08/31/2006 Bishop Robert Vasa

BEND — The area in which I now live, besides having an abundance of junipers, has a variety of noxious weeds as well as what I presume are wildflowers.

I have decided to try to eliminate gradually the noxious weeds and to propagate the wildflowers. I also need to obtain a suitable Oregon book of wildflowers to assure that I do not mistakenly propagate noxious weeds and uproot desirable flowers. I have collected a few samples of ripe seeds from a couple of the flowers, but it was then that I realized how little I really knew about flowers. For starters, I do not know if any of these are annuals or perennials. I hope they are perennials, but I really do not know.

I also realized that I do not know much about how and when they germinate, when they grow or how best to assure that a greater abundance of them is found in the spring of next year. For example, the seeds seem to want to stay bunched up and collected in the seed head of the flower. Is it beneficial to break those seed heads apart and scatter the seeds now to keep birds from consuming them or does this cause the seeds to germinate late in the fall and then die a frosty death in the winter?

If I collect the seeds, as I plan and intend to do, do I scatter them on the first warm day of spring, do I wait until the start of summer or is the winter freeze somehow essential to their growth cycle? I will certainly find the answers to these questions either in the proper books or by trial and error. In some ways, I am embarrassed that I have remained so ignorant about the planting of flowers and only now realize how little I really know about the details of the process. I am, quite honestly, intrigued by the prospect of a significant field of wildflowers and I look forward to the process of ongoing discovery.

I admit my ignorance about flowers in part because I have had, once again, to refresh my knowledge and understanding of the human generative processes. My lack of specific knowledge or rather my failure to retain what I have learned in the past required that I go back and refresh my memory. Like most people I do know and understand the basic biology. Conception is the union of ovum and sperm. This meeting of ovum and sperm takes place in the fallopian tube where conception occurs.

Other things may not be as clear. What is the life span of the ovum? What is the lifespan of sperm? How long does it take the sperm to travel to the fallopian tubes after sexual union? How long does it take for the newly created human being to travel down the fallopian tube to the uterus where implantation is to take place? At what point is the woman “pregnant”? At what point is she the custodian of newly conceived life?

It is these last two questions which have been cleverly and perhaps even deceitfully, concealed in the use of the word “contraceptive.” This is apparently done because of a fear that any admission that there could be an abortive effect would cause qualms of conscience among those who seem to shrug their shoulders at contraception, understood as preventing conception, but still cringe at the thought of abortion. The latest FDA-approved “contraceptive,” Plan B, is described as different from RU-486, the abortion drug.

According to newspaper accounts, “like ‘The Pill,’ it generally acts by preventing ovulation or fertilization, according to the agency. Plan B may in rare circumstances prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted — something abortion opponents decry. But regular oral contraceptives would prevent implantation in the same way.” The article concludes: “RU-486, on the other hand, causes a woman to miscarry a well-established pregnancy.” Thus the necessity of being very clear about what constitutes “being pregnant.”

In reading articles such as this, we as Catholics need to be very much aware of the subtle deceptions. Notice how the “contraceptive” effect of Plan B is presumed to include the prevention of the implantation of the newly created human life. This is done because the definition of conception has been altered to include implantation.

Therefore, in the rhetoric of these scientists, conception is no longer the union of egg and sperm but rather that event five to 10 days later when the tiny baby finds its gestational home. Interestingly the rationale used to sell the acceptability of this early abortion to the general public, very likely including many Catholics, is that “regular oral contraceptives would prevent implantation in the same way.”

After years and years of denying that oral contraceptives may, however rarely, prevent implantation of a newly conceived child, this fact is now admitted as a way to help assure the acceptability of Plan B. In other words, if you have accepted oral contraceptives then you have no reason to contend with Plan B.

Notice the additional qualification added to the term pregnancy when the article turns to RU-486. There they describe a “well-established” pregnancy. This implies a recognition that there is such a thing as a pregnancy which is not yet “established,” not yet known to the mother, not yet provable, not yet implanted. These pregnancies are terminated by the Pill and by Plan B, but since the definition of conception has been changed, these terminations are included in the broadened general classification of contraception.

I want to be clear. The fact that Plan B is admittedly abortifacient certainly is reason to oppose it as gravely immoral, but this is not the only reason. Even if it were entirely properly contraceptive, it would still be morally objectionable because of the intrinsically evil nature of contraception.

I may not know how to grow these wildflowers, but I do know that my respect for them will preclude soaking them in Round-Up. I know that I cannot have them reach their proper potential if I spray them with pre-emergent or if I uproot them as soon as they germinate.

The human life, even the pre-implanted life, already growing in the body of a mother is precious and even sacred and needs to be respected. According to the latest scientific definition such a woman may not be “pregnant,” but there is new life within her.