|
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 do 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 do 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.
|
|
|
(0 vote)