ABORTION: FROM WOMB TO TOMB

If there is any issue that has attracted more attention in the area of human and family life more than any other, abortion would arguably be it. This is resultant from the fact that it threatens the uniqueness and inviolability of human life. It is both an action directly opposed to all the values of life and rights of a human person. The abortion case far from being a social misdemeanor and moral aberration has taken a step further towards its perpetuation. More and more countries are beginning to vie for an abortion bill or law. Russia, United States, South Africa, Slovakia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Georgia and Kazistan are among top rating countries that have approved of abortion in the first two trimesters. Some other countries have approved of this for one trimester and some others approved on claimed justifiable reason(s). It has been difficult to compute an accurate statistics of abortion in particular countries because of many of the cases are unreported. However, in America alone, since 1973, 50 million induced abortions have been recorded. The abortion case is one that remains ever new. The million-dollar question is: are there any justifiable reasons for abortion to be done whatsoever? This question is to elastic, but the progression of our discussion would help draw the demarcation between when abortion could be possible or not.

UNDERSTANDING ABORTION
Abortion is defined in medical terms as any pregnancy that does not end in a live birth, and therefore can refer to a miscarriage or a premature birth that does not result in a live infant. Such events are often called spontaneous abortions if they occur before 20 weeks of gestation. In common parlance however, abortion is used to mean, “Induced abortion” of an embryo or fetus at any point in pregnancy (Cf. Wikipedia Encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.org). For the sake of clarity, Pregnancy takes place after fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. This is usually about 24 hours after intercourse. From this moment, the being is said to be highly organized, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (cell division). All these are essential elements of a living being. Therefore, from that point, human life has begun and the mother is carrying a human being. That being is both a human being and a human person and equally a subject of human rights and obligation like the mother. Therefore, the mother from that point could not violate that right. If she does, she is trampling on communal human rights.

Our definition of abortion above puts two grounds for abortion. The first, which is called spontaneous abortion also, accommodates what is called therapeutic abortion. This occurs when the termination of pregnancy becomes a collateral effect of a medical intervention on a pregnant woman. The direct death of the fetus is not the main intention for the medical intervention but its effect (cf. Justin Ekennia, Bio-Medical Ethics, p. 151). Today however, understanding of therapeutic abortion has been taken too far; a step in a wrong direction. Some physicians are wont to warp this understanding. They claim that any pregnancy terminated because of risk to the mother’s life, if allowed to progress to gestation, is purely medical. But this is not the correct understanding of therapeutic abortion. Therapeutic abortion is the product of an effect not a cause. It must be similarly pointed that any action on the mother that is done with the knowledge of a likely dangerous effect on the fetus, and afterwards, results in abortion is a willed and induced abortion. Again, we here wouldn’t want to go into the debate of what qualifies as danger to the mother. However, I wish to state that the term “unwanted pregnancy” is a misnomer. All sexual actions are open to procreation, so a decision to copulate is a decision to procreate and even if not a decision to copulate once a sexual action results in pregnancy, the right of the individuals cease. This being so, not even cases of rape, incest, madness, population control, economic conditions, genetic deformation, or even possible physical or mental abnormalities in the child, etc do not qualify or justify the termination of a pregnancy. The reasons being the uniqueness of the human person and the inalienable dignity and right the human person has. Abortion is an attempt to play God, which is an arrogation of right and breaking of the fifth commandment.

The conditions for abortion are often based on social reason. About 95% of abortion carried out are often induced but erroneously dragged into the realm of therapeutic abortion. One fact that must be established is that in discussing abortion as a moral error and sin, the right of the mother must be known is not superior to that of the child and that the mother has limited domination over the child, even though both vulnerable and handicapped. If killing a human being is wrong because he has a personal life, such argument holds true too for abortion. Speaking non-cosmetically, abortion is murder and every murder is a grave sin and punishable. The reasons against abortion are more solid than cases for abortion, at least speaking both from the points of view of the bible, logical reasoning and social foundations.

A SCRIPTURAL CASE AGAINST ABORTION
First, every human being is a unique creation in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1: 27). The Psalmist talks of the dignity of the human person when he speaks in Psalm 8:5-7: “Lord, what is man that you care for him, mortal man that you keep him in mind?... with glory and honor you crowned him, giving him power over the works of your hands”. Thus, man is a being with dignity and this man is defined irrespective of his size, age or influence. The bible gives recognition too to the unborn child. God knows the preborn. The Psalmist decries: “You knit me in my mother’s womb…my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. (Psalm 139: 13,15). Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations" is a testimony to God knowing the preborn child and recognizes and treats him as an independent being.

Also, abortion is a sin against justice. God is a God of justice and stands usually for the weak and oppressed. Abortion apart from being an act of murder is also a sin of oppression against the weak and defenseless. Ps 68:5 calls God, “Father of the fatherless and defender of the widow and orphan”. So, God fights for the fetuses who are helpless like he does for little children. He therefore, visits his wrath on all abortionists. In fact, the book of Apocalypse concludes by naming those who will not enter the kingdom. It reads: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (Rev. 22: 14-15). The sin of abortion is such that blinds us from God and makes our prayers to be unheard. Hear what Prophet Isaiah says: “When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood” (Isa 1:15). Abortion can be compared to the sin of child-sacrifice in scriptures and it was described as the major cause of the kingdom of Israel being dominated by the Assyrians and the Israelites taken to exile (cf. 2 Kings 17: 17-18). Prophet Amos similarly condemned the Ammonites because they ripped open pregnant women in Gilead (Amos 1:13)



OTHER WITNESSES AGAINST ABORTION
The typical mentality of a human being is not so much of what he has known in principle, but more on how such a principle affects him or her. If a law is promulgated and it has no penalty, that law is likely not to enjoy widespread obedience. Apart from the Scriptural reasons advanced against abortion as a moral evil and an offence that is both spiritually and for the most social culpable, there are effects on the perpetrator; the irresponsible mother; both short and long term effects.

Methods in abortion could be generally divided into three main patterns: (1) those that invade the uterus and kill the child by instruments which enter the uterus through the cervix, (2) those that kill the preborn child by administration of drugs and then induce labour and the delivery of a dead baby and (3) those that invade the uterus by abdominal surgery. The first general method has an adverse effect on the mother because of the technique. In this, the cervix is stretched open with dilators and cervical tools are used to invade the womb, normally a curette is inserted into the womb to kill the baby and bring out its particles. In some instances, a suction machine is used to extract the destroyed baby. The mother therefore from this common technique is likely to suffer some or all of the following: excessive bleeding, abdominal swelling, pelvic infection, uterine perforation, cervical tears, incomplete abortion and in extreme cases, death.

The use of mifepristone tablet and followed by misoprostol is another common method of abortion. In this medical method, the mifepristone causes the placenta to separate from the endometrium. It also softens the cervix and increases uterine contractions to allow the uterine contents to pass. The misoprostol is usually taken vaginally or bucally, hours later and this would further cause uterine contraction and make the pregnancy to end in a miscarriage. This technique is of adverse effect like the surgical method. Most abortifaciets taken usually wear off the uterine wall and often causes contragestion (the prevention of implantation of the blastocyst). Women who are used to taking contraceptive pill and who involve in medical abortion are prone to miscarriages in the future. They are equally very open to the risks of frequent uterine pain, excessive uterine bleeding, pelvic infection, ruptured ectopic pregnancy, incomplete abortion, vomiting, diarrhea, and in extreme cases death. (cf. the long term effects of abortion on women in www.the-gospel.org.). It is important to note that misoprostol can cause fetal abnormalities. There are other methods of abortion usually used within the second or third trimesters. These are often more dangerous with not very bright chances of survival for the mother without terminal adverse effect. This is why many countries that even erroneously pass a bill for abortion limit this to the first or second trimester.

One common fact about abortion is that women who engage in it are prone to breast cancer. Once pregnancy starts steroid hormones are more active especially oestrogen and progesterone. This is the reason why breast formation becomes rapid, preparing it for breast-feeding. The termination of a pregnancy causes a significant drop in the level of estrogen secreted in a woman’s body. This drop causes a rapid growth in the number of cells in the breast tissue. This cell multiplication, medical sources have advanced, increases the risk of getting breast cancer.

Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy occurring on the fallopian tube) is a possible post-abortion effect, causing increased risk to the health of the mother and a possible death to the baby. Since abortion involves surgery, the ovaries, which are nearby organs, may have been affected. Again, infertility is a possible complication from an earlier abortion. Sexual dysfunction is similarly a likely effect from an earlier abortion. Women are likely to have a drop in sexual desire, orgasm, ability and satisfaction. This effect vary from woman to woman.

Apart from the physiological effects, there are also psychological effects, which are more likely to be immediate that the physiological that are long term. There is the feeling of guilt, shame and regret that may hunt the woman for a long time especially with sight of the abortion and the sight of terrible blood and pain that accompanies the surgery or process. This feeling can hunt them for so long that the woman either is moved to extreme regret, hating the male partner and even with threats to harm him or pushed to repentance and piety, which very often is not sustained. Once a non-Catholic girl had an abortion and she started shopping for a Catholic Priest to go for confessions. This was only an avenue to expel her pain and shut out the torments she receives. One common aftermath of such a psychological feeling is substance abuse. Young women especially adolescent girls are prone to taking pills to make them sleep off, drinking or abuse of other forms of drugs that could act like sedative.

Clinical psychology has developed a term with reference to the referred-to conditions that women often have with relation to abortion. This they have called “Post-Abortion Syndrome Disorder” (cf. http://www.cirtl.org/syndrome.htm). This disorder often starts with the usual guilt, pain, a sense of loss and the more typical part of this disorder is that it slumps the victim into lethargy (tiredness), malaise, vomiting and sometimes hallucination especially when remembering the action. This disorder very often leads to depression, complexes, fear of infertility and sex. This conditional is not often treated clinically. This stress disorder usually surfaces many years after abortion. It is very easy and common for a woman to say that she is fine but later she finds herself webbed in this terrible feeling of confusion, guilt and exploitation. This feeling sometimes comes either at the birth of a wanted child, during the desire for a child or during unrelated counseling. During this period of the stress disorder, the woman often have stressors, re-experience of the events, avoidance of things that would remind her of the experience, she then could begin to avoid people and relationships, avoid feeling love for others and becoming cold to people and situations. During this time, she feels just not good with herself and she considers ending her life and even has no long-term dreams or plans.

MAKING A PRO-LIFE OPTION
The effects of abortion are enormous. The intention of this paper is not to create a fright about abortion or magnify what abortion is not. However, I have gone into findings from scriptures, medicine and psychology to establish why abortion is not all right. Abortion is often an issue that bothers on choice and implications. The individuals often sit to weigh the implications of the pregnancy to one’s life, name, family, education, personality and even faith and one thinks it is just alright to make it quits and get it rid. Nevertheless, since human life is involved, it just does not end like that. It has a way of surfacing. The biggest lie about abortion is to think it is a once-and-for-all thing. Never! It keeps coming. Considering the effects of abortion, at the long run, it is all right to keep the baby. In doing this, one would have prevented being a murderer and even safeguarded chances of better procreation in the future. Since there are a number of dilemmas involved in abortion, then, it is best to avoid casual sex when one is not ready for procreation. This takes us to the A-B approach: Abstinence when unmarried and Be faithful when Married.

The woman must realize that she has a lot of stake to handle in the issue of abortion. She has the final word. She must therefore weigh the options and be firm in relationship, defining what is wanted from the beginning. Again, it seems as though from our discussion, the man has nothing about this. Men suffer from regret and pain too especially when met with misfortune or difficult situations in life. They are often hunted by the mistakes of their past. Deep inside of him, he gets to know, he collaborated in a murder. I wish to conclude with words of Scriptures which says: “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the Lord your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess” (Deut 30:15-16)

COPING WITH ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOUR

INTRODUCTION
One can arguably say there is no period a parent finds his or her child stranger to understand other than the adolescent stage in their life. The behaviors of these children get so strange to the confusion of what disciplinary action one can adopt. The parent(s) is/are often torn apart, especially the mother who is quick to notice these eccentric traits. They often don’t know whether to be silent or to speak, whether to flog or to send them away. If the parent leaves the child to his/her whims, he/she could get bad to a state of not easily corrected, on the other hand, if the parent does not speak up, it may appear that he/she is not moving with the age of the child. Not to recognize that the child is growing up and that at each stage in the child’s life, new methods of training and discipline must be adopted would be a sign of poor parenting. This confusion, not many parents are able to overcome. So, how could one cope with this behavior, knowing too well that the adulthood of the child and what he/she would become is built during this period? This is where an understanding of the adolescent period of a child is important and adopting ways of coping is not only important but non-negotiable. But to well develop this topic, we must first look at what adolescent period and the characteristics that mark this period are.

UNDERSTANDING THE ADOLESCENT STAGE IN LIFE
The adolescent period is often the teenage period of the child. This is more generally defined as the period from puberty to adulthood. Puberty is more characteristically known as the beginning of physiological changes and maturation in the individual; that is adult sexual characteristics like breasts, menstrual periods, pubic hair, facial hair, etc start developing. This period usually stems from 8-14 years old. These however, are only the physical signs. There are also internal signs and these are reflected in unusual behaviours. Typical adolescent behavior include many things that seem strange to parents like dyed hair, sagging of trousers by boys, odd piercings, strange music, new fashion and even making new friends. For girls, appearance means so much to them at this time. They care about their looks and want to be trendy. They thus move with many trendy styles even with technology. I must quickly add here, that many teenager get fixated at this stage and even at adulthood, they are still caught up with the fever of adolescent behaviour. These people usually are advanced in age but in behavior they have been trapped in an earlier stage in life. Be that as it may, the adolescent period is basically a time of experimentation for some teenagers. Some experiment with alcohol and drugs and sometimes sex.

Remarkably, the factor informing some of these traits and behavior is the desire for independence and this can sometimes lead teenagers to distance themselves from their families. This trait can be more worrisome as the teenager would appear to find no more solace and happiness with family members but with friends of their ‘click’. This sometimes too, draws the child’s participation at home backward. This latter development of weaker desire to participate in house chores is a more disturbing tendency that calls for concern.

Closely related with this tendency is increased argumentation. Teenagers who appear to find solace with friends and have more hang-out times are likely to feel that their parents do not love them or they accuse their parents of unfairness. The latter is a common misgiving amongst teenagers. This situation sometimes causes parent-child rift. It needs some understanding and techniques to handle such a teenager. Once this tendency continues for long, then, problem is properly brewing.

Of a close note is the emotional ups and down which sometimes reflect in mental change during this period. Teenagers during this period usually have intervals of moodiness. They sometimes complain of no friends once and the next time, one finds him/her hanging out with many friends. Some of these behavioural undulations are even expressed in friendships. Some friends would experience the inconsistency in reaction of teenage friends which they would time and again come to apologize for. Anxiety and sadness are two emotions that are not likely to go away. One must understand their frequent change in a pattern that may become so annoying and even irritating. But this may indicate an emotional conflict which may be resolved by attention by a close friend, family member or even a counselor.

One common factor that cannot but be mentioned is the fact of rebellion. Adolescent during their developing years are most rebellious. This rebellion is more to constituted authorities. First, there is the rebellion to parents, the school authorities and then to God. In fact, this is the period many adolescent just skip church activities for no good reason. Some who even out of coercion go to church would even not participate in events in the Church or deliberately stop going to confession, receiving communion and sometimes they even cut off their attendance of pious societies they may have hitherto belonged to. They just really seem to go blank with understanding any meaning with church, God and authorities. These authorities appear just like burden to them and they really would want to get over them. But this attitude must not be allowed to play out just like that.

The weird features of the adolescent period enumerated above seem to make this period more frightening than it may have earlier appeared or noticed. But this is not the aim of this write-up. In fact, these characteristic traits are common yet easily managed if well understood. In fact, many adults who successfully passed this stage without being terribly caught up in their own errors and naivety of the adolescent period look back with deep appreciation to those significant others whom they then hated but guided them through this period with pains, understanding and firmness. How this period can be managed is therefore our next concern.


TIPS FOR COPING WITH THE ADOLESCENT YEARS
There are a number of ways to handle this period in the life of the teen. But the foremost step would be staying informed and keeping the teen informed. By this, parents must first understand that this stage in their life has set in and then move to be more tolerant. Again, parents must make their teens good friends by keeping them informed of events in their life. The better the lines of communication are kept, the more open the child would be during this period of his/her life. You must seek to listen to your child. Know when he is beginning to give salacious jokes and beginning to be secretive. This is exactly when you should jump into asking him/her some questions. You must teach him/her the rudiments of this period especially handling things like menstruation and wet dreams. Give your child books to read on adolescence and you could share some of your experiences with your child.

Another way one can ply through this period is by setting expectations for your teen. Once a child knows the expectations he has from his/her parent, he/she would most likely want to fulfill them. Expectations like good grades, set behaviour, etc help to check unruly behaviour. The absence of expectation would make the child feels the parent does not love him/her.

Parents and adult friends must be patient with their adolescent ward. They must put themselves in the shoes of their teen and slow down the hammer. Again, parents and guardians must not been seen speaking on every issue. Not all battles the parent must enter into. Once they are not so harmful, you may choose to overlook. This does not mean not speaking at all, but not exerting any much pressure for change. For instance, if he wants to wear a particular hairstyle, as long as it does not affect the moral outlook of the child, you can choose to be indifferent. Nevertheless, such a parent should speak up with changing friends whom they do not know or if the child starts keeping late nights, experimentation with drugs, tobacco, alcohol or even sex. Closely associated with this is the fact that, parents must learn to know the friends of their children at this stage, where they go and equally set time when they should return. Peer influence is very strong during this time.

Be that as it may, parents must learn to respect the privacy of their teen at this period. By this, parents should not just invade the rooms of their adolescent child. Although, once warning signs are imminent, parents could invade their privacy till they get to the heart of the matter. Otherwise, there should be respect of the fact that they are becoming adults and there should be a respect for privacy. Text messages, e-mails, telephone callers, should be the privacy of the adolescent child. Once these are unduly invaded, the child could cause rebellion and funny reactions. Parents should learn to trust their children. Once confidence is reposed on them, they most likely would respond to the obligation of confidence- good behaviour.

Further, parents must similarly monitor what their adolescent read and see. This is not a violation of their privacy. During this period, there are a handful of information available to the teenage child. Parents should not be afraid to make rules on what they read and not allow too much of screen time and even too much of visit to the internet. While these should be encouraged, preoccupation in them may lead to fallen grades and even corruption of morals. Accessing the internet and viewing of programmes must not be left to the privacy of the adolescent child.

Parents must equally encourage responsibility during this period. Adolescent children should be given tasks. They could be made to handle cooking at particular times, or given other adult responsibilities with supervision. This makes them feel accepted and responsible. Teens could be allowed private time to be alone sometimes during the day. Conversely, parents should learn to spend some time with their adolescent children during this period to discuss their future dreams. During the adolescent period, the teens are likely to lose sight of their dreams for the future. In discussing with them like this, their vision and purposes are refreshed.

Parents must equally loosen the rope tighten on their children at this time. Parents must learn to explain unacceptable behavior on their children at this time. Since this is the period of argumentation, they want to know why they are prevented from doing certain things. Only with an explanation would they have reason why they should not venture into such an act again. Parents must be aware that certain disciplinary actions are not most appropriate for the adolescent child. The way a child of 8-13 years old would be punished may be different from the way one of 15-20 should be punished. Again, the mode and place of correction is important. Once a child is reproved openly, the child would not take to correction.

Lastly, parents must learn to love their children. They must emphasize their strength above their weaknesses. They must let them know what they worth and why they must not afford to lose their value and worth. Parents must find things they love about their adolescent children and always look at it when they feel irritated by the weird adolescent behaviour. They must above all be patient and commend them to God at all times. Coping with adolescent behaviour must be with one motto: we are going through this together and we are coming out of this together. Eventually, the adolescent years wear out, and maturity, understanding, discipline and devotion set in.

A LETTER CONCERNING CHANGE

Honoured brethren,

Of all the things which seem constant is change. Change can otherwise be the most apt phenomenon to describe reality and human experience. We experience change in maturity, our intellect, and emotions and even in physique. Apart from physical realities, we also have non-physical institutions which day by day embark on change. Since life is based on reality, reality based on experience and experience is what shapes our decisions and actions, then, man is involved continually in a changing reality. This is so because we have varied experiences. He changes many times but remains the same person. He is thus exemplary of an unchanging permanence. This is but an aspect of a cloudy paradox which many have not come to terms with about change. Change has merited the monopoly of permanence because it is believed that because it is ever changing, then, it is constant in its circle. I however, may deviate from this traditional belief about change. Change has too many unchanging sides. This is the inherent paradox of change. Change thus is paradoxical. This is the very background upon which I make a departure on the analysis of change, to analyze with synoptic details some of the faces of change.

Robin Le Poidevin has Change defined as the variation of properties (whether of things or of regions of space) over time. But this definition is incomplete in a number of respects. The reference to properties and time raises two important questions. The first concerns whether we need to specify further the kinds of properties which are involved in change. If we define change in an object as temporal variation of its properties we are faced with the problem that some properties of an object may alter without there being a consequent change in the object itself. The second question concerns the passage of time: does temporal variation constitute change only in virtue of some feature of time itself, namely the fact (or putative fact) that time passes?

In talking of real change therefore a consideration of time and properties is very important. Unless, there is a passage of time to which the properties of a thing X at point Y no longer remains the same at point Z, then we cannot talk of real change. There is indeed a very elastic debate for the reality of real change or not. The British idealist, McTaggart whose proposition for change is one which should not be based on alteration of truth-value of different proposition but alteration of truth-value of the same proposition. For example, the seminary resumes every October 2nd. This is a proposition. If the seminary continually resumes on this same day over time, then this does not change, only time changes. This is the real change. Real change therefore is a conception within time. I shall return to this background in my analysis of time.

Suffices to mention about change is the idea of properties. Change very often is conceived equally in the variation in properties. The properties that are in variation that warrants us to talk about change can be grouped into two: intrinsic and extrinsic properties. The intrinsic changes are those that have to do with the very being of a thing or person and it is what the thing or being is contingent on, whereas extrinsic changes are mere regulative changes like a person being fat and later grows sleek. This kind of change is only dependent on the fact that there is a person before we talk of him being fat or sleek. The change in size is dependent on the person. Change or what can be referred to as real change is the variation of intrinsic properties in time lag and space. This last parameter ‘space’ is equally important too in understanding change. All the above analyses are the philosophical understanding of change. This however is not the same way change is understood in pedestrian conception and vocabulary which very often is within its parlance change is heavily talked about. Worthy of note is that change comes either imposed or self-opted. It is imposed by circumstance, necessity or nature or one freely opts for real change based on conviction.

Against an honest background of our analyses so far, the question that poses a great difficulty hitherto will be addressed, does change itself not change? Change taken metaphorically embarks on growth which we call change. But this is not real change as the very constituents, or essentialities of its nature, what this paper has addressed as intrinsic properties are unchanging. It is precisely on this platform I hold a philosophical position that change is unchanging and as such cannot claim a monopoly to permanence. Change here so far as a metaphysical reality has an intrinsic constituent whose features are unchanging. The dogmatic cliché that the only permanent thing is change thus is no more that a humorous play upon word.

Albeit change is one thing that happens every time, real change is one thing many people would rarely want to embark on even when the movement is progressive. Take for instance death. A person who dies has experienced real change. It is only when a person dies he can usually go to heaven and be with God. If you ask whether an individual likes such an experience, rightly so he will answer in the affirmative but quite bogging is that nobody wants to die. There is thus a natural phobia for change. My probe is within the ambit: what is the cause of this? The answer is however not far fetched.

Man like lower animals is afraid to leap. This is one instinct that has not been elaborately popularized, the instinct of inner fear. One exercises fear to leap because, we do not have the real experience of where we are going into. At the moment, we attempt a leap; our rationality turns on skepticism even on the juiciest explanation on where we are attempting to leap into is a safe haven. Fear! Take for instance; Heaven. We are told is good and juicy and we cannot go there unless we die. If you ask a pocket of people if they want to go to heaven, there is an impulsive answer in the affirmative. But talk of death; our rationality turns on fear unconsciously. We thus probe, how am I sure, heaven is the better than earth. No one will not give up where he is for a better offer when he is convinced and believes in the new and greener offer.

Another reason for reluctance to change is adaptative difficulties. One may be so used to a place or style that changing is difficult merely on the merit of problem of starting all over again. The think of what they are likely to loss and so on. At the death of a person, we hear mourners often say, ‘we know you are in heaven but we shall miss your company’ or ‘we know you will miss us as we are missing you’. These are inklings of adaptative difficulties. The problem of change or fear of change is one factor that keeps limiting progress. Progress of individuals, progress of institutions, etc

Life is heavily contingent on faith. Look at virtually everything we do. Marriage, religion, politics, socialization, etc is based on faith. Where change opens up for progress, faith is its handmaid or foundation for realizing this end. For real change to occur, the individual or thing who wants to embark on it should prepare for it, must understand its prospective undertakings as well as its implications. When one has done these, sincerity demands a leap of faith. This is what brings progress. One can prepare for real change via positiva and via negative. There are certain preparations for change which is in itself is a choice for real change. Such processes culminate in the new change. Preparation thus is very important for the fruits of real change. If our penchant for sincerity can be incensed, then we need to deepen our faith, which leads to choices in real change. Faith talked about here is not exclusively a religious phenomenon but also conceived in his social understanding.

As a consequence, the million-dollar question is, does everything undergo change? Does God change? Does morality change? Does good change? These questions have been inadvertently addressed in preceding lines of this work. Real change we came to appreciate in this work take effect in time, space and must be about some intrinsic properties having variation from what they used to be. Once these things cannot be conceived in these perspectives then we cannot talk about real change in them. These particulars: God, morality, good, etc in themselves are some sorts of finality or to use a loose categorization, are ends. God cannot be conceived in space just as we have about change itself. Change thus we can say don’t occur in God. This is the background of the theology of an Unchanging God: He is the same yesterday, today and forever. This is perenniality in change. Change by this latter usage is thus in its loose sense. While God undergoes variation in extrinsic features its intrinsic constituent remains the same. This is God; an unchanging monolith. This is equally true of the Church, morality, and other primary particulars like good and so on.

In this concluding section, I wish to address what the end of change is. The end of change is growth and progress. All change is geared toward a growth or progress. It should be borne in mind that there is sometimes something called stunted growth. Stunted growth is that which is not a movement in retardation. Any growth that is retarded is a movement toward a yet-to-be-actualized end. The ultimate end of change is thus for change. Any movement or change which is not in this line is only a process toward that. Progress is ultimate for proper self-actualization, a movement to the essence, the thingness of a thing; that for which it can be called good.

Since change is aimed at progress and self-actualization then one must take a step in sincerity to embark on change more in the bid at reaching self-actualization. This change must be a movement backed by sincere conviction and empowered by faith. Change should be a forward movement and one thing a paradigm we must very often use in bringing the best out of events, things and persons. We must begin a probe, a radical probe on making change for progress in ever aspects of our living.

My humble submission is that change is the gestation of progress. Change is thus to spice for a richer human experience.


I remain,


IKHIANOSIME, Frankl

THE MORALITY OF CONDOMS: BETWEEN CONTRACEPTIVES AND CONTRA-HIV

Fr. Francis IKHIANOSIME

Since the publication of the new book-interview of Pope Benedict XVI, “Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the signs of The Times” by German Journalist Peter Seewald on November 22, 2010, the morality of condoms has become a fresher issue. This is so because; Journalists and commentators have hijacked the words of the Pope to mean a dramatic shift of the Church’s traditional teaching on the use of condoms to mean “an approval” of the use of condoms. While this is not precisely the case, it has given us the opportunity to address on the morality of condoms and reaffirm the Church’s teaching on this. The question usually would begin from the point: What is the morality of Condoms or better contraceptives? What is the Church’s teaching on the use of contraceptive and the reduction of the deadly HIV/AIDS pandemic? What did the Pope actually say lately regarding condoms?

The issue of the morality of condoms is not an isolated issue. It is discussed within the whole-frame work of the topic, contraceptives. A contraceptive is a method, device or pharmaceutical drug that prevents pregnancy. People have been using different forms of contraceptives for centuries. There are device contraceptive like the condom for men and the Intra Uterine Device (IUD) for women. There are also spermicides in the form of a jelly, tablet, suppository or foam; a diaphragm, a cervix cap which must be used with the spermicide, etc. Prescription drugs include birth control pills; injections that last for various amounts of time; a vaginal ring; a patch that is worn on the body, etc. Sterilization for men and women can be considered a contraceptive as well.

The use of contraceptive goes beyond the prevention of pregnancy. This is so because; it invites us to the question of sex, human dignity and moral principles. Again, contraceptives are no longer merely objects of birth control, wherein we talk of a marriage situation, but it now represents a misreading of the purpose of marriage and sexuality at large. Sex it must be re-emphasized is an exclusive preserve for a man and a woman who have given themselves in a lawfully and validly contracted marriage. Sex is created by God for the strengthening of intimacy in marriage and the procreation of children. Therefore, outside of marriage, sex becomes improper and both a grave sin. Within this context, sex outside of marriage thus, becomes an instrument by which an individual vainly gratifies the flesh. Nevertheless, in conformity with the Christian vision of marriage, the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion are absolutely wrong. (HV 14)

Every sexual experience is spiritual. It fulfills the dual function of being unitive and procreative. Thus every conjugal act is meant to be open; to be open to procreation and unity of the love between the spouses. Nature has so placed a rhythm such that, the periods that are procreative are limited, barely 96 hours of the 28 days in the cycle of a woman are fecund or fertile. Therefore, the periods which are fertile are meant to control birth especially when it becomes irresponsible at a particular point to procreate. The fertile days as it were, then, allows the couple generally speaking, a time to renew their desire and to save it from the dullness of sheer habit, while the infertile days gives the opportunity to couples regulating birth an avenue to spiral their love in sexual communion.

Contraception it must be established is not birth control. There are a number of ways to control birth some are morally good and others morally evil. The infertile days are the natural means of the control of birth; hence a study of this is what we call “Natural Family planning”. But there are other morally evil and wicked ways of birth control like abortion, the practice of withdrawal method in coitus (sexual intercourse) otherwise called Onanism. Contraception usually involves a choice. First, it is the choice to engage in sexual intercourse and secondly, the choice to circumvent the powers of procreation related to the generation of life. This first is upon the realization that, it is irresponsible to have sex now but I want to be selfish. So, it is the intention in the use of contraceptive that brings out the morality in it. This is precisely the case of condoms. This is why it is called contra-conception or anti-procreation. With this, therefore, condoms are negatively morally grounded. They are built on a wrong intent; one to destroy the procreative faculties; a case of why accepting coitus and at the same time denying it of full realization. It is therefore a morally irresponsible choice.

Apart from the evaluation of the choice, it is one that gives the impression that sex can go on irresponsible. It reduces sexuality to physicality and love to unbridled instinct. Contraceptive-sex debases human dignity because it reduces the individual as a sexual object or a sexual cipher. Contraceptive-sex is not built on love, but one that helps the other person to satisfy selfish ends. Again, it makes sex a game; a game of sexual adventurism and irresponsible parenthood when used within marriage. Contraceptive-sex recognizes that love-making is meant to be open but rather want to close it and render the woman to be infertile. Contraceptive-sex opens the road to marital infidelity and the collapse of morals because of the escapist attitude and means of contracepting. Here, the use of condoms as contraceptive is explainably morally evil.

Be that as it may, condom as an object in itself has a morally neutral status. It is the use that brings in the morality. If one takes a condom and puts his necklace inside, nobody has a problem with that, in which case it would be improper to call it a contraceptive but better a safe. It could be use as water balloons and does not either pose a moral threat. But once it involves a different choice with a negative intent, then the problem starts. But there is a certain sense when condom usage becomes a first step towards moralization and an action in conscience even though when it is not ultimately the solution to the problem. And it is the case of HIV/AIDS.

More practically put, in the case of discordant couples; a situation when one of the couples is HIV infected, when one of the couples uses the condom on infertile days, the choice is not to contracept but to prevent from infecting his partner with the disease while paying the marital debt. The usage of the contraceptive at such a situation is not as contraceptive but as a contra-HIV. In this situation, there is first and foremost an act of charity and also a realization that not everything goes. This step was aimed at protecting life. However, it must be noted that this is not the best solution to this problem. It was against a similar background that the Holy Father in the recent book-interview spoke which has been hijacked to mean an approval. I turn briefly to an evaluation of the words of the Holy Father.

The Pope has emphasized in the past that, we cannot solve the problem [of AIDS] by distributing condoms…” and that “the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality….” The Pope says: “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality”. Condoms refer to a wrong means to achieving a good end. This is so because the problem of Aids is beyond condoms but one first and foremost of the misuse of sex for the most, and this pandemic has had a wildfire spread by the misuse of sex by the unmarried. Common report puts the highest prevalence and vulnerability level to be between 18-25 years. To think of condoms as the moral solution would be promoting sexual promiscuity indirectly without the intent to do so. Nonetheless, in the use of condoms by either a male prostitute or a discordant couple it becomes in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality; a case of contra-HIV rather than contraceptive.

The point of emphasis is in the intention for usage. Once the intention is morally evil, then the action becomes morally evil. However, condoms do not lie the solution to the whole problem of HIV/AIDS. This understanding reflected by the Pope did not in any way give an approval for the use of Condoms as an instrument for sex, neither, did it change the traditional teaching of the Church on contraceptives or condoms. It must be noted that when the Church wants to bring out an official teaching or make a stand on something, it comes out with an official pronouncement in an Encyclical. This was not the case for the recent misrepresentation of the Pope. In any case, he gave his personal evaluation on the issue of the use of Condoms and in which he says some cases could be tending towards morality and he was never speaking ex cathedra (speaking in the authority of the Pope).

In sum, Condoms represent a wrong way of approaching our sexuality. The sure way of addressing the issue of HIV/AIDS is the gospel of ABSTINENCE for the unmarried and BE FAITHFUL if married. Condoms too, do not present any moral justification for the control of Birth as such a choice involves a moral evil.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic: A case for pastoral care for the sick

Fr. IKHIANOSIME, Frankl

I see Aids above all as only one of the symptoms of a gravely sick society: as a challenge to radical conversion, to a whole-person approach to healing, and to a compassionate relationship with the sick and those at risk. All this must, however be viewed in the larger context of other threats to human health.
-Bernard Haring

That HIV/AIDS is no less than a global health disaster is a fact that is no longer in question. The challenges that HIV and AIDS have left in many circles are those that can no longer be left to silence. The threat of AIDS is already indicative of an unhealthy society. The sufferers of AIDS apart from the trauma of having an incurable illness, society’s approach to these people have remained a question begging a redress. Society has sometimes unfairly stigmatized these people and the church where they are supposed to take solace has not adequately woken up to her responsibility to the sick. This leaves us with numerous challenges: the community challenge, the medical challenge, challenge for the family, pastoral challenges and the like. Our concern in this work is to outline the pastoral obligations HIV/AIDS pose for the Church. Thus, considered in the entire frame, pastoral care demands an approach to radical conversion of a sick-society, an approach to healing and to a compassionate relationship to victims of such.

The healing of the sick was an essential part of Jesus’ ministry. In fact, it could be said that Jesus’ ministry was purely to the sick. In healing the blind, the lame and even Jesus’ teaching of the scriptures was curing the sickness of the mind. Therefore, the Church’s apostolate apart from her evangelizing obligation, the care for the sick constitutes an essential part of her ministry. That the care for the sick is essential to the Church’s evangelizing missions is evident in the sacraments. Anointing of the sick and what is known as viaticum, were the two dimensions this mission was directed towards.

The pastoral care for the sick in earliest times was circumscribed to viaticum, that is, the administration of the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist to those who are about to die. Later development in this apostolate saw that not only those who are about to die need help alone but also generally the sick. This saw the development and renaming of this sacrament to Anointing of the sick, thereby, withdrawing it from the one-ended dimension of preparation for death. Anointing of the sick thus, came to accommodate prayers and anointing of the infirm and aged, to remit sin and to make known the prayerful solicitude of the entire Church of those beset by illness or advanced age. This sacrament which generally covers the umbrella of anointing of the sick is what pastoral care of the sick attends to now.

Pastoral care thus now accommodate all kinds of care proper to the sick, since sickness is not only limited to the bedridden alone. It is therefore the obligation of pastoral care to identify all those who are infirm within the community and first by way of counseling make them see their condition not as an isolated one which is merely by a fault of theirs but also as a way of showing the healing power of God and His grace which is still active in humanity. It also now accommodates the practical challenges of love, compassion and care which were part of Jesus’ approach to the sick. In pastoral care to the sick, Jesus elicited faith on the part of the infirmed and by that wrought miracle. Thus, pastoral care quarters also the task of eliciting faith and dispersing fear on the part of the sick, in this case, those with HIV/AIDS

In identifying the sick in the community, our attention should turn first to HIV/AIDS which is a ravaging pandemic and see how those who are infested either by ignorance or by a fault of theirs are made to see their condition as a call to a greater Christian maturity. The approach of pastoral care which is not an obligation for the clergy only but on all Christians within the body of Christ should not be an attitude to judge. The warning of Jesus is imperative here: “Judge not, that you may not be judged” (Mt 7:1). Judgment gives an impression of superiority to the judged. To judge those who have HIV/AIDS is to give a fancy that we are either of a better moral attitude or probably enjoy more of God’s grace. To judge in this or like manner is to invariably make us vulnerable to judgment. Let us speak a little more frankly, are we immune from those unhealthy attitudes which spread the unhealthiness and increase the risks inherent in unhealthy relationships? Do you think that those Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices, or those eighteen whom the tower of Siloam fell on and slew them, were worse sinners in Jerusalem? Unless you repent you shall likewise perish (Cf. Lk13:1-5).

Pastoral care demands a response of compassion on all those who are sick. Being compassionate was an essential characteristic of Jesus’ approach to the sick. Jesus in fact says: “Be compassionate as your heavenly Father is compassionate”. Being compassionate entails a respectful understanding of the situation and condition of the individual and even a patient dialogue in such a way that can awaken the inner resources for a healthy and healing relationship. Since the cause of the sickly condition may have been as a result of unhealthy relationship, there is the high propensity for the sick individual to develop a closed-up attitude to relationships and only a healthy relationship could make any medication whatsoever efficacious.

It is equally a bounden duty on pastoral care to see that people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) are integrated into parish activities to give them a sense of belongingness. This is what Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) do in what they call, ‘support groups’. The Church could invariably identify and make relevant the contributions of PLWHA meaningful within the community and make them know that, HIV/AIDS is not a death sentence but a call to be more vigilant with the conditions of one’s health. A sense of belongingness of this sort would help redress the problem of stigmatization which is commonly associated with HIV/AIDS.

The care of the sick with HIV/AIDS should similarly provoke a more active sex education programme in parish catechetical programmes. Pastors should know that a proper understanding of sex and sexuality is not the task of parents and school teachers only but also a pastoral imperative. They should evolve programmes especially among youths that would give allowance to the reordering of the active sexual instincts and the language communicated by sex. Any encounter between people of the same or different sex is communication. The sexual encounter is language: either truthful or deceptive. In casual sexual-genital activity, the user tries to speak the language of love while lying to him or herself, and to others. He uses language of belonging and of fidelity without having any such thing in mind…. Those who have not learned to bring their sexual drives under control run the immediate danger of becoming compulsive users, consumers, in the field of sexual activity. (Bernard Haring, “A call to radical conversion” in Vicky Cosstick, (ed) AIDS, Meeting the Community Challenge, St. Paul’s publication, 1987).

Pastoral care does not mean an emphasis of an AIDS ministry but a call for an organized lay ministry to the sick. In our society, once a person declares his status as HIV positive, there is often a discriminatory reaction and response to such people but if a lay ministry to the sick is in place, they can both help in the form of counseling and similarly help those who have relapsed in the faith as a result of their health conditions. This ministry should be taken with much sensitivity, compassion and maturity. The body of Christ is almost incomprehensible and new gifts and new ministries evolve with new circumstances and conditions. Once a ministry of this sort is done, there can be more healing for the body of Christ; the Church and equally too, this would help society’s response to PLWHA shift from bigotry to open-mindedness, from inequality to equality, from prejudice to fairness and also from bias to compassion.

The ministry to the sick should be reevaluated in the light of failing health conditions society is suffering. The Church must continually remain a salt to the earth and a light to the world. And so, if society fails to appreciate the sick and care for them, the Church cannot and should not fail in this responsibility. This is the new imperative that HIV/AIDS open up for pastoral care to the sick. This debt is not one that pastors owe alone but by all members of the body of Christ. For the rule of judgment remains static: when I was sick did you visit and care for me…? This duty must open its frontiers not only to those within the parish but also to those in areas where HIV/AIDS is more prevalent and vulnerable: to the prisons, the hospitals and rural communities.

THE QUESTIONS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Fr. Francis IKHIANOSIME

Two words which can certainly be said to be central to discussions on human and family life are: love and life. While life flows from love, life interprets the meaning of love. The issue of life is so central because, it is that involves the whole human person. In it, a human person is essentially defined and the question of human dignity is implied. In it too involves a number of moral issues. The question of life in human and family life begins with the discussion: where does life begin since it is argued that all human life is sacred? Again, when can someone be said to be the subject of human dignity?
Hardly is there a serious contest as to when life begins but the conflict however arises when moral issues like Abortion are in question. A large part of the scientific community as well as orthodox Christianity and more dogmatically, Catholicism, agrees that human life begins at conception. Positively, conception takes place after fertilization which usually takes place 24 hours after intercourse. So, God at fertilization breathes a living soul into the zygote and unquestionably it becomes a human person (cf Gen 2:7, 1:26). He thus becomes a subject of all human rights, even though unborn. The ground for establishing the beginning of life is because of the alarming and infectious wave of modern humanistic trends which tend to violate the unborn person as merely a tissue which could be discarded and the rights of the physical human person has been emphasized to the detriment of the unborn human person. And so, it becomes expedient to establish claims even from science to dwarf this misgiving.
A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: (1) Living things are highly organized. (2) All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. (3) All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. (4). All living things have an ability to reproduce. (5) All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.
From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. It must be stated too that that life is unquestionably human. This is because the distinguishing marks or what is called “Genetic imprint” of the human person; the DNA is already established and in fact the sex is determined. And so, that being is an individual. A person does not become an individual when he ceases to grow or born and not even death ceases the individuality of a person. This being so, life must therefore be conceived in the continuum: Before birth- birth- death- after death. So, life becomes one single garment that goes on through different phases. Personhood and individuality thus are not limited to the phases between birth and death.
Science too has established the following facts about the growth of the unborn child. Eighteen days after conception the baby’s heart is beating. During the first month the baby grows to 10,000 times its size at conception. It moves six weeks after conception though the mother does not yet feel the movements. At eight weeks, every part of the body found in an adult is already in the baby. At eleven weeks after conception the baby has finger-prints and the finger nails are growing. At twelve weeks the baby’s lips open and close. It can wrinkle its forehead, raise its eyes, turns its head, smile and frown. At sixteen weeks it reacts to sound, sucks and swallows, may get hiccups, yawns and stretches. Although moving since six weeks, at eighteen weeks the mother now feels the movements. The baby pushes with its feet and head to exercise and tone its developing muscles and also sucks its thumb. Its toenails, hair, eyebrows, fringe of eyelashes on closed eyelids are growing. At twenty weeks the baby sleeps and wakes and is fully able to hear. At twenty four weeks the baby may possibly dream and can make a fist and punch it against its mother. By twenty-five weeks the baby in the womb has the ability to hear like that of an adult and can discern the moods and attitudes of its mother

The consequent implication of this claim and fact is that the unborn child since he is also a human being, is a subject of equal rights and obligations of a viable human person and the first is that it has the right to life and the right to live. For one to destroy such life at the expense of human pride would be setting a standard for the vulnerable to be destroyed. Every human being is vulnerable at different points in life and we can enjoy the protection we may crave for and indeed help to safeguard the extinction of the human species, if we protect the vulnerable ones who depend on us for protection. To therefore maim the unborn and in fact kill it would be a case of destroying the institution of humanity at a certain level; a case of self-immolation. More so, against this back drop, any law, behavior or act that is opposed to the protection of the right of the human person is thus a counterproductive one which should not be obeyed or respected at least and should at most be condemned. This truth forbids to mothers who are pregnant whether knowingly or unknowingly to apply any such thing in the form of drug or the like; to disrupt the growth of the viable foetus. Any such act is a case of committing murder and in fact the transgressing of the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “thou shalt not kill” (cf. Exodus 20:13). Also all those who by complicity or association directly collaborate or advice the direct killing of an unborn child are guilty of the same sin and liable to the consequences of this grievous offence as killing always elicit. It is along this boarder that Capital Punishment is condemned and a law which should be abrogated from every civil penal code as a form of penalty or deterrence. This brings us to the question of death.

Just as we have no right to take away one’s life, because it is a gift, so also we cannot take another’s on any condition. The questions of life and death condition our moral options. Man does not enjoy the exclusive reserve to pass someone for death even when the person is suffering from grave irrecoverable ailing conditions. It is similarly when a person has been certified lifeless or dead can we treat it as a cadaver that it has become. If not, it becomes a grave sin and one opposed to human dignity if we treat someone who still has the breath of God in him and so recognized as “image of God” (imago Dei) with contempt or any violation that suggests such.
Death is usually conceived by modern science in three forms: traditional heart-lung failure, whole brain death and higher-brain death. Knowing when a person is no longer alive is a fundamental problem when it comes to medical situations like organ transplantation. Deciding when a person is no longer alive also has significant consequences for just what we consider a "person" to be. One can destroy life by issues which threaten the comfort of life, for example: malnutrition, carelessness, abuse, theft, hatred, discrimination. Also, our treatment of the sick and aged reflect whether we have value for life or promote the culture of death. Any desecration to life is a crime that God will bring to judgment. (Gen 9:5-6)
In sum, we must recall that God is the author of life and the protection of life is not just a respect for the dignity of the human person but also for the presence of God. In contrast, the devil is the author of death because by tempting men to sin he was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). Thus anyone who kills by whatever form professes leaning for the devil as its agent. St. John clearly states the triple-fold mission of the devil as: to steal, to kill and to destroy (John 10:10) but lo, Christ brings life and only those who are for life would protect, promote and preserve this life.