Life Or Death, Abortion` 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.