undefined
Abortion has become the most emotional political and religious issue of the century. The arguments that are in support of abortion have been put forth by the media with such force that many Americans have never heard the arguments for life. The fact that every year more than 1.5 million children are murdered by means of abortion proves that it is a topic about which many are not aware. Supporters of the pro-life position adamantly believe and fight for the fact that abortion should be made illegal because it kills human babies, and harms the mother-sometimes risking her life.
Many advocates of abortion say that it should be legal because the baby is not really a human being deserving legal protection. The argument follows that even if the unborn baby is fully human he does not have the right to occupy the mother's body without prior consent. They believe that because a woman has a right to control her own body, she therefore has the right to have an abortion for any reason she desires. On the surface, this argument sounds convincing. This is why so many people, especially young adults, argue for the pro-abortion position. In examining the statement more thoroughly it becomes apparent as to why this stand is not correct. The first problem is that even in other United States laws, individuals do not have an unlimited right to do what they want with their bodies. For example, drug abuse and prostitution are against the law and those who are caught doing either have committed crimes. This example proves not only the inconsistency of the American government but also helps to show why arguing in favor of abortion from this standpoint is wrong. If it is illegal for an individual to do certain acts with his body, then it is wrong to argue that a woman has complete control over her body in regard to abortion. This is also a bad argument because although the baby is inside the mother's body, the baby is not part of the mother's body. The unborn baby is a genetically distinct entity with unique gender, blood type, bone structure, and genetic code (Willke p. 33-43).When pro-abortionists say that the unborn baby is part of the mother they are actually implying that the mother has four hands, four eyes, and four legs.
Ironically, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the original leaders of the pro-abortion movement and co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League), admitted that he and other members of the pro-abortion position intentionally lied about facts concerning abortion. He has since become pro-life and is now determined to win over the situation he initially helped to create. He has since been quoted as saying, Immunological studies have demonstrated beyond cavil that when a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of the uterus at the eighth day following conception the defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white blood cells, sense that this creature now settling down . . . is an intruder, an alien, and must be expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy . . . and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn child succeeds in repelling the attack . . . Even in the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way, knows how to recognize self from nonself (p.150).
On a scientific scale this argument weighs heavier than the counter argument. On the logical scale this argument destroys the idea that the unborn baby is part of the mother's body. Therefore, one of the most popular arguments for keeping abortion legal has been proven invalid through both science and logic. The pro-abortionists argue that if abortions were declared illegal then many women would die from receiving "back-alley" abortions. This statement can be disproved factually and logically. where are no documented statistics supporting the popular claim that thousands of women died from illegal abortion complications before the federal legalization of abortion. Additionally, there are abundant documented statistics that the number of maternal deaths did not change significantly from before to after Roe v. Wade. From a logical perspective, this argument fails in several ways. First, it assumes that aborted babies are not human fatalities, ignoring the fact that all abortions kill babies, whether the abortions are legal or illegal; or cause maternal death or not. Second, it assumes that the total number of abortions will remain the same even if abortion is criminalized. It is far more likely that the number of maternal deaths would decrease because most women would not go against the law. By making abortion illegal it would also deter many women from using it as a means of birth control. If abortion were made illegal the millions of babies, who would otherwise be murdered mercilessly under government law, would now have a chance at life.
Another argument used by those who are for keeping abortion legal, is that the preborn child cannot feel pain anyway and so the mother should be allowed to do as she wishes. Vincent J. Collins, MD, a professor of anesthesiology and the author of one of the leading medical texts on the control of pain writes, "Certain neurological structures are necessary to pain sensation: pain receptive nerve cells, neutral pathways, and the thalamus." These neurological structures are significantly developed at eight weeks after conception and are in full use by thirteen weeks. By this time there is no question that the preborn baby has the ability to experience pain. Logically this argument would not justify abortion just because hypothetically the baby does not experience pain. To be consistent with such an argument would mean that the murder of someone who is on morphine and thus cannot experience pain should be acceptable. Since the evidence shows that pain can be felt by the unborn baby the argument is proven invalid. In fact, the pain is excruciating to the child. There are six main types of abortion, each involving procedures against the living baby such as sucking the baby out pieces at a time, cutting the baby to pieces with a knife or an instrument that looks much like pliers, and even partially delivering the live baby and allowing it to die by neglect or being directly killed by the doctor or nurse. Therefore, these merciless, grotesque, and senseless acts of murder are undeniably experienced by the baby.
Another popular stance as to why abortion should remain legal is in cases of rape and incest. No one would deny that if a woman were the victim of either rape or incest that she has suffered a terrible crime. If the woman gets pregnant as a result of that act does she have a right to kill the baby? Does killing the baby make a positive solution to a horrific circumstance? First, pregnancy through rape or incest is very rare. Only 0.6 percent of the rape cases result in pregnancy. Second, even if the hideous violation were to result in pregnancy, logically it does not make sense to murder the child for a crime that his father committed. Just because the perpetrator was evil in his actions does not make the result of his actions, the child, evil. In an already disgusting situation it makes absolutely no sense to kill an innocent child because the means by which he was created were detestable.
Forgetting for a moment what an abortion does to the baby, what does it do to the mother? What are the long term effects? Before a woman is pregnant, her breasts cannot produce milk, as the gland cells are immature and underdeveloped. When she becomes pregnant, estrogen and other hormones flood her system. This results in rapid growth in size, while the internal structure undergoes dramatic change. Cells, previously dormant, rapidly grow into a system of branching ducts and gland cells capable of producing milk. Once this growth, change and maturing is complete, there is no further significant change the rest of her life. Once mature, the chance of the breast developing cancer is much less. When these cells are changing and transitional, they are less stable and have much greater potential of becoming cancerous. If she completes her first pregnancy, this unstable period passes and her gland cells mature and stabilize. But if she interrupts her pregnancy, in its early phase, and 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, she in effect stops the development of the cells at this unstable, transitional phase. It seems apparent that cancerous changes can and do occur more frequently among these transitional cells of a woman who has terminated her pregnancy. If she aborts more than once before completing a pregnancy, her chance for cancer increases even more. A subsequent full term pregnancy helps, but sadly never removes the sharply increased threat of cancer. There are 1,600,000 abortions each year, 56% are first abortions, 44% second or more [US Figures]. One woman in ten will develop breast cancer, and 25% of them will die (Harris JR 327:319-328). Women who carry their first baby to term cut their chance for breast cancer almost in half. Women who abort their first pregnancy almost double their chance. With 2 or more abortions, there is a 3-4 fold increase. For Instance: a 15 year old American girl has a 10% lifetime risk of breast cancer. If she gets pregnant in her teens and has the baby she reduces her risk to 7.5%. However, if she has an abortion, her risk rises to 15% (assuming she has at least one child in her 20's). If the abortion sterilizes her and/or for other reasons, she never has another pregnancy, her risk rises to 30.4% (Parazzini F 48:816-20).
And that’s just one issue. Women suffer emotionally from having an abortion as well. The common psychological impacts of abortion upon women include preoccupation with the death of the unborn child: 81%, unwanted flashbacks of the abortion: 73%, feelings of 'craziness' after the abortion: 69%, nightmares related to the abortion: 54%, received visitations from the aborted child: 35%, uncontrollable hallucinations related to the abortion: 23% (Speckhard). The woman could experience what is know as re-experience, where the he abortion is re-experienced in the following ways: recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the abortion; recurrent distressing dreams of the abortion or of the unborn child (e.g., dreams or fantasies about newborn babies or fetuses); sudden acting or feeling as if the abortion were recurring (including reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative (flashback) episodes including upon awakening or when intoxicated); intense psychological distress at exposure to events that symbolize or resemble the abortion experience (e.g., clinics, pregnant mothers, subsequent pregnancies); and/or anniversary reactions of intense grieving and/or depression on subsequent anniversary dates of the abortion or on the projected due date of the aborted child. She could also experience avoidance, which is persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the abortion trauma or numbing of responsiveness (not present before the abortion), as indicated by at least three of the following: efforts to avoid/deny thoughts or feelings associated with abortion; efforts to avoid activities, situations, or information that might arouse memories of the abortion; inability to recall the abortion experience or an important aspect of the abortion (psychogenic amnesia); markedly diminished interest in significant activities; feeling of detachment of estrangement from others; withdrawal in relationships and/or reduced communication; restricted range of affection, e.g., unable to have loving feelings; and/or a sense of foreshortened future, e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a long life. Or she may experience associated features, in which persistent symptoms (not present before abortion) occur, as indicated by at least two of the following: difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep; irritability or outbursts of anger; difficulty concentrating; hypervigilance; exaggerated startle response to intrusive recollections or re-experiencing of the abortion trauma; physiologic reactivity upon exposure to events or situations that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the abortion (e.g., breaking out in a profuse sweat upon a pelvic examination, or hearing vacuum pump sounds); depression and suicide ideation; guilt about surviving when one's unborn child did not; self-devaluation and/or an inability to forgive one's self; and/or secondary substance abuse. With all that happens to the mother alone, it seems as though abortion is actually more of a hindrance than a help in the long run.
One of the biggest reasons that the pro-abortion stance is favored is that those who are speaking about it are lying and those who are listening are ignorant. Those who are of the pro-life position are not against choice, they are against murder. Yes, a woman does have the right to make her own decisions, but no, the woman does not have the right to kill her child because it will ruin her career or change her life in an unpleasant way. It is hard to understand why a society as advanced and intelligent as America could even for a second fathom condoning the murder of innocent, defenseless children. Then again, Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany murdered millions of innocent people on the same grounds. The result is genocide.
Brown, David MD. Washington Post September 17, p.E-1
Canady, Charles and Rick Santorum, "Compromise Just Continues Abortion Lies", Los Angeles Times 04 March 1997, Home Edition, p. B-7
Forum on Abortion: sponsored by PLAGAL, May 21, 1994, Washington, DC
Gillespie, Dr. Clark. Your Pregnancy Month by Month. New York: HarperPerennial, 1992, p. 3-89
Harris JR., Lippman ME, Veronesi U. 1992 New England J. Med. 327:319-328.
Somerville, Scott, Esq. Before You Choose. AIM Publications, 1993, p. 54
Nathanson, Bernard. The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality. New York: Frederick Fell, 1983, p.15
--. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday, 1979, p.3
Parazzini F, La Vecchia C. 1991 Int. J. Cancer. 48:816-20.
Speckhard, Anne. Psycho-Social Stress Following Abortion. Kansas City, Missouri: Sheed and Ward, 1987.
Willke, Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Abortion Question and Answers. Ohio: Hayes Publishing, 1985
-, J.C. MD. The Deadly After-Effect of Abortion: Breast Cancer, Hayes Publishing, 1993
