ABORTION: Is it morally wrong?

Basic to the religious and moral arguments advocating a reversal of the American Supreme Court stand on the repealing of the old law, is the question of where life actually begins. Opponents of abortion contend that life begins at the moment of conception. It is however conceivable that life begins even earlier.

When attempting to generalize as to when life begins, one must consider two basic factors. First, when we are speaking of life, we are speaking of life as a living human entity. The beginnings of a living human entity start with two separate living cells; the sperm and the ovum. The ovum may have been in existence for forty years or more and the sperm may have only begun its existence twenty-four hours prior to conception, and the male and female could hypothetically be at opposite ends of the earth twenty or less hours prior to conception and yet, until the sperm fertilizes the ovum, both living human entities are separated by time and space. When the sperm fertilizes the ovum, together they become as one cell and life as a human being then begins from that moment on.

If anyone ever doubts that sperm cells are not living human entities, they have but to watch them under a microscope as the rapid back and forth lashing of their tails propels them in a way that is to serve only one purpose--and that is to move them towards the destination which is their only chance of survival, the nucleus of an ovum. Of the twenty million to half a billion sperm who make the attempt to be first to reach the ovum, generally only one makes it. Each of us is alive today because we are the lone survivors of a seven inch trip in which millions of our fellow sperm fell by the wayside to die as each minute of the hour-long trip passed. There are three stages of gestation which are; the zygote, the embryo and finally the fetus. The removal of any of these entities is in effect, aborting the pregnancy.

Although all three entities are living human beings, (if human beings begin their existence at the moment of conception) it is a moot point as to whether or not it is morally wrong to destroy a human being at it's first stage.

In the first week, the zygote has increased in size to a cluster of approximately 150 cells and has by now attached itself to the inner lining of the mother's womb. On the ninth day, the thousands of newly created cells become an embryo and even by the twenty-fourth day, the embryo has no arms or legs. But forty-eight hours later, tiny buds are formed and they are the beginnings of arms and a couple of days later, two more buds appear as the beginnings of legs. By the twenty-fifth day, the whole embryo is formed. From head to heel, it is about the size of half a pea, fragile as jelly with little substance. But the body of the embryo has a head with rudimentary eyes, ears, mouth, simple kidneys, a liver, a digestive tract, a blood stream, a umbilical chord, a beating heart which in a couple more days will be pumping blood sixty-five times a minute. And to the amazement of many, the embryo has a brain.

It is at this stage of the embryo’s existence that the advocates of the 'right to life' really concern themselves with the morality of abortion.

The Hon. John Sweeny, made an interesting observation in February of 1988 as the Ontario Community and Social Services Minister when he said and I quote; "A human life is deemed to have ended when brain activity ceases. Maybe we could make the medical decision that human life can be considered to have truly begun when brain activity is recordable."

It is only at the end of the fifth month of intrauterine life that the brain waves of the fetus can be detected. In the fifth month, the baby grows to a foot in length and weights up to one pound. It has all it's organs, toes and fingers, eyes, nose, mouth and ears and hair is formed on its eyebrows and head along with a fringe of eyelashes on its still closed eyes. And of course, it has its brain albeit, an inactive brain until the end of the fifth month passes.

Dr. Henry Morgentaler raised an interesting point in his book, "Abortion and Contraception" in which he said; "When we ask ourselves what upper time-limit for an abortion is morally justifiable, we have at least two guidelines: one is the appearance in fetal development of what could be considered a human brain, at about five months; and the second is viability, that is, the point at which a fetus could survive outside the uterus."

In a U.S. hospital recently, a woman who was 6 months pregnant, had an induced abortion via a saline injection to induce labour to expel the fetus. But the fetus emerged alive and is alive and well to this day. The act of removing a human being at six months by having it removed via a saline injection or intra-anionic induction from its mother's womb, is inexcusable and unforgivable.

The Soviet Union passed a law which permits the termination period to be extended from 12 weeks to 28 weeks.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that American states could only regulate abortion procedures in the middle three months of pregnancy but could ban abortions in the final trimester. By this ruling, the fetus in the seventh month or later, was spared.

Madam Justice Bertha Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada stated in her judgment of January 28, 1988, said in part; "The value to be placed on the fetus as potential life is directly related to the stage of development during gestation. The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state's in its protection becomes compelling should be left to the informed judgment of the legislature, which is in a position to receive submissions on the subject from all relevant disciplines."

But on February 7th, 1988, Ontario’s Attorney General Ian Scott said in response, ".....there's nothing we can do to establish the rights of the unborn......We have certain rights to establish health-related protection for the mother but I don't believe we have any authority to protect the fetus."

I agree with his conclusion. If every province set its own guidelines, we would have mothers crossing the country trying to find the right province to abort her pregnancy. I think that since parliament writes up the laws of the Criminal Code of Canada governing such as criminal negligence, manslaughter and murder, it should also decide at what stage of the gestation period, the fetus can be aborted.

People who oppose abortion often call it murder. It is important to remember when considering that argument that abortion does involve the taking of a human life, albeit at its early existence. To many, that life may appear to be of little significance as a human being. But to be murder, it must be established that the human being is also a person and this is the crux of the problem.

The best legal, scientific and religious minds have never been able to agree upon an answer to this question. There is obviously no universally accepted objective measurement that can pinpoint the precise moment when the living human being becomes a person. There certainly isn't any scriptural evidence of God revealing that exact moment of time to us.

My personal feeling is that a person exists when its human mind functions. But at what stage of the gestation period that takes place, I leave to those far more qualified that I, to answer.

The only other issue to consider, is the one dealing with whether or not we should terminate the life of a human being, even within a day of conception. That is a difficult question to answer because to find it, one has to look into the philosophical aspects of life, a very complicated area indeed.

Many pro-life advocates will maintain that every human being has a right to life and on the surface, that seems like a reasonable statement. But if we follow that statement to the nth degree, then we have to accept that even a fetus that will be severely deformed should be permitted to emerge from its mother's womb alive.

Many will argue that when the life of a living human being in the embryo or fetus stage is aborted, the world will be denied a future Mozart or Shakespeare. Of that, there can be no doubt. But if we believe that, then we must also accept the fact that a future Adolph Hitler or serial murderer Clifford Olsen may emerge. This realization cancels out the other concern so that this issue becomes a non-issue.

Life is precious to all of us and it is only by mere chance that we came into existence. We have survived that original seven inch journey that brought us into the moment of conception and I am sure that everyone must have thought at one time or another as to where would they be if their mother's chose to later abort. It is easy for us who have survived our mother's pregnancy to be complacent about the fate of those who have not yet completed their period of gestation.

Whatever stage of the gestation the living human being should be killed is an issue that may never be fully resolved in the minds of millions but this problem may become academic by the end of this century.

When I see the picture of a fetus that is only a few months old and realize that it has hands and feet and a tiny brain, I feel compassion for such a small human being, especially if I am aware that its life will be ended because of an abortion.

The real problem facing society is; what do we do when a woman is raped and she wants her baby aborted? I have mixed emotions about this dilemma and for good reason. The first being that I understand the reason why the victim wants the child aborted. The second being that when my mother was raped, she didn’t abort me.

There is now a drug called RU 486 which offers the possibility of chemical termination of early pregnancy. It prevents reception by the uterus of the hormone progesterone, which is naturally secreted after fertilization to prepare the uterine lining for the implantation of the fertilized ovum or to sustain implantation once it has begun. In essence, it is a contraceptive. Since medical science has now found ways in which detection of pregnancy can be determined within hours at one's home, abortions as we know them will undoubtedly be a thing of the past.

In closing, I want to make mention of the fact that there is one question that few people are willing to answer, either to themselves or publicly. The question makes the abortion issue ludicrous. The question is; "How many of us who have expressed a concern for the lives of the unborn, have lifted one finger or have paid one cent towards the feeding of the millions of children in the world who are starving to death?"

If we feel that we have the right to speak out for the lives of the unborn, we had better earn that right by doing more for the lives of those starving children who survived their mother's pregnancy. To do otherwise, is to make our rhetoric on abortion an obscenity.