n 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 u

Word Count: 4044

Related Essays on Abortion



перила для лестниц из нержавейки