Abortion Essay Pro Life Example For Students

Abortion Essay Pro Life n Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children waspermissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were nolonger acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada alongwith most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the UnitedNations promising every human being the right to life. The World MedicalAssociation meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmostrespect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. Thisdeclaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Osloin 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individualhuman 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 ofus who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud forits own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach tolife in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using argumentsof a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science Make no Mistake that from the moment of conception, a new human lifehas been created. Only those who allow their emotional passion to overidetheir knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant ofscience, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a newhuman being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cellsthat make that human being uniquely different from any and other humanbeing 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, nutritionand a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment ofconception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents hewill look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is foreverfixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes everyperson here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will beable to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl. No, afetus is not just another part of a womens body like an appendix orappendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother. The fetus is distinct anddifferent and has its own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus heartstarted beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before themother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy thedeveloping baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a mans handbut look closely at 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 around him, hewill swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quitswallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious toall, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is ayoung human being. Who chooses life or death for this little one becauseabortion is 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 President feelabout it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact thatcannot change as feelings change. If abortion is undeniably the taking ofhuman life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just apers onal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts ofdestruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of noconcern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. ThisI cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency fordoctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborndefective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly morecommon. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is thatthose pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are differentsorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can placedifferent values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, differenthuman beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mothermeans more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all humanbeings is undeniable. I do not think th is is negotiable. It is easy to beconcerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regardingeverybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people wouldrather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disasterthan of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. Thatis why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unbornchildren than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across thestreet. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that theunborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active socialrelationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have anarbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life. I agree that thefetus has not developed its full potential as a human being: but neither haveany of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfecthumaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the paththan others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour ofabortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. Tosay that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one mustconsider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than anold man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. Asociety that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale ofcivilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is itsattitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped,the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advancedas in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, themore there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. Thefunction of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all membersso that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by anotherindividual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in whatvalue system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, its helplessintra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death. As some ofyou may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that itbecame legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 otherdoctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancyconstituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of thewomen. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted tomean very real 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 an unwantedpregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference ofopinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examinedcertain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally illbefore they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970an official statement of the World Health Organization said, Serious mentaldisorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the verywomen for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds,are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. Feminism And Gender Equality EssayBefore exploring the reality of so-called safe abortion, let me tell you a littlemethod of procuring an abortion. Before 13 weeks of pregnancy, the neck ofthe womb is dilated a comparatively easy procedure in someone who hasalready had a child much more difficult if childbirth has not occurred. Theproducts of conception 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 and either adangerous method of injection a solution into the womb is carried out, thissalting out method results in the mother going into what is really a miniaturelabour and after a period of time, expelling a very dead often skinned baby. Insome hospitals because of the danger of this procedure to the mother, anoperation like a miniature Caesarean section called a hysterotomy has to beperformed. There area also many other methods. Let us now l ook if we can,at consequences of such license to kill an individual too small to cry for itsown protection. Abortion by suction curettage is not just as simple as a pelvicexamination performed in a doctors office as Dr. Morgentaler and thetelevision programe W5 who were doing a great disservice to young womenin Canada would have us believe. In Canada as reported in the CanadianMedical Association Journal (the Statistics from Statistics Canada), thecomplication rate and this being for immediate complications of early abortionis 4.5%. According to the Wyn report with statistics from 12 counties, womenwho have a previous induced abortion have their ability to bear children in thefuture permanently impaired. There is a 5-10% increase in infertility. Thechances of these women having a pregnancy in the tube increases up to 4times. Premature delivery increases up to 50% and when one realizes thatprematurity is the commonest cause for infants being mentally or physicallydefective, having ce rebral palsy or other difficulties, then one realizes thatthose doctors doing abortions in great numbers south of the border or acrossthe water, even in Canada may not be doing the women and her family aservice. They will tell you that abortion has almost no complications. Whatmost of them will not tell you, is that once the abortion is done they mayrefuse to see the women again and that she must take her post-abortalproblems elsewhere. Those seeking repeal of the present abortion law willrapidly point out that nevertheless, it is safer to have a legal abortion thanillegal abortions, safer for the women that is. This I don not dispute, but hereis the real rub. Liberalized abortion laws do not eliminate illegal, back streetabortions and in some cases, the overall number of illegal abortions actuallyrise, usually stays stagnant, and rarely falls. There are still people who wouldrather try it themselves or go somewhere they will be completely anonymous. Another factor enters the total number of people seeking abortion, legal orillegal rises. The overall pregnancy rate rockets and people become carelesswith contraception 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 herto choose life or death for her unborn child? In aborting a 16 year old thisyear with so-called informed consent, we may be preventing her from havingeven 1 or 2 children 10 years later when happily married. No, repealing theabortion law does not make it possible for every women to safely eliminate,what is for her, an unwanted pregnancy. Would limiting abortions toaccredited hospitals make it safer? Yes, safer for the women, not for thefetus and it would jeopardize the continued well being of all of the membersof the community with the gross misuse of the medical manpower, hospitalfacilities and money. With almost 31,739 abortions performed in Ontario in1989, the cost to OHIP is about 9 million dollars. Yet to do as has been donein the U.S.A and the United Kingdom namely to make legal, abortions is toturn so-called backstreet butchers into legal operators. Patients now go intothe office through the front door instead of the rear. I have heard it said thatis abortions became available on request, many less children would be bornand we could use the pleasant delivery suites and postnatal beds forabortions. As I have pointed out, however, before today, liberalization ofabortion does not reduce the birth rate. There would be little increase inavailable facilities or indeed doctors time. By the very nature of the operationand because the longer pregnancy lasts, the more difficult it is, patients forabortions are admitted as urgent cases or emergencies so that all othermembers of the community must wait longer for their hospital bed or thesurgery they need. Who will pay for there abortions? With medicare, ofcourse, it is you and I. I know one full tern pregnancy cost s most than anabortion, but not much more. And it does not cost more than 3 abortions andthat is what happens when the climate or choice for life or death of theunborn child changes. Let us use this money for constructive purposes, notdestructive. It has been suggested that abortions on request would enable thepoor to secure abortion as easily as the rich but regrettably, it has been shownthat abortion-minded physicians in great demand will respond to the age-oldcommercial rules, as has already happened in the States and in Britain. Abortion on demand a womens right to choose not to continue an unplannedpregnancy would prevent there being unwanted children in this country, so weare told. This is the final and desperate emotional plea of people anxious, atwhatever price, to escape the responsibility for their actions. Nobody here orin Canada, wants there to be unwanted children in this city, and in thiscountry, and also 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 an embitteredadult. But few would think it right to kill or have killed an unwanted baby toprevent it from becoming an unwanted child. Then how can they think it rightto kill an unwanted fetus, even more defenceless than a newborn babe justbecause 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 itbe a parents is by a natura l death or an act of killing. Killing in any form is notthe solution to so-called unwanted human beings at any age. Hitler thoughtthis was right. Canadians surely do not. It is a permissive and frightenedsociety 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 oflife. Let us marshall all our resources financial, educational, those of socialagencies, but above all, of human concern and passion for our fellow humans. Let us by all means, make available to all, knowledge of conception andmethods of contraception. Let us offer ourselves as loving humans to those