Wednesday, May 6, 2020
In Roman Times, Abortion And The Destruction Of Unwanted Essay Example For Students
In Roman Times, Abortion And The Destruction Of Unwanted Essay children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seemsthat such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, sothat in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signeda declaration of the United Nations promising every human being theright to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at thesame time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to befrom the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed whenthe World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we gobackwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishfulthinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to smallto cry aloud for its own protection, have been accused of having a19th 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 anincontrovertible fact of biological science Make no Mistake thatfrom the moment of conception, a new human life has been created. Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide theirknowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorantof science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum anew human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in itscells that make that human being uniquely different from any and otherhuman being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the greathuman family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an oldman, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determinedat that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or agirl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he willhave. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell thedifference between a man and a women, will be able to look at thefetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl. No, a fetus is not just another part of a womens body like anappendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tinyfeel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother. The fetus is distinct and different and has its own heartbeat. Do you know that the fetus heart started beating just 18 daysafter a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew shewas pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is justsmall enough to be help in the palm of a mans hand but look closelyat this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all hissystems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, heexcretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water aroundhim, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bittersolution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like thetaste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyesbut deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being. Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortionis the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however muchof the members of the Womens Liberation Movement, the new Feminists,Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association Presidentfeel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. Anincontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change. If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yetsincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matterbetween a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open tothem. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction ofhuman beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concernof society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. ThisI cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although thetendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and nottreat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, isbecoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the onlyconclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of theabortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beingsand that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different valueson the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beingshave different values to each of us as individuals: my moth er meansmore to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all humanbeings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy tobe concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, whileregarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in theHonduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving aclose friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are lessdisturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by thepersonal problems of a pregnant women across the street. Torationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that theunborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no activesocial relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others whohave an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life. I agree that the fetus has not developed its full potentialas a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us havereached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, doesnot give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion,assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To saythat a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that onemust consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of lessvalue than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still becivilized and human. A society that does not protect its individualmembers is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of themeasures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towardsits weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, thementally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not asadvanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature thesociety is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights ofall human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is toprotect and provide for all members so that no individual or group ofindividuals can be victimized by another individual group. Everymember of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system isadopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, its helpless intra-uterinemembers; a vital stake in who chooses life or death. As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws werechanged in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform anabortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospitaldeemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threatto the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat tohealth was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean veryreal medical disease to anything that interferes with even social oreconomic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thusqualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of anunwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is adifference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased,prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) Thehealth of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, isnot improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement ofthe World Health Organization said, Serious mental disorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women forwhom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds,are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatricdisorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwantedpregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeksfor the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whetherthey were aborted or carried through to term. The motivation behind the september 11th attacks EssayBefore 13 weeks of pregnancy, the neck of the womb is dilated acomparatively easy procedure in someone who has already had a child much more difficult if childbirth has not occurred. The products ofconception in many hospitals are removed but a suction apparatus considered safe and better that the curettal scraping method. After 13weeks pregnancy, the fetus is too big to be removed in this was andeither a dangerous method of injection a solution into the womb iscarried out, this salting out method results in the mother goinginto what is really a miniature labour and after a period of time,expelling a very dead often skinned baby. In some hospitals because ofthe danger of this procedure to the mother, an operation like aminiature 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 tokill an individual too small to cry for its own protection. Abortionby suction curettage is not just as simple as a pelvic examinationperformed in a doctors office as Dr. Morgentaler and the televisionprograme W5 who were doing a great disservice to young women in Canadawould have us believe. In Canada as reported in the Canadian MedicalAssociation Journal (the Statistics from Statistics Canada), thecomplication rate and this being for immediate complications of earlyabortion is 4.5%. According to the Wyn report with statistics from 12counties, women who have a previous induced abortion have theirability to bear children in the future permanently impaired. There isa 5-10% increase in infertility. The chances of these women having apregnancy in the tube increases up to 4 times. Premature deliveryincreases up to 50% and when one realizes that prematurity is thecommonest cause for infants being mentally or physically defective ,having cerebral palsy or other difficulties, then one realizes thatthose doctors doing abortions in great numbers south of the border oracross the water, even in Canada may not be doing the women and herfamily a service. They will tell you that abortion has almost nocomplications. What most of them will not tell you, is that once theabortion is done they may refuse to see the women again and that shemust take her post-abortal problems elsewhere. Those seeking repeal of the present abortion law will rapidlypoint out that nevertheless, it is safer to have a legal abortion thanillegal abortions, safer for the women that is. This I do not dispute,but here is the real rub. Liberalized abortion laws do not eliminateillegal, back street abortions and in some cases, the overall numberof illegal abortions actually rise, usually stays stagnant, and rarelyfalls. There are still people who would rather try it themselves or gosomewhere they will be completely anonymous. Another factor enters thetotal number of people seeking abortion, legal or illegal rises. Theoverall pregnancy rate rockets and people become careless withcontraception and a women can have 3 or 4 abortions during the time ofone full term pregnancy. Are doctors really being kind to the girl to allow her tochoose life or death for her unborn child? In aborting a 16 year oldthis year with so-called informed consent, we may be preventing herfrom having even 1 or 2 children 10 years later when happily married. No, repealing the abortion law does not make it possible for everywomen to safely eliminate, what is for her, an unwanted pregnancy. Would limiting abortions to accredited hospitals make itsafer? Yes, safer for the women, not for the fetus and it wouldjeopardize the continued well being of all of the members of thecommunity with the gross misuse of the medical manpower, hospitalfacilities and money. With almost 31,739 abortions performed inOntario in 1989, the cost to OHIP is about 9 million dollars. Yet todo as has been done in the U.S.A and the United Kingdom namely tomake legal, abortions is to turn so-called backstreet butchers intolegal operators. Patients now go into the office through the front door insteadof the rear. I have heard it said that is abortions became availableon request, many less children would be born and we could use thepleasant delivery suites and postnatal beds for abortions. As I havepointed out, however, before today, liberalization of abortion doesnot reduce the birth rate. There would be little increase in availablefacilities or indeed doctors time. By the very nature of theoperation and because the longer pregnancy lasts, the more difficultit is, patients for abortions are admitted as urgent cases oremergencies so that all other members of the community must waitlonger for their hospital bed or the surgery they need. Who will pay for there abortions? With medicare, of course, itis you and I. I know one full tern pregnancy costs most than anabortion, but not much more. And it does not cost more than 3abortions and that is what happens when the climate or choice for lifeor death of the unborn child changes. Let us use this money forconstructive purposes, not destructive. It has been suggested thatabortions on request would enable the poor to secure abortion aseasily as the rich but regrettably, it has been shown thatabortion-minded physicians in great demand will respond to the age-oldcommercial rules, as has already happened in the States and inBritain. Abortion on demand a womens right to choose not to continuean unplanned pregnancy would prevent there being unwanted children inthis country, so we are told. This is the final and desperateemotional plea of people anxious, at whatever price, to escape theresponsibility for their actions. Nobody here or in Canada, wantsthere to be unwanted children in this city, and in this country, andalso in this world. There is nothing more pitiable or heat rendingthat an unwanted fetus becoming an unwanted babe or an unwanted babebecoming an unwanted child, or an unwanted child becoming anembittered adult. But few would think it right to kill or have killedan unwanted baby to prevent it from becoming an unwanted child. Thenhow can they think it right to kill an unwanted fetus, even moredefenceless than a newborn babe just because it may grow into anunwanted child. Once a women has conceived, she already is a parent, be itwilling or otherwise. The only way she ceases it be a parents is bya natural death or an act of killing. Killing in any form is not thesolution to so-called unwanted human beings at any age. Hitler thoughtthis was right. Canadians surely do not. It is a permissive andfrightened society that does not develop the expertise to controlpopulation, civil disorder, crime, poverty, even its own sexuality butyet would mount an uncontrolled, repeat uncontrolled, destructiveattack on the defenceless, very beginnings of life. Let us marshallall our resources financial, educational, those of social agencies,but above all, of human concern and passion for our fellow humans. Letus by all means, make available to all, knowledge of conception andmethods of contraception. Let us offer ourselves as loving humans tothose already in this country who are unwanted by their naturalparents. And incidentally, I am sure I do not need acquaint you withso me of the facts about so-called unwanted children. The ChildrensAid Societies in Toronto and in fact in every major city across ourcountry have many more potential parents anxious and willing to adoptinfants and young children than they have such children available foradoption. Let us marshall our technology and humanity in the serviceof the unfortunate.