FREE ESSAY ON ABORTION

ABORTION

Abortion
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.