Abortion: Life Or Death ? Who Chooses? Essay, Research Paper

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.