|
|
|
 
Abortion: Life or Death Who Chooses?
In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children
was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such
acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948,
Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of
the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The
World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that
the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception.
This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in
Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an
individual human being?
The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful
thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this.
Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to
cry aloud for it's own protection, have been accused of having a 19th
Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in
reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible
fact of biological science - Make no Mistake - that from the moment of
conception, a new human life has been created.
Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their
knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of
science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human
being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that
make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being
and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family.
All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time,
nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment
of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his
parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole
heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception
and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man
and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a
baby boy or a girl.
No, a fetus is not just another part of a women's body like an
appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel
belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.
The fetus is distinct and different and has it's own heart beat.
Do you know that the fetus' heart started beating just 18 days after a new
life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By
3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help
in the palm of a man's hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus.
All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps
a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet
solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the
taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he
does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those
who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human
being.
Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is
the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the
members of the Women's Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry
Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it,
does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that
cannot change as feelings change.
If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere
misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a
women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That
they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as
infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore,
eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the
thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the
selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a
necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2)
But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those
pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different
sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place
different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different
human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my
mother means more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all
human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy
to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while
regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most
people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras
flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or
favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter
of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a
pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard,
they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human
life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be
disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the
value of a human life.
I agree that the fetus has not developed it's full potential as a
human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached
that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of
us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the
right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have
that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has
less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less
value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely
one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that
does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of
civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society,
is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the
handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society
is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more
mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and
rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to
protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of
individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of
Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards
its weak, aged, cripple, it's helpless intra-uterine members; a vital
stake in who chooses life or death.
As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed
in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if
a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that
continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and
health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined
and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to
anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that
any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the
truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a
womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but
if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious.
(1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant,
is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of
the World Health Organization said, "Serious mental disorders arise more
often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom
legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the
ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2)
Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a
temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are
mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried
through to term.
Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary,
emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases
where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early
in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who
have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women
what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant
psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L.
Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney's Office, "I believe it
can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt,
depression and mental illness than it ever cures".
We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who
threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real
is that risk - it is not - in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women
be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among
non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was
done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused.
It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that
average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14
maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately
pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of
women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from
suicide directly following the abortion.
Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a
doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher,
one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: "Almost
any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from
cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life
much less save it."
As an opponent to abortion, I will readily agree, as will all
those who are against abortion, that pregnancy resulting from rape or
incest is a tragedy. Rape is a detestable crime, but no sane reasoning can
place the slightest blame on the unborn child it might produce. Incest is,
if that is possible, even worse, but for centuries, traditional Jewish law
has clearly stated, that if a father sins against his daughter (incest)
that does not justify a second crime - the abortion of the product of that
sin. The act of rape or incest is the major emotional physical trauma to
the young girl or women. Should we compound the psychic scar already
inflicted on the mother by her having the guilt of destroying a living
being which was at least half her own? Throughout history, pregnant women
who for one crime or another were sentenced to death, were given a stay of
execution until after the delivery of the child: it being the contention
of courts that one could not punish the innocent child for the crime of
the mother. Can we punish it for a crime against the mother?
If rape occurred the victim should immediately report the incident.
If this is done, early reporting of the crime will provide greater
opportunity for apprehension and conviction of the rapist, for treatment
of venereal disease and prevention of pregnancy. Let is give our children
good sex education; and let us get tough on pornography, clean up the
newstands, literature and "Adult Movies" and television programmes which
encourage crime, abusive drugs and make mockery of morality and good
behaviour and therefore, contribute to rape.
By some peculiar trick of adult logic, proponents of abortion talk
about fetal indications for act. Whatever abortion may do for the mother,
it so very obviously cannot be therapeutic for the fetus. Death is hardly
a constructive therapy. As Dr. Hellegers of John Hopkins Hospital says,
"While it is easy to feel that abortion is being performed for the sake of
the fetus, honesty requires us to recognize that we perform it for adults".
There is no evidence to indicate that an infant with congenital or birth
defect would rather not be born since he cannot be consulted. This
evidence might exist if suicides were common among people with congenital
handicaps. However, to the contrary, these seem to value life, since the
incidence of suicide is less than that of the general population. Can we
choose death for another while life is all we ourselves know? Methods are
being developed to diagnose certain defects in the infants of mothers at
risk before the infant is born. The fluid around the fetus can be sampled
and tested in a very complicated fashion. If we kill infants with
confidential defects before they are born, why not after birth, why not
any human being we declare defective? It is no surprise of course for many
of us to learn that in hospitals across North American Continent such
decisions affecting the newborn and the very elderly or those with
incurable disease, are being made. What is a defect, what is a congenital
defect? Hitler considered being 1/4 Jewish was a congenital defect
incompatible with the right to life. Perhaps you have all heard this story
:
One doctor saying to another doctor, "About the termination of a
pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic (venereal
disease). The mother tuberculous (small lumps on skin). Of the four
children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf
and dumb, the fourth also tuberculous. What would you have done?" "I
would have ended the pregnancy". "Then you would have murdered Beethoven".
Not content with the Abortion Act of 1969 which allows 40,000
unborn children to be killed legally in our country in 1973, many noisy
and emotional people are campaigning for abortion on request. They are
aided by a crusading, misguided press and media which continues to utter
as fact, the fiction of fertile imaginative minds. We have been told by
the media that the majority of Canadians wish to have abortion legalized
but the latest census taken by the Toronto Star in March of 1989 reports
that 35% of those polled thought that abortion was already easy to obtain,
26% thought it too hard, 19% about right and 21% had no opinion. Men more
then women thought it too hard. Even if the majority did want it, this
does not make it right. Centuries ago, most Americans thought slavery was
right. The elected leaders of this country must have the wisdom and
integrity for what is right, not for what might be politically opportune.
One of the uttered justifications for abortion on demand is that
every women should have the mastership of her own body, but should she? To
quote Dr. Edwin Connow, "Should she have the right for what is really
judicial execution of new life - not a cat, not a chicken but a human
being - not only potential but actual". In a society one is not totally
free to do what one will with one's own body (we don't have the right to
get drunk or high on drugs and drive down Young Street.) The great concern
has been shown for the innocent victims of highjacking but what is
abortion but this? The highjacking without reprieve, of an innocent
passenger out of his mother's womb. Should we really leave the right to
hijack as a personal decision only?
Those campaigning for further liberalization of the abortion law,
hope to make abortion available and safe for all who wish it during a
pregnancy. Qualifications have been placed on the abortion on demand
routine by other groups, for example, a time limit for the duration of
pregnancy or clause that the operation be performed in an accredited
hospital. Before exploring the reality of so-called safe abortion, let me
tell you a little method of procuring an abortion. Before 13 weeks of
pregnancy, the neck of the womb is dilated - a comparatively easy
procedure in someone who has already had a child - much more difficult if
childbirth has not occurred. The products of conception in many hospitals
are removed but a suction apparatus - considered safe and better that the
curettal scraping method. After 13 weeks pregnancy, the fetus is too big
to be removed in this was and either a dangerous method of injection a
solution into the womb is carried out, this salting out method results in
the mother going into what is really a miniature labour and after a period
of time, expelling a very dead often skinned baby. In some hospitals
because of the danger of this procedure to the mother, an operation like a
miniature Caesarean section called a hysterotomy has to be performed.
There area also many other methods.
Let us now look if we can, at consequences of such license to kill
an individual too small to cry for it's own protection.
Abortion by suction curettage is not just as simple as a pelvic
examination performed in a doctor's office as Dr. Morgentaler and the
television programe W5 who were doing a great disservice to young women in
Canada would have us believe. In Canada as reported in the Canadian
Medical Association Journal (the Statistics from Statistics Canada), the
complication rate and this being for immediate complications of early
abortion is 4.5%. According to the Wyn report with statistics from 12
counties, women who have a previous induced abortion have their ability to
bear children in the future permanently impaired. There is a 5-10%
increase in infertility. The chances of these women having a pregnancy in
the tube increases up to 4 times. Premature delivery increases up to 50%
and when one realizes that prematurity is the commonest cause for infants
being mentally or physically defective, having cerebral palsy or other
difficulties, then one realizes that those doctors doing abortions in
great numbers south of the border or across the water, even in Canada may
not be doing the women and her family a service. They will tell you that
abortion has almost no complications. What most of them will not tell you,
is that once the abortion is done they may refuse to see the women again
and that she must take her post-abortal problems elsewhere.
Those seeking repeal of the present abortion law will rapidly
point out that nevertheless, it is safer to have a legal abortion than
illegal abortions, safer for the women that is. This I don not dispute,
but here is the real rub. Liberalized abortion laws do not eliminate
illegal, back street abortions and in some cases, the overall number of
illegal abortions actually rise, usually stays stagnant, and rarely falls.
There are still people who would rather try it themselves or go somewhere
they will be completely anonymous. Another factor enters the total number
of people seeking abortion, legal or illegal rises. The overall pregnancy
rate rockets and people become careless with contraception and a women can
have 3 or 4 abortions during the time of one full term pregnancy.
Are doctors really being kind to the girl to allow her to choose
life or death for her unborn child? In aborting a 16 year old this year
with so-called informed consent, we may be preventing her from having even
1 or 2 children 10 years later when happily married. No, repealing the
abortion law does not make it possible for every women to safely eliminate,
what is for her, an unwanted pregnancy.
Would limiting abortions to accredited hospitals make it safer?
Yes, safer for the women, not for the fetus and it would jeopardize the
continued well being of all of the members of the community with the gross
misuse of the medical manpower, hospital facilities and money. With almost
31,739 abortions performed in Ontario in 1989, the cost to OHIP is about 9
million dollars. Yet to do as has been done in the U.S.A and the United
Kingdom - namely to make legal, abortions is to turn so-called 'backstreet
butchers' into legal operators.
Patients now go into the office through the front door instead of
the rear. I have heard it said that is abortions became available on
request, many less children would be born and we could use the pleasant
delivery suites and postnatal beds for abortions. As I have pointed out,
however, before today, liberalization of abortion does not reduce the
birth rate. There would be little increase in available facilities or
indeed doctor's time. By the very nature of the operation and because the
longer pregnancy lasts, the more difficult it is, patients for abortions
are admitted as urgent cases or emergencies so that all other members of
the community must wait longer for their hospital bed or the surgery they
need.
Who will pay for there abortions? With medicare, of course, it is
you and I. I know one full tern pregnancy costs most than an abortion, but
not much more. And it does not cost more than 3 abortions and that is what
happens when the climate or choice for life or death of the unborn child
changes. Let us use this money for constructive purposes, not destructive.
It has been suggested that abortions on request would enable the poor to
secure abortion as easily as the rich but regrettably, it has been shown
that abortion-minded physicians in great demand will respond to the age-
old commercial rules, as has already happened in the States and in Britain.
Abortion on demand a women's right to choose not to continue an
unplanned pregnancy would prevent there being unwanted children in this
country, so we are told. This is the final and desperate emotional plea of
people anxious, at whatever price, to escape the responsibility for their
actions. Nobody here or in Canada, wants there to be unwanted children in
this city, and in this country, and also in this world. There is nothing
more pitiable or heat rending that an unwanted fetus becoming an unwanted
babe or an unwanted babe becoming an unwanted child, or an unwanted child
becoming an embittered adult. But few would think it right to kill or have
killed an unwanted baby to prevent it from becoming an unwanted child.
Then how can they think it right to kill an unwanted fetus, even more
defenceless than a newborn babe just because it may grow into an unwanted
child.
Once a women has conceived, she already is a parent, be it willing
or otherwise. The only way she ceases it be a parents is by a natural
death or an act of killing. Killing in any form is not the solution to so-
called unwanted human beings at any age. Hitler thought this was right.
Canadians surely do not. It is a permissive and frightened society that
does not develop the expertise to control population, civil disorder,
crime, poverty, even its own sexuality but yet would mount an uncontrolled,
repeat uncontrolled, destructive attack on the defenceless, very
beginnings of life. Let us marshall all our resources financial,
educational, those of social agencies, but above all, of human concern and
passion for our fellow humans. Let us by all means, make available to all,
knowledge of conception and methods of contraception. Let us offer
ourselves as loving humans to those already in this country who are
unwanted by their natural parents. And incidentally, I am sure I don not
need acquaint you with some of the facts about so-called unwanted children.
The Children's Aid Societies in Toronto and in fact in every major city
across our country have many more potential parents anxious and willing to
adopt infants and young children than they have such children available
for adoption. Let us marshall our technology and humanity in the service
of the unfortunate. And in conclusion, I would like to read to you a
letter which a member of Birthright received.
Dear Birthright:
I heard about your work in Birthright and think you can help us.
We're in our late 20's and have been married 7 years. After 3 years of
waiting, we became the happy adoptive parents of a precious baby girl last
fall.
This is how you can help us. Please tell every unwed mother who
places her baby for adoption how much we love her. We think each of those
girls are the most generous, charitable, kind devoted and loving mothers
on this earth. We know she must have carried her child out of love or in
this day and age should have found some way to have an abortion. We can
never thank her enough for the 9 months of time and energy she spent for
us.
Maybe if she knows that we think she's the most loving person in
this world we will never know, it will help us both.
As Jenny grows older, we are telling her she has two sets of
parents. We'll tell her how she came to be our child this way. Her first
mommy didn't have a home or a daddy to help love and care for her. She
loved her so much that she just couldn't let her daughter grow up without
love of two parents and all the things that make a happy home. We'll tell
Jenny that her 1st mommy thinks of her often and wonders how she is. She
will always love her baby.
Maybe our thoughts will someday reach Jenny's 1st mommy. What she
did was an act of faith in mankind, hope for her daughter's future and
love toward us. We think the strength of her love enabled her to place her
precious baby with us. We have faith that as Jenny grows up learning she
was placed out of love and not abandoned by her 1st mommy, both Jenny and
she will be at peace.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL FEATURED ESSAYS
Teenage Abortion
Abortion in the United States is a highly debated topic. People disagree not only with the legal aspect of abortion, but
How Richard Selzer Is A Philos
How is Selzez a Philosopher, as well as, a Doctor? Abortion is a tremendous issue in our society today. As well as the a
Abortion: Roe V. Wade
Abortion has always been an extremely controversial issue. There are, and will probably always be many different views c
Analysis Of An Essay On Aborti
How is Selzez a Philosopher, as well as, a Doctor? Abortion is a tremendous issue in our society today. As well as the a
Abortion A Moral Choice Or Leg
islative Decision Should it be a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion? Who ought to decide if abortions shou
|
|
|
|
