exposed to huge risks, including pregnancy and STI's. I don't remember if either daughter became pregnant (probably), or if either daughter got sick (likely) - all I could remember was that the reporter was angry at the Church for not granting the father permission to use condoms while he engaged in sex with his own daughters against their will. Does the BBC think that it is OK for fathers to molest their daughters? The Church strictly forbids this. Does the BBC believe that a father who is raping his daughters is going to use condoms in order to protect their health???? Frankly, the documentary showed a monumental lack of understanding of the situation in Africa. In addition to being victimized by unfaithful husbands (and in some areas an extremely unbalanced rule over what constitutes adultery for men and for women), women can be war trophies, be publically humiliated as a weapon of war against the men in their villages, can be bought or sold as slave concubines or forced into prostitution. In this environment, you could have the condom manufacturers working day and night and produce enough condoms to cover the entire continent of Africa until it is hip deep in condoms - but until you alter the problematic behaviour and attitudes towards women and sex - it won't make any difference.

Another example of weirdness is the situation that exists in the Philipines and Thailand. Both countries experienced their first AIDS case around the same time. Both experienced the same initial rate of increase. Both leaders realised that they were facing a potential epidemic and had to do something about it. However, both countries took very different roads in terms of how to deal with the problem. The Philipines is a Catholic country and the approach was also very Catholic - the solution was not to do nothing as some have suggested, but to deal with the disease as a disease and work on the root causes. Thailand decided to take a different approach. Just as doctors tell us to wash our hands to avoid the spread of colds and flus - Thailand told its citizens to use condoms. They put condoms everywhere. There were baskets of condoms in every brothel and in every night club. Condoms were everywhere. There were some who objected to this; but, the country moved forward and is now considered to be a shining beacon in the fight against AIDS. So much so, that the world seems to be panicking about the poor old Philipines - I read somewhere that the Philipines are supposedly sitting on a powderkeg ready to explode. The Philipines might be wiped out unless they adopt the methods used in Thailand. Oh boy! This is were we need mathematicians. I can guarantee you that if the Philipines adopts Thailand's Methods, they will achieve Thailand's results, and that would be a tragedy of epidemic proportions. Because, you see, Thailand is more than a hundred times worse off than the Philipines in the battle against AIDS. Thailand is supposed to be a huge success, yet compared to the Philipines, it is a medical disaster of Biblical proportions. Both countries started with a single case, but after twenty years, Thailand ballooned to over 750,000 cases, with over 20,0000 cases involving children under the age of 15. In 2001, they had reduced their new cases each year to about 21,000 - I hope that they have reduced it further, but they have already reached the stage where the disease will be very difficult to stop. On the other hand, the Philipines peaked at about 10,000 cases and by 2001, had about 2000 cases (none reported under the age of 15). They probably have new cases each year, but not enough to make the news.

Of course, I should point out that I don't believe for a moment that no one in the Philipines is using condoms, or committing adultery or pre-marital sex, or engaging in prostitution (sex tourism is ever present in both countries) - frankly, I doubt that the entire nation became a nation of saints. However, the people of the Philipines get it. HIV/AIDS is not like the common cold, it is not airborne. HIV/AIDS is not spread by the lack of condoms. It is spread primarily by risky sexual behaviour and through intravenous drug use involving shared needles (FYI condoms are useless against this type of transmission). Any sensible person should understand that if you want to avoid acquiring the virus, the primary method is to avoid the risky behavior. If you are unable or unwilling to avoid the risky behavior, then you must take measures to minimize your risk. The people in Thailand are living their lives as if the HIV/AIDS virus were a fact of life, just like the common cold, and you just have to take a few precautions and hope for the best. Just as washing your hands is not a guarantee against getting colds, and many people do not wash their hands as often as they should (just hang around a rest room for a while); people who also are just as informed about the use of condoms, do not always use them, or use them properly, or store them properly, etc. They feel secure in the false belief that it won't happen to them, and if enough other people are being diligent, then they don't have to worry about it. And, if it happens, well what could they do - it's an epidemic.

I can only hope that the Church continues to do what it does, and that it is successful enough to save humanity from its own stupidity. Ironically, the Catholic Church probably does more to help people with HIV/AIDS around the world than any other group or government.

God Bless.

It's Duck hunting season - GO OILERS GO

My hockey team, The Edmonton Oilers, is in Anaheim tonight. Anaheim did well in their last game and should be proud, but ducks never do well in oil slicks, and we are riding high to win the Western Conference.

Go! Oilers! Go!

Letter to the Editor sent to WCR May 24 2006

I am Pro-Life and a Roman Catholic. I know that if a pregnant woman's life is in danger, a doctor is medically and morally obligated to do whatever he or she is able to do in order to save the life of the mother, even if the medical procedures involved may cause the death of the unborn child. As not all at-risk mothers desire to cause or risk the death of their child, this can be a heartbreaking decision, and some will choose to give their own child a chance at life, even if the cost of that decision is their own life. Sometimes there is no choice, as with an ectopic pregnancy, whereby there is no way to save the child and only the mother can be saved. It is not a requirement of being a faithful Catholic or Pro-Life that a woman die for her child. It is a common misconception that the abortion rights movement has anything to do with saving lives. The sole purpose of abortion rights is to allow abortion on demand for the full term of any pregnancy, for any reason. Ironically, this is called "choice". Ironic because Pro-Choice groups generally do not have any interest in alternatives to abortion, or providing any support to women who may choose to not have an abortion. On the flip side, Pro-Life groups are in the business of providing women with the opportunity to choose to not have an abortion. Abortion is a practice that has been with us for thousands of years and will likely continue for as long as there are women who feel that they do not have other options. Pro-Lifers offer a variety of options (other than abortion) for women in difficult situations, and provide the means to be able to take advantage of these opportunities. Pro-Life organizations also provide assistance to women who chose to have an abortion but later regretted it, or faced other complications. I am Pro-Life because I want to offer a choice to women who feel that they have no choice.