Three Strikes & They’re Out! Throwing Abortion Advocates a Curveball with the Facts

 

The unborn are only “potential human beings”, not real human beings. 

 

STRIKE 1: When does an individual human life or human being come into existence? The answer is at fertilization. The uniting of the sperm and egg creates a new human being with its own genetic code. Leading embryology text books confirm that from the earliest stages of development, the unborn are distinct, living, and whole human beings.1 The heart begins to beat 22 days after fertilization and at 48 days, brain waves can be recorded on an EEG (electroencephalogram). At eight weeks, every organ is in place and functioning. These are scientific facts.2

 

STRIKE 2: Life is a continuous process; zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult all refer to stages in a human being’s life cycle. All human beings come into existence at fertilization3 and process along the cycle until biological death occurs – be it at 80 years from natural death or at 8 weeks from dismemberment due to abortion.

 

STRIKE 3: The “potential life” argument asserts that a fetus is not a person because he lacks “self-awareness”4 – having passions, hopes, memories, expectations and intentions. That reasoning would exclude from the human race a large number of people already born – people who are mentally handicapped, elderly people with degenerative disorders (i.e., Alzheimer’s), people who are in comas, not to mention newborn babies as well.

 

Abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother.

 

STRIKE 1: There is no medical evidence to substantiate the claim that abortion is a recognized treatment for saving a mother’s life. In a Sept. 2005 Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) report on why U.S. women have abortions, life of the mother was not even listed as a category.5 It must be remembered that it would be a disease or condition that would cause a life-threatening situation, not the baby.

 

STRIKE 2: In some acute medical emergencies, such as a tubal (ectopic) pregnancy or a cancerous uterus, a treatment may be required that indirectly kills the unborn child. In such cases the intent is to save the mother, not to kill the baby and no direct attack is made against the baby’s life.

 

STRIKE 3: We must recognize that there are two patients involved – the mother and the child. Every possible effort must be made to save them both. Many times, a pregnancy can be brought to the point where the baby can survive outside the womb

 

Abortion should be allowed in the case of rape or incest.

 

STRIKE 1: Less than 2% of all abortions are due to rape or incest.5 Is a baby conceived in of wedlock more human than a baby conceived out of wedlock? Is a baby conceived in rape or incest less human than any other baby conceived? Of course not.

 

STRIKE 2: Rape and incest are heinous crimes. The woman is totally innocent, but so is the baby conceived through rape. Killing the unborn baby would amount to punishing her for the crime of her father. Are we permitted to kill a newborn child because her father happens to be a rapist? In the case of incest, abortion just covers up the sexual abuse and allows the incestuous relationship to continue, whereas continuing the pregnancy exposes the abuse. Abortion is not the compassionate solution.

 

STRIKE 3: Abortion can compound the trauma of rape and incest. In a study of 190 women who became pregnant through sexual assault, most reported that the abortion only increased their experience of grief and trauma. In contrast, none of the women who carried to term said they wished they had not given birth or that they had chosen abortion instead. Many of these women said that their children had brought peace and healing to their lives.6

 

A woman should have the right to do what she wants with her own body.

 

STRIKE 1: The unborn baby is not a part of the woman’s body; he has his own body. He is a new unique individual human being. Every part of the woman’s body has her genetic code and the baby has his very own genetic code, one totally different from his mother’s. He also has his own blood type, nervous system, and half the time is a different sex than his mother. How can a part of a woman’s body be male? Besides, parents are legal guardians of their children, not legal owners. Unborn babies posses an inherent dignity and the right to life because they are a part of the human family.

 

STRIKE 2: Even if a woman’s body were our only concern, there are still legal limits on human behavior and social constraints on individuals for the common good. An individual’s right to act ends where another’s right to life begins. Killing someone is obviously the greatest violation of another’s rights.

 

STRIKE 3: Abortion has nothing to do with “reproductive choice”. Once fertilization takes place, reproduction has already occurred and the woman is carrying a child. And once pregnant, her choices are life or death for her unborn baby.

 

Abortion saves all those unwanted children from being abused.

 

STRIKE 1: First and foremost: abortion is child abuse. Additionally, there is no evidence that unwanted pregnancies become unwanted and abused children. 91% of all abused children were very much wanted before birth while 90% of these same youngsters were born within wedlock.7

 

STRIKE 2: There has been over a 1000% increase in child abuse since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion-on-demand.8 In fact, parents who have been involved in abortion are more likely to abuse and neglect their other children.9

 

STRIKE 3: There is no such thing as an unwanted baby. Although the US government has not comprehensively compiled adoption statistics since 1992, it is estimated that 5 million American women have considered adoption and about half a million are waiting to adopt a child. 83% said they would accept a mildly disabled child, while 33% said that they would accept a severely disabled child.10 The number of international adoptions doubled in the 1990’s due to the dwindling supply of adoptable children within the US.11

 

Abortion should be allowed in the case of fetal deformity.

 

STRIKE 1: The doctor’s diagnosis is often incorrect. Amniocentesis is the most common invasive medical procedure, usually performed after the 15th week of pregnancy on unborn babies whose mothers have abnormal alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) blood tests, whose families have a history of birth defects, or who are more than 35 years old. Amniocentesis carries a risk of miscarriage of about 1 in 100. Ironically, researchers say that at age 35 the risk of a woman carrying a fetus with a chromosomal abnormality is roughly caused by the test. This means that amniocentesis kills as many healthy babies as it detects with abnormalities.12 Additionally, since amniocentesis results take 2 weeks, 90% of the babies aborted because of the amniocentesis results showing possible defects12 (such as down syndrome) are 17-28 weeks (4-7 months) old.13 A baby can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks.13

 

STRIKE 2: Who among us is perfect? Not one of us; we all have at least 4 very defective genes and several dozen others which are not perfect.14 When we abort handicapped children, we rob the world of precious human beings who have love to share. Handicapped children also provide us with the opportunity to be more patient, loving and compassionate; they turn us into better people.

 

STRIKE 3: Society is schizophrenic about the handicapped. Consider this: If a handicap is found before birth, the acceptable solution is to kill the child. If the child makes it out of the womb, we give them a parking space closest to the store.

 

Many women will die from illegal abortions if abortions were once again outlawed. Therefore, abortion should remain safe and legal.

 

STRIKE 1: Abortion advocates use this as a scare tactic to encourage the belief that millions of women would die from illegal abortions if abortion was outlawed. Prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions which legalized abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy, 90% of all abortions were performed by licensed physicians,15 not by women using coat hangers and back alley abortionists as has been portrayed by radical abortion advocates.

 

STRIKE 2: Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League in the early 1970s, has admitted that the abortion rights movement made wildly exaggerated claims of 5,000-10,000 annual deaths from illegal abortion.16 In reality, in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, only 39 deaths due to illegal abortion were reported.17 Deaths from illegal abortions decreased dramatically after the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s.

 

STRIKE 3: Just because abortion is legal does not mean it is safe. Of course, abortion is never safe for the baby. For example, there is evidence to suggest a link between abortion and breast cancer,18 perforated uteri,19 tubal (ectopic) pregnancies,20 miscarriages,21 infertility,22 drug and alcohol abuse,23 and death,24 not to mention the long term emotional and psychological anguish that many women report experiencing after having their babies destroyed.25

 

Abortion is necessary to stop overpopulation which causes poverty and famine.

 

STRIKE 1: Is the world overpopulated? Did you know that every single person living in the world today, all 7.023 billion of us,26 could fit standing together in the town of Jacksonville, Florida?27 On average, women must have 2.1 children in their lifetimes for a society to replenish itself, accounting for infant mortality and other factors. The United States’ fertility rate is 2.05, almost at replacement. According to statistics gathered by the Central Intelligence Agency, only one country in Europe – Albania – has a fertility rate above 2. Russia’s fertility rate is 1.41. In Japan, it’s 1.21.28 Some countries are painfully aware of the potential economic and security problems caused by low fertility rates (not enough babies being born). Russia, Australia, France, Italy, and Poland are actually encouraging couples to have more children by providing monetary incentives for each additional baby born.29

 

STRIKE 2: Fewer people does not mean less poverty. Contrary to popular belief, there is no direct correlation between population density (number of people per square mile) and poverty. In fact, some of the most populated places in the world are also the most prosperous. For example, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan are very densely populated and are among the richest nations in Asia. Taiwan has a population density of 1,650 people per square mile, while China has a population density of 360 people per square mile. Yet, Taiwan’s per capita gross domestic product (a measure of economic activity) is $31,900, while China’s is only $6000.30, 31 By the way, New Jersey is much more populated than China with a population density of 1134 people per square mile, but is one of the richest places on earth with a per capita state product of $47,908.30 The reality is: people are our most valuable resource!

 

STRIKE 3: The world is producing more than enough food (Note, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 64% of the population of the United States is overweight or obese32). Globally, food supplies continue to grow faster than population. Sadly, the world’s food supply is not distributed adequately throughout the world or within countries. The world’s 1 billion farmers produce cereals, meat, and other food products that could provide each person on the planet about 3800 calories per person per day. This is well over the minimum daily calorie requirements even for people whose jobs involve hard physical labor. In fact, if everyone adopted a vegetarian diet and no food were wasted, current production would theoretically feed 10 billion people, more than the projected for the year 2050.33 Hunger is caused by poverty, bad weather, war, and government policies. For example, in 1984-1985 the communist Ethiopian government worsened a drought situation and caused full-blown famine by refusing to distribute food aid to rebel areas and uprooted 600,000 peasants from rebel areas, thus dramatically decreasing food production of farmers and diverting money and food aid to the military.34, 35

 

I am pro-choice not pro-abortion.

 

STIRKE 1: The term “pro-choice” gives the illusion that there is a middle ground on abortion. The problem with this term is that it is incomplete – it does not say what the person is choosing. In the abortion debate, being “pro-choice” means the person believes that it is acceptable for an innocent unborn baby to be dismembered and killed in her mother’s womb. Abortion advocates don’t finish the sentence in saying what they are pro-choice about; they are reluctant to say they support the choice of killing an innocent baby.

 

STRIKE 2: Throughout history, nearly all human rights violations have been defended on the ground of the “right to choose.” In the 1800s those who were pro-choice about slavery considered their moral position to be sound since many of them didn’t personally own slaves. Yet it was not just the pro-slavery position, but the pro-choice-about-slavery position, that resulted in the exploitation, beatings, and deaths of innocent people in this country. Similarly, in the 1940s, most people in Germany did not personally favor the killing of the Jews. However, most did nothing to try to stop that killing. Today in the US, about 3300 innocent unborn babies die each day as a result of “choice.”

 

STRIKE 3: The “pro-choice” position always overlooks the fact that the victim is deprived of his “right to choose.” Women don’t choose to be raped. African-Americans didn’t choose to be enslaved, Jews didn’t choose the Nazi gas chambers and babies don’t choose to be killed by abortion.

 

For more information on scheduling a pro-life presentation or to order copies of this brochure, please call LIFENET at (973) 497-4500.

 

FOOTNOTES:

  1. Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Embryology, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1993) p. 3; Moore, Keith L. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (Toronto: B.C. Decker, 1988) p. 2; O’Rahilly, Ronand and Muller, Pabiola, Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd ed. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996) pp. 8, 29.
  2. Hannibal Hamlin, M.D., “Life or Death by EEG,” Journal of the American Medical Association (October 12, 1964), p. 113. See also Sharon Begley, “Do you hear what I hear?” Newsweek (Special Issue, Summer 1991), p. 14.
  3. Moore, K. and T.V.N. Persaud. 1998. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp 2-18; Larsen, W.J. 1998. Essentials of Human Embryology, Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp. 1-17.
  4. Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics, Chapter 6, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. (Peter Singer has held chair of Bio-ethics at Princeton University since 1999.)
  5. Finer, L.B., et al., Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 2005.
  6. Reardon, David C, et. al., Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Conceived in Sexual Assault, Acorn Books, June 2000.
  7. Lenoski, E.F., Translating Injury Data into Preventative Health Care Services, USC Medical School, unpublished, 1976.
  8. Child Abuse: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect: National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting; Child Maltreatment 2000, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002.
  9. Nye, P.G., MD, Deeply Damaged (3rd ed), Victoria: Pioneer Publishing, 1997, p. 91.
  10. Chandra, Anjani, et al., “Adoption, Adoption Seeking and Relinquishment for Adoption in the U.S.”, National Center for Health Statistics, May 11, 1999, 306
  11. S. State Department, “Immigrant Visas Issued to Orphans Coming to the U.S.” (www.travel.state.gov/orphan_numbers.html, accessed Nov. 12, 2002).
  12. Weise, Elizabeth, “Lifting the Veil: Unborn Mysteries,” USA TODAY, 3/2/2003.
  13. Beck, MN, Eugenic abortion: an ethical critique, Canadian Medical Journal, 8/1/90, 143(3) (1990) p. 183.
  14. Collins, F.S. (1995) Evolution of a Vision: Genome Project Origins, Present and Future Challenges, and Far Reaching Benefits. Human Genome News, p. 16.
  15. Calderone, Mary, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, American Journal of Health, July 1960; 949.
  16. Nathanson, Dr. Bernard, Aborting America, Doubleday, 1979, p. ‘193
  17. Centers for Disease Control, Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report, 9/4/92, Table 15.
  18. Dailing, Janet R., et al., “Risk of Breast Cancer among Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 11/2/94; 86: 1584-1592; Joel Brind, et al., “Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 50 (1996): 481-496; Katrina Armstrong, et al., “Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 342, No. 8 (2000): 564-571.
  19. Dec 18, 2004, Associated Newspapers, Ltd. citing Warren Hem, Abortion Practice (teaching text on abortion), (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1990), p. 175-193.
  20. Anna Kalandidi, et al., “Induced Abortions, Contraceptive Practices, and Tobacco Smoking as Risk Factors for Ectopic Pregnancy in Athens, Greece,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 98, No. 2 (1991): 207-13; Ann A. Levin, et al., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (March 1982): 253-256; Darling, Janet R., et al., “Ectopic Pregnancy in Relation to Previous Induced Abortion,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 2/15/85; 253 (7):1005-1008.
  21. Madore, C. of al., “A Study on the Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent Pregnancy Outcomes,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mar. 1, 1981; 139: 516-521; Ann A. Levin, “Association of Induced Abortion with Subsequent Pregnancy Loss,” Journal of the American Medical Association 243, No. 24 (1980): 2495-99.
  22. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8/76, 83:645-650; Medline Plus website, a service of the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm#Risks accessed July 2006.
  23. Reardon, David C. and Philip G. Ney, “Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse – Statistical Data Included,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Feb, 2000.
  24. Gissler, M. et al., Pregnancy-Associated Morality After Birth, Spontaneous Abortion, or Induced Abortion in Finland 1987-2000, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Feb. 2004; 190(2): 422-7.
  25. Broen, Anne Nordal, M.D., et al., Psychological Impact on Women of Miscarriage versus Induced Abortion: A 2 year Follow-up Study, Psychomatic Medicine, 2004 66:265-271; Pierre Lauzon, et at., “Emotional Distress Among Couples Involved in First-trimester Induced Abortions,” Canadian Family Physician, October, 2000, 46:2033-2040.
  26. According to estimates published by the United States Census Bureau, the Earth’s population will be 7,023,324,899 on 7/1/12. (Seecensus.gov/population/popclockworld.html)
  27. Jacksonville, Florida has 834 square miles of land which equals 23,250,585,600 square feet. Dividing 23,250,585,600 square feet by 7,023,324,899 people, we see that each person would have .302 square to stand in (a space roughly 1.75′ x 1.75′)
  28. Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook, 2009 estimates. See https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder (accessed August 21, 2009.)
  29. Chivers, C.J., New York Times, “Putin Seeks Incentives to Boost Russia’s Birthrate; Experts Say Population Could Tumble Below 100 Million By 2050, Endangering Nation,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 11, 2006, p. A-6.
  30. Data from Wikipedia, (on-line encyclopedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_desnity, accessed August 21, 2009) NJ gross state product data from http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-product-current-dollars-per-capita (accessed August 21, 2009.)
  31. CIAWorld Factbook: Per capita gross domestic product data based on year 2008 estimates. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos (accessed August 21, 2009.)
  32. Bender, William and Smith, Margaret, Population Bulletin, Population, Food and Nutrition February 1997.
  33. Higgins, Marguerite, Washington Times, “Obesity deemed an illness,” July 16, 2004.
  34. Wikipedia, (on-line encyclopedia) 1984-1985 Famine in Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_1985_famine_in_Ethiopia)
  35. Milner Kate, Flashback 1984: Portrait of a Famine, BBC News Online, 6 April 2000. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/703958.stm)