Abortion Numbers & Stats

June 23rd, 2010

—– Original Message —–
From: Action Life
To: letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 1:22 PM
Subject: letter Robert Riordan – June 11, 2010 – People show biases by using numbers wrongly.

Robert Riordan disputes previous letter writer David Morse’s statement that there has been a tenfold increase in the rate of abortions in Canada since 1970. He takes Mr. Morse to task for using the word rate rather than numbers. The statistics clearly show a tenfold increase in the numbers of induced abortions performed on Canadian women from 1970 to the present. However, Mr. Riordan’s claim that the number of abortions became reasonably stable within a few years after 1970 doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Using data from Statistics Canada, we find 11,152 abortions in 1970 with the numbers increasing almost yearly and reaching a high of 111,709 abortions for the year 1997. These are the numbers that Mr. Riordan calls reasonably stable! From 1998 to 2004, the abortion numbers did decline slightly but continued at over 100,000 a year, from 110,331 abortions in 1998 to 100,039 abortions in 2004.

If we examine the rate of induced abortions per 100 live births, we also find a tenfold increase. Statistics Canada reported the rate of induced abortions per 100 live births was 3.0 in 1970 and 31.0 per 100 live births in 2003.

The statistics for the year 2006 showing 91,377 abortions for the country seem to indicate a decline but data are missing. As Statistics Canada cautions the reader, abortion clinics in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Manitoba did not submit their numbers. Additionally, the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimates that as of the data year 2000, “the Therapeutic Abortion Survey database represents approximately 90% of all abortions performed in Canada on Canadian residents.” At the very least, the abortion numbers hover at 100,000 annually.

This letter to the editor was published on Saturday June 19.

A fetus IS a person

June 18th, 2010

From: Action Life
To: letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 2:15 PM
Subject: A Fetus is not a person – may 03, 2010

Professor Mercer acknowledges that abortion kills a human being but advances it must be allowed because the fetus is not a person. He defines a person as one who is “richly aware of its environment, and full of beliefs and desires, a self-aware locus of experience”. He writes that “most likely, in the fullness of time”, the fetus will become a person. When exactly does this happen? Newborn babies are not full of beliefs, desires, or self-aware locuses of experience. May we kill them too? If other human beings are lacking in beliefs, desires and are not richly aware of their environment, may we kill them also? Today, an unborn child is considered a non-person while in the womb, but this same human being once delivered transforms into a person. Yet this human being has not changed: only his or her place of residence has changed. One minute before birth, a non-person, the next, a person.

It is not beliefs or desires or self-awareness that makes us persons. We are persons at all times because we are human. Abortion doesn’t kill potential persons, it kills actual persons. The fetus, the child in the womb is a person as is every human being because it is human. It is that simple. The life of the fetus should not depend on meeting some arbitrary qualifications of personhood set by others.

Louise Harbour
Executive Director
Action Life Ottawa
309-376 Churchill Avenue North
suite 309
Ottawa, On

The Future Disapponts

June 18th, 2010

From: Action Life
To: letters@thecitizen.canwest.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 4:06 PM
Subject: The future disappoints – December 9th

If Robert Sawyer would consider the numerous succesful treatments achieved as a result of adult stem cell research, he could put his disappointment aside. His narrow focus on embryonic stem cell research is the reason he is still waiting for the promise of stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of a living human embryo has yet to produce a single beneficial treatment in a human patient. On the other hand, adult stem cell research does not involve the destruction of human embryos as the stem cells can be obtained from the patient’s own body tissues, bone marrow and from placenta, amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood.

Adult stem cell research has resulted in beneficial therapies in patients with scleroderma, cancer, sickle cell anemia, stroke,lupus, multiple sclerosis and many others. In Ottawa, therapies using adult stem cells have helped some patients with multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis and Crohn’s disease. Around the world, adult stem cell research has provided many success stories and offered hope to patients without destroying human embryos.

Louise Harbour
Executive Director
Action Life Ottawa
309-376 Churchill Avenue North
Ottawa, Ontario
work: 613-798-4494
613-723-0557

Q&A with Louise Harbour on Euthanasia

June 26th, 2009
Question 1:  How long have you been working for Action Life?
 
I have worked for Action Life for 11 years and have been a member for 22 years.
 
Question 2:  Do you see euthanasia being legalized any time soon in Canada?
 
It is our hope that with education campaigns Canadians will reject euthanasia. There is a threat on the horizon with Bloc Québecois member of Parliament Francine Lalonde having introduced a bill to legalize assisted suicide for the third time. The two previous attempts failed when the bills died on the order table because elections were called. Canadians need to be informed about the dangers of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. Ms. Lalonde presemted her bill yesterday. We are concerned about the possibility of this becoming law.
 
Question 3: Would you say euthanasia is morally wrong? Why or why not?
 
Yes, euthanasia is morally wrong. Why? Because euthanasia is killing. It is intentionally causing the death of another human being. Euthanasia is the abandonment of the vulnerable. As for the law, it makes a moral statement.  It says that we will not accept certain acts and it exists to protect the vulnerable. The prohibition against euthanasia in the Criminal Code is there because it considers euthanasia as homicide.
 
Question 4: Does a person have the right to take his or her own life? Why or why not?
 
Suicide is a cry for help. It is an expression of depression, of despair. We do not prosecute individuals who attempt suicide because society has recognized that suicide is a cry for help. Istead we offer assistance to enable the person to overcome his or her problems.
 
Now as concerns assisted suicide and euthanasia: In any other circumstance if a person said, he or she wanted to end  his or her life, would you help the person to kill herself/fhimself or would you help the person to live? The caring response would be to help the person to live, to tell her that he/she matters to you, that his or her life has meaning. Assisted suicide is a criminal offence in Canada. It entails someone providing the means for a person to kill themselves. It can be a physician providing a prescription for lethal drugs  (physician assisted suicide) or another individual counseling or providing the means for someone to kill himsel/herself. Again, the law against assisted suicide is there to protect the vulnerable. Euthanasia also involves a second party. It involves a physician administering a lethal injection or withholding or withdrawing of treatment with the intention to cause death. It involves the physician in an act of killing. Euthanasia alters the role of the physician from one of healing to one of killing. The legalization of euthanasia would adversely affect the patient / doctor relationship. This would undermine the trust which patients put in their physicians. In 2000, the British medical Association said in a statement concerning the doctor patient relationship that if euthanasia were legalized patients will have to wonder whether…”the physician coming into my hospital room is wearing the white coat of the healer or the black hood of the executioner.”
 
There really is no such thing as the right to take your own life or the right to die.

 

Question 5: What treatment should Canadian health care develop as opposed to euthanasia?
 
The emphasis should be placed on providing excellent end of life care. Palliative care and hospice care should be available to all Canadians who need it. The late Dame Cecily Saunders of the United Kingdom founded hospice/palliative care in the late 1960′s. She came up with the concept of total care. ELC she called it. It stands for Efficient Loving Care. This method of cares involves looking after the physical, spiritual, emotional needs of a patient. Saunders said in an interview: “I realized that we needed not only better pain control but better overall care. I coined the term ‘total pain’ from my understanding that dying people have physical, spiritual, psychological and social pain that must be treated.” Her philosophy and methods of care have spread all around the world.
More funds should be directed towards palliative care in Canada to increase access to these services. 
 
Question 6: Does Action Life lobby the government to improve palliative care?
 
Since Action Life is not a political organization, it does not lobby governments. we do not engage in political work. We have however presented or sent briefs to government committees on issues that are of concern to us as an educational pro-life group. We can educate and inform through a brief or letter about palliative care or the experience of euthanasia in the Netherlands or send research materials about life issues.
 
Question 7: Is euthanasia a cop-out to avoid paying high medical fees for palliative care? If so why do you think it is becoming more prevalent in our culture?
 
One of the dangers of legalizing euthanasia is that it can be used to ration health care. It is much cheaper to kill a patient than to provide care.   Dr. Colleen Clements, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Rochester, N. Y. State wrote in the Medical Post – June 20, 1989: “It would be foolish to think that assisted suicide or direct killing of patients would not be abused  for a cost containment agenda. Even withholding or withdrawing of treatment is subject to abuse, and there is clinical evidence to point out to current routine abuse…No, the medical profession should not promote as routine or as policy or as medical ethics, the passive or active killing of a patient. The risk to the chronically sick or terminally ill is just too great. It is a realistic risk not a slippery slope fallacy. We can actually demonstrate the probabilities and the actuality of its happening.”
 
It is more prevalent in our culture because of our diminished respect for human life. If a society accepts killing before birth by abortion, it will accept killing after birth by assisted suicide and euthanasia. The acceptance of abortion has devalued our very humanity. Some lives are viewed as disposable. Dr. Karel Gunning, a Dutch physician says: “Once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution.”
 
In our western world, life is no longer regarded as sacred. The legalization of euthanasia is a threat to the lives of the disabled, the chronically ill and the terminally ill. When euthanasia is suggested to a patient by a physician or family member, the patient may well take this suggestion to heart. He may receive the message from the physician or family member that we think you would be better off dead.
 
Question 8: How long has euthanasia been one of the issues that Action Life deals with? How old is Action Life?
 
Action has been educating on the issue of euthanasia for many years. Pro-life people warned that if we allowed abortion, in time calls to legalize euthanasia would follow.
Action Life was founded in 1971 and incorporated in 1976.
 
Question 9: Should euthanasia be considered as a medical treatment?
 
No because killing should never be considered medical treatment. The prohibition against euthanasia exists in law because it is regarded as homicide. Euthanasia is about allowing physicians to kill their patients. Euthanasia once legalized can never be effectively controlled. Voluntary euthanasia always leads to non-voluntary euthanasia, where the physician kills the patient without the patient’s consent. 
 
The experience in the Netherland reveals that euthanasia cannot be controlled. In fact, thousands of patients over the years have been killed without their consent. Further the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands has expanded from euthanasia of the terminally ill to, the chronically ill, to the depressed to handicapped children. Adolescents may also access assisted suicide and euthanasia.
 
Question 10: Why do you think the Netherlands legalized euthanasia before anyone else?
 
Professor Ian Dowbiggin, chair of the History Department at the University of Prince Edward Island in his book A concise history of Life, Death, God and Medicine offers this explanation:”The Netherlands, like other countries was hard hit by the cultural revolution of the 1960s. But no western nation embraced the counterculture attack on long standing norms more than the Dutch. Even the medical profession was swept along by this current. In the words of one Dutch physician, traditional ethics collapsed in almost every area including the medical community. Almost overnight the Dutch adopted the idea that as long as people are going to use drugs, visit bordellos, and conceive babies out of wedlock, the government should regulate these behaviours rather than condemn them. The same thinking applied to euthanasia.”  
Physicians were breaking the law against euthanasia.
 
It has also been observed that Holland has lost its faith, that most of its churches now stand empty.
 
Question 11: What do you think is a major reason that people consider euthanasia a possibility?
 
I think fear of pain and the fear of being a burden. Some may have seen loved ones suffer due to poor pain management and fear  a similar situation. Other cite the loss of enjoyment of life as a result of illness. For euthanasia advocates, it is about autonomy. In fact euthanasia is not about autonomy.it is a mere illusion since guidelines are broken and patients are killed without thier consent.  
 
Question 12: Are there any curent legal proceedings that Action Life is aware of in Canada regarding euthanasia?
 
There are at present no cases before the courst regarding euthanasia. As mentioned earlier, Bloc Québecois member Francine laonde ontroduced her bill in the House of Commons yesterday.
 
Question 13: What is the first thing or event you think when you hear euthanasia in the context of Canada? (events, model cases,etc.)
 
When I hear the word euthanasia, my thoughts turn to the dangers of legalizing the practice of euthanasia. It is a very real threat to vulnerable individuals; the disabled, the chronically ill, the terminally ill, the depressed. It is about abandonning individuals when they most require our love and our help. Better access to good medical care is what is needed not killing.
 
We can do better than offer killing under the guise of compassion and medical treatment. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are false compassion.
 
 
 

Questions About Stem Cell Research

June 26th, 2009
  • 1. Why is stem cell research so controversial?

Embryonic stem cell research is the cause of the controversy.  Why, because it involves the destruction of a human life.  The removal of the stem cells from a living human embryo causes the death of the embryo. This is why embryonic stem cell research is considered morally and ethically objectionable by some. There is however no moral objections to adult stem cell research or cord blood cell research.

  • 2. What is the difference between adult and embryonic stem cells?

Adult stem cells exist in our own body and provide a natural repair mechanism for many tissues of the body. It is entirely acceptable to take stem cells from a patient’s body for his own use to treat his or her disease.  Adult stem cells are found in various tissues and organs of the body such as fat, bone marrow, skin, brain, dental pulp, muscle, etc.  Patients who receive their own stem cells in transplantation will not experience immune rejection.

Embryonic stem cell research on the other hand involves the killing of a living human embryo. Embryonic stem cells have not achieved one beneficial treatment in human patients to date. Embryonic stem cells are difficult to control and can develop into the wrong type of cells. For instance, implanted embryonic stem cells have turned into bone or skin and other tissues when researchers had hoped they would turn into brain cells.  They have a tendency to tumour formation. Patients receiving embryonic stem cells would likely have to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of their lives.

  • 3. What are stem cells being used for right now?

Adult stem cells have been providing beneficial treatments in human patients for many years. Other ethical sources of stem cells like stem cells from umbilical cord blood after the birth of a baby are already being used in treatment.

Adult stem cells have helped heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, stroke patients and many other illnesses.  At the website www.stemcellresearch.org, you will find a list of 73 medical conditions where patients have been helped by a clinical trial or treatment using adult or cord blood stem cells.

 Go online  and read about Jennifer Molson, a patient with multiple sclerosis who was treated with adult stem cells by Dr. Harry Atkins of the Ottawa Health Research Institute.  A success story right here in Ottawa.

 Another patient, Anne Scott suffering with myasthenia gravis was treated with adult stem cells by Dr. Harry Atkins of the Ottawa health Research Institute and her disease is now in remission.

(Ottawa Sun, November 5, 2006)

Patrizia Durante was diagnosed with leukemia while pregnant. Her baby was delivered two months ahead of time so they could treat Patrizia with higher doses of chemotherapy. Patrizia became severely ill while waiting for a bone marrow transplant after her daughter’s birth in 2001.

Her oncologist Dr. Laneuville decided to transplant the stem cells from her daughter’s umbilical cord blood into Patrizia’s body. Mrs. Durante’s treatment with her daughter’s cord blood cells resulted in her cancer going into remission. ( Montreal)

Dennis turner, a patient with Parkinson’s disease underwent treatment with adult stem cells (10 years ago). This treatment allowed Mr. Turner to enjoy five good years with a marked improvement in his condition. His symptoms went into remission for four or five years. He was not however cured and his condition has now continued to deteriorate. Mr. Turner would be willing to undergo treatment with adult stem cells again to slow the progression of his disease.

Patients with type 1 diabetes have also been helped by adult stem cells as have other patients.

  • 4. What can stem cell research potentially lead to?

Adult stem cell research holds great potential to help patients and provide successful treatments for diseases. The website www.stemcellresearch.org   has a fact sheet listing the 73 conditions for which adult stem cell treatments or clinical trials have helped human patients. Adult stem cell research offers great promise for further therapeutic benefits.

Embryonic stem cell research has not so far helped a single human patient.

  • 5. What are the obstacles that must be overcome before the potential uses of stem cells in therapy will be realized?

More clinical trials are needed using adult or cord blood stem cells. More funding should be directed toward adult stem cell research which is morally and ethically acceptable. As for obstacles, adult stem cells are said to be less flexible and may be more difficult to reprogram to form other tissue types.  They can sometimes be difficult to obtain in large numbers.

The obstacles with embryonic stem cells have already been mentioned in answer to question 2.

  • 6. Why don’t we just study adult stem cells, if they aren’t as controversial?

There is much hype surrounding embryonic stem cell research. We are told it holds the key to cures for many diseases in spite of having delivered nothing so far to help human patients.  Some scientists and others are not opposed to the destruction of living human embryos for research purposes. Dr. Jack Wilke of the Life Issues Institute offers the following as an explanation to why some are pushing embryonic stem cell research when the successes have come from adult stem cells; “For scientists, the unknown is a challenge, a horizon that needs to be explored. They want to boldly go where no man has gone before. Whether or not palatable results seem reasonably obtainable is irrelevant.  Exploring the unknown is a goal in itself. They are however faced with the obvious fact that private money will not subsidize such questionable investigations. This is why there is tremendous pressure from scientists, the liberal media and, very clearly a powerful and well-financed biotech industry to appropriate tax money for such research.”

There is much confusion surrounding stem cell research among the public. When they hear media reports concerning breakthroughs or successful treatments with stem cells, they assume or think of embryonic stem cells. They know very little about the differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. 

We should remember the principle that the end doesn’t justify the means.

  • 7. Have any diseases been cured with either embryonic or adult stem cells in humans?

As mentioned previously, adult stem cells have helped many patients. Embryonic stem cells have not helped a single human patient. 

  • 8. Are stem cells safe or effective?

There are many difficulties to overcome with embryonic stem cell research. One being that the cells are difficult to control, the other being their capacity to forms tumours. Such risks are not present with adult stem cell treatments. Remember that any type of treatment or surgery carries certain risks.

I would like to point out that you once were an embryo. Causing the death of one living human at the embryonic stage to potentially help another devalues and commodifies human life.

Again, the end doesn’t justify the means.

The Euphemism of Assisted Suicide

June 25th, 2009

Euthanasia and assisted suicide advocates claim that the legalization of these practices is about choice and autonomy. However safeguards to protect patients against euthanasia have not worked in the Netherlands where the practice is legal as the evidence gathered over the years has shown that many patients are killed by euthanasia without their consent.   So much for choice and autonomy!  

As for Oregon where assisted suicide is legal, there is cause for concern as well.  In times of rising health care costs, providing lethal drugs for assisted suicide is much cheaper than caring for patients. An Oregon newspaper reported in 2008 that the Oregon Heath Plan refused to pay for cancer treatments for some patients but offered to pay for assisted suicide or comfort care instead.  As one patient Barbara Wagner stated “To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die but not for you to live is cruel. I get angry. Who do they think they are?” Thankfully her oncologist contacted the pharmaceutical company who agreed to supply her with the medication at no cost for a year.  To legalize euthanasia and PAS would put immense pressure on the chronically or terminally ill, the disabled and those suffering emotional or psychological distress.  

Euphemisms such as “physician assisted dying”, choice in dying, right to die cloak the harsh reality of what’s really at stake in the debate.   Euthanasia and assisted suicide must be rejected because killing and helping someone to kill themselves should never be a solution or considered medical treatment. 

By Louise Habour

Originally posted in the Ottawa Citizen

Abortion Myths. It’s time for the facts to be known…

February 13th, 2009
 

Myth: Abortion is basically a private matter.

Fact: Not really. Abortion involves more than a woman and her doctor. Even more directly and intimately involved is a third human being: the mother’s unborn child; the doctor’s unborn patient. And the father? Presently, he has no say in the fate of his offspring.

Abortion has broad consequences for the whole of society. How can one pretend that the very acceptance of the large scale killing of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings through abortion does not foster the creation of a psychological climate favourable to the development of other forms of violence which are becoming a characteristic trait of our times (child abuse, infanticide and physician-assisted death)? The most current statistics record the deaths of 103,768 preborn Canadian babies by induced abortion (2003).

Myth: Every woman should have the right to control her own body.

Fact: Yes, but only her own body, not that of her child who, while developing inside her body, is completely distinct from it, the only organic link between the two being the umbilical cord. Any remaining doubts about the separate identities of the pregnant woman and her child have been put to rest with the advent of in-vitro fertilization procedures, in which the earliest stages of the new life take place outside the mother’s body and by the use of amniocentesis, a procedure which tests for possible anomalies of the developing baby – not of the mother.

Williams Obstetrics, 16th. Edition 1980, a standard obstetrics textbook in medical schools throughout North America, states: “Happily, we have entered an era in which the fetus can be rightfully considered and treated as our second patient…Who would have dreamed, even a few years ago, that we could serve the fetus as physician?”

Any person’s rights are limited by the rights of others. A woman’s proclaimed right to control her own body does not include a “right” to have her unborn child killed by abortion. Her child has just as much right to life as any other human being.

There are no circumstances, other than abortion, in which a person is allowed to kill an innocent, defenceless human being. The exception accorded the act of abortion is unwarranted and totally illogical. Abortion cures no disease. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Myth: Abortions are performed to preserve the physical health of the mother.

Fact: Dr.Henry Morgentaler has written that “medicine has over the last few years made so much progress that it is now possible for a very sick woman to complete a pregnancy and give birth in spite of serious “illness”.

Except in rare instances, such as ectopic pregnancies, in which the child cannot survive, the medical evidence suggests that having an abortion is more dangerous than the continuation of the pregnancy.

Myth: Abortions are performed to preserve the mental health of the mother.

Fact: There are no studies to substantiate this claim. On the contrary, abortion is a well documented stressful event and it has been shown that abortion is commonly followed by serious psychiatric disorders including depression, anxiety, lack of self esteem and psychosis.

Myth: Abortions help prevent suicides.

Fact: The stress of undergoing an abortion has been associated with an increased risk of suicide. Conversely, no evidence exists that continuing with an unplanned pregnancy will endanger the mother’s mental health.

Myth: Legal abortions are safe abortions.

Fact: The fact that a licensed physician performs the abortion does not guarantee safety: no abortion is without very real and serious risks to both the physical and emotional health of the woman.

There are a number of possible complications listed in the Therapeutic Abortions Catalogue, including haemorrhage, infection, laceration of the uterus, perforation of the uterus, retained products of conception, death and “other.”

The long term physical problems of induced abortion include infertility, sterility and cervical incompetence which often leads to premature labour and delivery, along with an increased risk for immature babies during subsequent pregnancies.

Scientific research has established that abortion is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Overall, there is a 50% increased risk of developing breast cancer if the first pregnancy is not brought to full term. For the woman who has undergone one abortion during her reproductive years, there is a 30% increased risk of developing breast cancer in her life time. Repeat abortions increase the risk factor. Unfortunately, there has been a medically indefensible conspiracy of silence about the health risks attending legal abortions.

Myth: Abortion is legal: so it cannot be all that bad.

Fact: Legality cannot change reality and the reality is that “[T]he induction or procuring of abortion involves the destruction of life. It is a violation both of the moral law and the Criminal Code of Canada, except where there is justification for its performance. The only justification is that the continuance of pregnancy would imperil the life of the mother.” (Code of Ethics – the Canadian Medical Association (1963)).

Even though the CMA has since changed its views on abortion and in spite of the 1988 Supreme Court ruling which has removed abortion from the realm of criminal law, abortion remains what it has always been: the deliberate killing of an unborn human being.

If child abuse were made legal tomorrow, would it be right? Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

Myth: Anyway, the fetus is not really a person.

Fact: Words such as ‘embryo’ or ‘fetus’ serve the same purpose as calling human beings ‘infants,’ ‘children,’ ‘adolescents’ or ‘adults’ at other stages of their lives. They are simply scientific terms used to indicate where a person is in his or her development: in no way do they mean that the unborn child is not human.

The advocates of abortion claim that the unborn child is a mere clump of cells. But the scientific facts are that a living, unmistakably human organism exists from the moment the ovum is fertilized; it will not develop into a cat or a plant – only a human being, because it is already a human being.

Just 9 weeks after conception all internal organs of the unborn child are present, including functioning heart, kidneys and liver; the nervous system and brain are also functioning and the child reacts to touch or painful stimuli. Furthermore, the unborn child while still in the womb can now be viewed by ultrasound and many of its functions can be monitored by various sophisticated techniques. He or she can receive blood transfusions and medications and even be treated surgically. Abortion brings that young life to an end.

An editorial in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine, the official publication of the California Medical Association, mentions, “the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine, until death.” In the Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, one can read, “from a purely scientific standpoint, there is no question but that abortion represents the cessation of human life.”

It is a sad reflection on our times that precisely when scientific and technological advances provide us with the means to keep unborn children alive at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy, more and more of these children are being killed by abortion.

Myth: Abortion helps to prevent child abuse.

Fact: Most children battered by their parents were ‘wanted’ and resulted from planned pregnancies. Abortion is not a cure for child abuse. In 1997, with abortion widely available, the statistics showed an escalating number of child abuse cases reported across Canada including intimidation, neglect, beatings, burnings, sexual interference and killings.

Myth: Every child a wanted child.

Fact: This slogan is not as loving as it sounds, since it reduces children to objects with a right to exist only if someone ‘wants’ them more than they desire other ‘things’. It also fails to take into account the fact that the feelings of a woman toward her pregnancy during the early months often differ markedly from what they will be at later stages of her pregnancy or after the birth of her child.

On the other hand, while there may be parents who do not want children, there really are no unwanted children: witness the countless and often desperate couples who have to wait years before they are able to adopt a child. Human life has an intrinsic value which has nothing to do with the fact that this tiny human being may or may not be wanted. The idea that the ‘undesirables’ can be eliminated is a most dangerous concept. Once we accept the ethic that every child must be ‘wanted’ before it can live, our society may also decide that every grandparent and every mentally or physically handicapped person should also be ‘wanted’ in order that they may be permitted to continue living.

Myth: Abortions cannot be immoral since they are performed by doctors.

Fact: Medical ethics since the time of Hippocrates have upheld the traditional role of doctors as the preservers of human life. The Hippocratic Oath clearly states: “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; furthermore, I will not give to a woman an instrument to produce an abortion.” The Declaration of Geneva, a modernized version of the Hippocratic Oath adopted by the World Medical Association in 1948, specifically states, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception.”

A growing number of doctors feel it is their duty to speak against this “new ethic” of killing unborn children upon request and as a result, also possibly causing serious harm to their mothers.

This information was adapted in July 2006 from the text, WE SAY NO TO ABORTION prepared and published in 1988 by Ottawa and District Physicians for Life.

Action Life Online Article

January 6th, 2009
Contact me
Required:


Optional:


Required:




- Why ask? To confirm you’re a person



Bad Behavior has blocked 18 access attempts in the last 7 days.