PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE MISSISSIPPI
"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." Original Hippocratic oath, circa 400 B.C.
Physicians For Life Mississippi is a chapter of Pro-Life Mississippi. All the physicians listed on this page have commited to NEITHER perform abortions NOR refer for abortions by signing The Pledge.
Physicians For Life Mississippi Mission Statement
- Section 1. to compile a list of physicians in the state of Mississippi who are convinced that an abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and who will neither perform an abortion nor refer for an abortion. ...Read More
- Section 2. to inform the public of member physicians in their community who share their Pro-Life values and will not kill preborn babies or refer for abortions.
- Section 3. to educate the public on the humanity and viability of the preborn child.
- Section 4. to help start local chapters that will begin to accomplish the mission in their local community.
- Section 5. to encourage alternative, more compassionate means of caring for women in crisis pregnancies than killing their preborn babies.
- Section 6. said organization is a chapter of Pro-Life Mississippi which is an organization of diverse and caring Christians who are drawn together by their commitment to the sanctity of human life from fertilization to natural death. PLM is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization as delineated in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.
- Mississippi Physicians for Life is opposed to any form of birth control that allows fertilization to take place but destroys that new life by blocking implantation (the "morning after pill" and the IUD) or by starving it by damaging placental function (RU486). The problem of conventional birth control pills, which according to the package insert can act by blocking implantation but also act by (usually) blocking ovulation and by thickening cervical mucus (a barrier method), we leave to the conscience of the physician. Barrier methods and natural family planning methods (Billings, Sympto-Thermal Method) are acceptable. ...Read More
- We believe that all men/women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these is the Right to Life...
- We believe that human life begins at the moment of conception and has the right to develop and exist to its fullest potential until the moment of natural death...
- We believe that it is ethically and morally wrong to destroy innocent human life from the moment of conception, because this devalues all human life...
- We believe that fetal life should not be terminated except in very rare instances when the mother's life is in imminent danger; even then, the physician should do everything possible to save both of his patients ~ mother and child...
- We believe that our purpose as healthcare providers is to protect the life and health of all our patients...
- We believe that we must be advocates for our preborn patients and speak out on their behalf to protect their right to life...
- We believe that accurate, scientific information regarding prenatal life is vital to the person making an abortion decision, and such information can be best delivered by medical professionals such as physicians and nurses...
- We believe that women have the right to know all the medical facts regarding the gestational development of the preborn child, abortion techniques, and possible physical and psychological complications of abortion in order to make an informed decision...
- We believe in and encourage efforts to counsel and inform pregnant women regarding constructive alternatives to abortion...
- We believe that only as the youth of our nation are taught the truth about sexual abstinence and the sanctity of human life — as well as the deception of "safe sex", abortion, and euthanasia — will a permanent behavior change occur in our society...
- We believe that without the Right to Life, no other rights have any merit.
When Does Life Begin?
How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?
A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology"1 gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
- Living things are highly organized.
- All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
- All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
- All living things have an ability to reproduce.
- 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....Read More
Medical science already refers to a spontaneous heart rhythm and the presence of brain waves to determine whether someone is alive at the other end of the spectrum of human existence. In simplistic terms, if an organ donor is in an automobile accident and is on life support in a hospital, the physician cannot "pull the plug" and donate the patient's organs to others unless the patient is "brain dead" and his heart is not beating on its own. If the medical community maintained consistency with this generally accepted medical definition of human life, then we would condemn every abortion after the time when the average woman discovers she is pregnant. Every abortion, by the generally accepted standards of medical science, kills an innocent human life.
Are There Rare Cases When an Abortion Is Justified?
"What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?"
This excuse for allowing abortion sounds reasonable. If the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life, it would seem that lethal force —an abortion —would be a permissible form of self-defense. The child is not really "attacking" the mother, but his presence puts her at risk. It sounds like a good argument, but it simply isn’t true.
Hundreds of doctors have a signed a statement that puts the situation in perspective. The statement reads, "There is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn child’s life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either."2
A tubal (or ectopic) pregnancy, for instance, can indeed be life-threatening. But the treatment, even if it is fatal to the child, is not a "procured abortion." The doctor wants to save the baby, but knows that is virtually impossible. The baby’s death is an unintended consequence of the physician’s effort to save the mother. Indeed, if the physician did nothing and the mother died, her unborn child would die also. There are similar cases involving the treatment of cancer in which the baby’s death can be an unintended consequence. But again, these are medical treatments, not abortions.
It is important to distinguish between direct abortion, which is the intentional and willed destruction of a preborn child, and a legitimate treatment a pregnant mother may choose to save her life. Operations that are performed to save the life of the mother-such as the removal of a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy that pose the threat of imminent death-are considered indirect abortions.
They are justified under a concept called the "principle of double effect." Under this principle, the death of the child is an unintended consequence of an operation independently justified by the necessity of saving the mother’s life.
Essentially, both mother and child should be treated as patients. A doctor should try to protect both. However, in the course of treating a woman, if her child dies, that is not a deleberate abortion.
"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother."
-Alan Guttmacher, former Planned Parenthood president "There are no conceivable clinical situations today where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. In fact, if her health is threatened and an abortion is performed, the abortion increases risks the mother will incur regarding her health."
-Dr. Bernard Nathanson, American Bioethics Advisory Commission There is only one purpose for abortion —to deleberately end the life of the child. The "life of the mother" situation for abortion is simply bogus.