 |
 |
|
|
FAQ ON ABORTION Foetus is actually the Latin word for 'young one’ or 'offspring' [1]. Clearly those who coined the word did not intend it to describe a ‘blob of cells’, which wrongly appears to be its contemporary meaning. As the reply to the question below highlights, the unborn child is much more than just a ‘blob of cells’. Women don't say "I'm going to have a foetus" or "I'm giving birth to a foetus". They say "I'm going to have a baby" or "I'm giving birth to a baby". Foetus is a word deliberately used by pro-aborts who wish to dehumanise the child to justify their actions. Q. Isn’t it just a bunch of cells? Firstly, we are all a bunch of cells. It’s just our “bunch of cells” create a recognisable form which we would call a ‘person’. The question implies that the unborn child is insignificant. But this could not be further from the truth. From the moment of conception the embryo is very significant. For example, in 2002 an embryologist from Oxford University, demonstrated that the process of shaping the human body begins at the moment of conception [2] – the point at which a sperm and an egg unite. This evidence alone shows that even from the second we were conceived, we were much more than a featureless bundle of cells. We must not lose sight of the fact that from conception we contain all the genetic material which helps to shape what we look like and who we are. At just 18 days old the heart begins to beat [3]. At just 42 days old, brain waves can be recorded [4]. At the same date, the embryo sprouts the rudiments of fingers. The vertebrae, too, are beginning to develop [5]. Between weeks 10 and 12, the stage at which most babies are aborted, there has been much progress in the development of the child. For instance, at week 10, the liver starts to secrete bile whilst the pancreas starts to produce insulin. Although the foetus only measures 2 inches and about a quarter of an ounce, his' or her's fingernails and toenails have begun to grow. The skin has thickened, and hair follicles develop beneath the surface. The foetus can also respond to stimulation. Prodded, the eyelids and palms of the hands now close [6]. Two weeks later the foetus’ uniqueness begins to assert itself. Different unborn children now make different facial expressions, based, it is believed, on behavioural patterns inherited from their parents. Within the next week, the foetus will begin to move around, although the mother cannot yet sense these movements. [6] It is evident that in the first trimester alone, the foetus is developing rapidly. In fact by the end of this primary trimester, the unborn child has developed all of its major systems and no new organs remain to be formed. Far from being a ‘featureless blob of cells’ the foetus looks every bit as real as a born child, and has developed characteristics. [7] Q. But if the foetus cannot think, surely it is not ‘human’? The response to the question largely depends on what one defines as ‘thinking’. From simply searching for the word at www.dictionary.com, one can see there are ten different definitions. However, most of the definitions include an ability to reason, to visualise or imagine, to believe in something or to judge something. All of these require a language. A child does not develop a language until some time after its born. And even between the ages of two to three, the language gained is hardly comprehensive enough to make rational decisions. By the questioner’s standards therefore, a newly born child would not be ‘human’ either. If however, the questioner implies ‘thinking’ means for the brain to be active (such as to regulate breathing) then we have already demonstrated that brainwaves are recorded as early as 42 days in the foetus [4]. This does not mean however that abortion before 42 days is acceptable since the brain is only one part of the body which helps us to function. Every part of our body is necessary for us to function and this development starts at conception. Being human is about a lot more than the ability to think. Q. But if the foetus isn't conscious then it can't be human!? Again this is a flawed argument since if someone falls unconsciousness it doesn't mean their humanity 'switches off'. The latest research suggests that consciousness isn't something which suddenly comes about anyway. Baroness Greenfield, a professor of neurology at Oxford University and the director of the Royal Institution, said there was evidence to suggest the conscious mind could develop before 24 weeks. Lady Greenfield is sceptical of philosophers and doctors who argue that consciousness is "switched on" at some point during the brain's development. She believes instead that there is a sliding scale of consciousness and that it develops gradually as neurons, or brain cells, make more and more connections with each other [8]. Q. Are you against abortion even to save the mother’s life? No-one is opposed to saving a mother's life if she is in genuine danger - e.g. in the case of ectopic pregnancy. In such a situation it cannot really be described as abortion because abortion is the deliberate ending of a human life and the intention here is to save the life of the mother. The child would normally be unlikely to survive in such a circumstance. Very rarely do operations occur to save the mother’s life. In 1999 only 1 “abortion” was performed to save the mother’s life [9] – thanks to the advancements we have made in medical science. Q. What if the mother is very young? Apart from the fact that it is wrong to take away the child’s life, abortion can be very harmful to young girls – both mentally and physically. If the young girl does not wish to look after the child herself it is common for the immediate family to lend assistance. Alternatively the child can be placed lovingly for adoption. Q. What if the pregnancy resulted from rape? Abortion does not undo the rape and it can add another horrible experience – leaving the woman feeling doubly the victim. Having an abortion is not an easy thing to go through. It is a very traumatic experience which can leave many women with ‘post-abortion trauma’ - a recognised disease. Having been raped, the last thing a victim would desire is another traumatic experience. Putting aside the unfairness of an innocent child being killed for his/her father’s crime, there is evidence that it is better psychologically for the woman if she can be helped to continue the pregnancy legitimately seeing herself as a heroine who has taken charge of the situation and protected her child. She can then, if she wishes, hand the child lovingly over for adoption – or keep the child herself. It must be noted that, due to its violent nature, rape very rarely results in pregnancy, and in such circumstances where pregnancy does occur women tend to love their child despite hating the biological father. We must also remember it is exceptionally difficult to prove whether a rape has occurred. For obvious reasons there are normally no witnesses to the rape and it can take many months, sometimes more than a year, for a case to be heard – by which time it is too late to have an abortion. In America, abortion was legalised in the Roe v Wade case where a woman claimed to have been raped. This case then led to over a million abortions every year. Fifteen years later the woman said she had lied. The case aptly demonstrates the difficulties in proving a rape took place. It is also wrong for the baby to be punished for the father's crime. Q. What if the baby is disabled? Just because a baby is disabled does not mean it does not have the right to life. Disabled babies are babies which need extra help. What message are we sending to disabled adults and people who are handicapped as a result of an accident if we claim disabled babies are sub-standard? It is very dodgy ground to suggest disabled babies ought not to have the same rights as “normal” babies. Disabled people are not inferior to “healthy” people. They have the same human value as anyone else. There are many disabled people who have contributed greatly to mankind. If we killed all disabled unborn children, we would be deprived of their expertise that has helped to make the world what it is today. Increasingly eugenics is present in our society. Disabled unborn children may be aborted up to birth, whereas “normal” fetuses may be aborted up to 24 weeks. There is also screening in IVF which involves the removal of “inferior” embryos. This is desperately wrong and little different to the eugenics practicised under Nazi Germany. Q. Won’t a disabled baby lead an unhappy life? No-one can judge whether any person will lead an unhappy life. There are plenty of disabled people who have contributed greatly to all areas of life. “Quality of life” arguments should be, but are sadly not, extremely controversial. Such proponents tend to believe some lives are not worth living. Yet just because severely disabled people cannot experience life to the same extent that "healthy" people do, it does not mean their lives are pointless or meaningless. Moreover how do we know there is not a cure just around the corner? 40-50 years ago diabetes was considered to be an extremely serious and life-threatening disease...its no longer considered to be as serious. People who support the termination of a disabled fetus’ life are nothing short of discriminatory. Q. If the baby is unwanted it is likely to be abused. Isn’t it unfair to let it come into the world? Putting aside the unfairness of an innocent child being killed, this is making an unjust judgement over the baby’s life before it has even begun! The baby could well be the next prime minister or could find a cure for cancer. It is also making an unjust judgement over the fitness of the parents. Although the pregnancy might have been unexpected, once over the initial shock, they may grow to love the child. In short, an unwanted pregnancy does not result in an unwanted birth or child. There are only a small minority of children who are sadly abused. Yet with the right help the child could be taken into care or the parents could receive counselling. Conversely there are wanted children who are then abused. A professor from South Carolina University in America found that 91% of children who had been abused had been a wanted pregnancy. This highlights the difficulties in reading into the future! [10] No baby is universally unwanted. Even if the parents feel that they cannot look after the child, there will be some parents who would want to adopt the child. Moreover, when the child grows up he/she will develop friends and relationships. It would be wrong to therefore make a sweeping judgement about the future of a child before they have even been born. Q. But hasn’t the 1967 abortion act meant less children are being abused? No. For whatever reason, more children are actually being abused. For example, in England and Wales, the number of children on child protection registers who were taking part in NSPCC register research more than doubled between 1983 and 1987. [11] This happened despite abortion figures increasing from 127,000 per year to 157,000 per year in the same period.[12] Some may suggest from this that increasing child abuse is a result of legalising abortion. This is because abortion does not encourage respect for children and turns children into commodities. Being pro-life is not about being against women’s rights. After all, women still retain the right to consent to sex and to use non-abortifacient contraception. It is not a woman’s right, however, to kill her unborn child since this infringes on the child’s right to life. The right to life takes precedence over all other alleged ‘rights’ since without it all other rights are meaningless. Feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft were/are opposed to abortion yet, they could never be described as being anti-woman. Check out Feminists for Life for a feminist viewpoint on abortion. Q. It’s a woman’s body. Shouldn’t she be allowed to do whatever she likes? The baby is feeding from and is growing inside the mother, but this does not mean the baby is owned by the mother. No human can be owned by another human. To talk about ownership of people is to advocate slavery. Besides to say that people can do whatever they like to their bodies is a dangerous philosophy. This would mean we should not step in when someone is attempting to commit suicide. Similarly it would mean we should not lure people away from dangerous drugs. Q. Isn't post-abortion syndrome a myth? Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a recognised disease. In fact, the pro-abortion company Planned Parenthood estimates that 91% of all women suffer some degree of trauma after an abortion. [13] In December 2001 the American Senate passed an amendment recognising the existence of PAS and imploring the National Institute of Health to expand research into the area. Q. If abortion is illegal, won’t women die from botched back street abortions? Pro-lifers are just as much against illegal abortions as we are against legal ones. Even if illegal abortions do exist, it does not justify legalising abortion. This question is based on the inaccurate assumption that legal abortion has helped to save women’s lives. But legal abortion has also killed women – even in the sanitised clinics of England and America. What women would really wish to risk their own life to have a back street abortion when they could give birth and give their child up for adoption? Pro-abortionists have frequently over-exaggerated or completely fabricated their figures for the numbers killed from back street abortions. Dr Bernard Nathanson, joint founder of NARAL in the US (National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws) initially claimed that 'backstreet abortion' was killing over 10,000 American women every year. [14] However, Dr Nathanson later changed admitted in his autobiography that this statistic had been a complete fabrication; the true figure was about 200. [15] In the UK before the 1967 Abortion Act there were no more than 30 deaths a year from illegal abortion. [16] The fact that statistics in the past have been fictitious has led pro-abortionists to drop completely the argument that back street abortions occur. Instead they now claim women have to travel to different countries to have abortions. They then cite the suffering they go through to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to have an abortion. Again there is little evidence supporting this on a grand scale. If women are traveling to obtain abortions, then the government should do more to help these women who clearly feel abortion is the only way to solve their problem. Q. Why should you force your views upon me? No-one is forced to accept our views. The significance of a foetus’ life is not a personal belief, it is a scientific fact. We are therefore not forcing our view but rather we are stating scientific thought – that life begins at conception and is a significant form of life. If it is wrong to kill born humans, why should it not be wrong to kill unborn humans just because we cannot see them? If anyone is forcing their views on others than it is those carrying out abortions and terminating the child's life. Q. Isn't the belief that life begins at conception just a religious view? Not at all. Almost every major medical authority defines fertilisation as the beginning of human life [17]. There are a number of organisations and individuals who are atheist/agnostic and yet hold pro-life convictions. At the time of writing (2003) there are members of the Student LifeNet committee whose pro-life views aren't influenced by religion. As evidence, visit Atheists & Agnostics for Life and Libertarians for Life Q. Aren't pro-lifers known for being violent? Contrary to myth, there has never been any violence caused by pro-lifers in the UK. There have been violent acts in America. But these are performed by fringe figures who inevitably exist in most civil rights movements. All mainstream groups in America are peaceful. Q. Isn't pro-life counselling biased? Most pro-life counsellors are trained volunteers who by definition have no financial interest. On the other hand, much supposedly 'non-directional' counselling is undertaken by abortion groups such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes who have financial interests. Every mother who chooses to keep her baby represents a lost of between £300 - £700 (the price of an abortion). Whilst both Marie Stopes and the BPAS are registered charities, staff wages and expenditure on political programmes depends on the income the groups generate. No-one
can force a woman to keep her baby; she will ultimately make her
decision independently. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that
pro-life counselling is biased or directional. [1]
- ""fetus" is the Latin word for "young one"
or "off-spring" (Try: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Latin/)
|
|||||||
