Abortion

Firstly I apologise for the apparent unreliability of my sources- those you were unable to access, I cannot explain why they have disappeared, I only know that they were there and now for some reason cannot be accessed. Character limit- 10,000 is the max I could choose. I am sorry you were unable to be concise enough to stay within the limit. On the case of the apparent misquote concerning the Geneva Declaration- I quoted it as it was on the website. Also mentioned there was that many variants today do not include "from conception", thought they should not need to as it is clear that is when life begins. I also understand why parts of the Hippocratic Oath are considered outdated but why are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I noticed you placed no comment on the anthropologist"s quote of separating killing from curing, which leads into my next point of rebuttal/re-establishment. Abortion is not necessary. I said it before, and you said that the one man had received backlash for it. I will support it further: In Ireland, abortion is illegal as of very recent developments. According to the UN, Ireland is the safest place in the world to be pregnant/carry a pregnancy through. Pregnant women are never denied treatment, but the doctors are able to work to their utmost to protect both mother and child. It does still happen that the baby unintentionally dies/cannot be saved, but the mother is able to be treated either way if she is ill. Abortion is not a solution. World renowned cancer specialist, Dr Fr"d"ric Amant, says, "In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis." Professor J. Bonnar (then Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists), "95% of members of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists surveyed said they could preserve mother"s lives and health without abortion." Professor Eamon O"Dwyer, "From my experience, I believe I am entitled to say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother may only be saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her unborn child in the womb." The professor also goes on to say that they also support the statement from the Medical Council that withholding treatment from a pregnant woman is unethical even thought it may lead to the death of her unborn child. Whenever possible, both lives are saved, more common than the countries where abortion is offered as an immediate "solution". While it is true that unborn children may die due to their mother"s treatment, the chances are lower because the doctors are doing their best to save both lives. The ban on abortion there has been accompanied by a fall in the number of maternal deaths (1). If Ireland can do it, why can't the rest of us? I would like you to thoroughly examine the citation (1). I also wish to comment on your cited example of abortion being "needed" to save the mother"s life. It is rather outdated, occurring back in 2004, while we now have advanced more in medical technology. Dr Anthony Levatino"s quote was as of 2013. He is agreed with by many professionals. "90% of abortions were done by doctors, not coathangers in back alleys" doesnt mean what you think. It's letting people know that most illegal abortions were in fact performed by doctors and not unprofessional randoms. They were not as dangerous as they were made out to be, and legalising abortion hasn't saved women's lives. That is the point it makes, and you misunderstand this. Pro-abortioners often argue that illegal abortions were so dangerous that the no. deaths caused by them would be greater than the no. deaths caused by legal abortion today. However the number of women who died of illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade was greatly exaggerated. Dr Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and one of the founders of NARAL, admitted that he and other NARAL members used to claim 5,000-11,000 women died yearly from illegal abortions. He has since admitted the statistic to be "totally false...But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" Medical technology has advanced to the point where abortion is no longer needed. Alan Guttmacher, who did more to promote abortion on demand than any other individual, commented in 1967, "Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukaemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life [of the mother]." How far have we come since then? Certainly far enough that abortion should be abolished totally. Also, maternal deaths have been shown to be far lower in countries that have strict limits on abortion, compared to those that don't. (2) Now I'll rebut the comment about rape. Who are you to presume that a rape victim even wants an abortion, or that somehow abortion would help them to recover from the rape? Why must the welfare of the child and the mother be at odds in your opinion? They may both be helped by preserving life, not continuing violence. A major study conducted on pregnant rape victims showed that 75-85% chose against abortion. This in itself should give you a reason to stop and think about the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims. ~70% of women believe that abortion is immoral (though some think it should be a legal choice for others). About the same proportion of rape victims see it as just another act of violence against their bodies. Some believe their child"s life may have some purpose/meaning they don't yet know. Rape victims often become introspective and develop a higher sense of value of life and of respect for others. Having been victimised themselves, they wish to spare others (including their unborn child) similar victimisation. The thought of killing their innocent child after having been hurt themselves already is repulsive. Another point is that at a subconscious level, the woman may sense that getting through the pregnancy will mean she has conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can in her mind regain some of the self-esteem she lost. Abortion doesn't magically make a person "un-pregnant". It is a real life process that is stressful and traumatic. One woman said, "I soon discovers that the aftermath of my abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded...They all told me that after the abortion, I could continue my life as though nothing had happened."(3). It's true that some women may feel relief after abortion, though if, as you implied, part of this debate is morality, I would question their humanity. I understand they may see it as an answer to financial struggles, but why were they pregnant in the first place? It goes against every motherly instinct to kill your own child, no matter what stage of development it is in. On the subject of financial stress, that is no excuse for abortion either, despite the fact that it is the reason most women claim for abortion today. But isn't it true that there are children, who are born already, growing up in poverty? They may not be financially stable, but at least they are alive. And it is unheard of for anyone to argue that the mothers of these children should have the right to kill them. No one would sayso because we all know that no amount of financial hardship is worth killing another human being, especially an innocent child. That is the moral side. On the practical side, there are more crisis pregnancy centres in America today than abortion clinics. These function to bring women through their pregnancies by providing them the emotional and financial assistance they need to carry to term and, if need be, to place for adoption- no future finance obligation for those still unwilling. If help is needed it can be found.(4) I'd also like to address the humanity of the unborn baby. I don't have a citation for this as I will be using common knowledge and morality. Firstly, the child is clearly human. Whether it's developed enough for emotion or conscious thought in the first trimester (which you appear to be aiming for) is irrelevant. It's a young member of our species and therefore we should be dedicated to preserving its life. You compare it to bacteria and few/single-celled organisms, but those are not part of a conscious species and will not become such. They will only ever be bacteria. But a young human of even just a fertilised egg cell is still human- it has only human DNA, and will even begin to look and act human in just a few weeks. I have already mentioned motherly instincts that should be present in the mother too. What reason could we possibly have to kill it, to not protect and support it? We look down on murder of older humans. We have no excuse to condone the murder of under-developed humans that we haven't met yet. It is a person, more innocent than those escaping death penalty or even than those being murdered whom we demand justice for. Now that abortion is unnecessary, why can we not value human life from conception? It's a miraculous thing, to bring another life into the world that will one day have to make decisions like those we are making now. A thinking, feeling individual. It deserves the rights we claim for ourselves. Whomever says otherwise has no respect for human life. I'd like to close this argument by defining "inhuman": "Lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal." (5). I don't wish to regress to when abortion was illegal. I wish us all to progress there, where abortion is recognised as unnecessary. www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/abortion-never-saves-a-life/ www.hli.org/resources/does-legal-abortion-save-lives/ www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape-incest-and-abortion-searching-beyond-the-myths#1 www.abort73.com/abortion/common_objections/ ww.dictionary.com/browse/inhuman