I have received a letter dated February 8th, 1983 with a copy of the NDP Report of the Joint Caucus Party Committee on Abortion.
First of all I have to say that I cannot understand its statement that the selected excerpts sent out by Campaign Life gave a “very distorted picture of the statement”. That the Committee is asking for abortion on demand is perfectly clear from the Report. There was no distortion.
In the second paragraph of the Report it is stated that a woman’s right to choice, i.e. to have her child killed in her womb, reflects the ‘majority view’. Does the NDP believe that morality is to be decided by the majority view? Would you apply the same principle to murder, rape, bank robbery, kidnapping, etc.? If this sounds a little outlandish, remember that the Nazis applied the same principle to support their liquidation of the Jews; Amin applied it to support the wholesale slaughter of the tribes in Uganda who did not submit to his rule; Col. Ghadaffi is today applying the same principle to back up his threat to invade the Sudan. It is one thing to decide superficial matters-where and when shall we hold the parish picnic? – by a majority vote. It is quite another when we are dealing with the destruction of human life. Forty years ago you would have had an overwhelming vote against abortion in almost any country in the Western World! Today you might have the opposite. Does this mean that the morality of killing the unborn has changed? Remember that the killing of the Jews, the Gypsies and the Handicapped was ‘legal’ in Hitler’s Germany. Does the world of today consider it ‘moral’?
The statement on the last paragraph of the first page of the Report that, “No one can resolve the moral question of when life begins” is unbelievable. First of all I do not see that ‘when life begins’ is a moral question at all. It is a scientific question, the answer to which must involve moral decisions. If the ‘conceptus’ is human life, then how we treat it must be very different from how we would treat a ‘blob of tissue’. I shall confine myself to just three quotations from accepted experts on the subjects of Genetics and Fetology. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, pro-abortionist turned anti-abortionist, author of best selling book, ‘Aborting America’, co-founder of American N.A.R.A.L., and formerly director of the largest abortion clinic in the world (New York) and at present one of the foremost authorities on Fetology and Ultra Sound has no doubts as to the humanity of the fetus. In a recent interview with Norm Perry on CTV, he made the following statement, “It is scientifically validated and confirmable that life begins at conception”. In the same interview, Dr. Nathanson stated, “I do not have any religious affiliation or convictions. For me it was a purely scientific matter”. He was referring to his change of attitude towards the question of abortion.
Professor Sir Albert William Liley – knighted by the Queen for his work in the field of Fetology – in an article entitled, ‘Development of the Tiniest Humans’ says, “As any high school text book on biology will tell us, life begins with conception and ends with death. In between, life does not develop, it is simply there.”
Dr. Jerome Le Jeune, winner of the Nobel Prize for his research work on Genetics and at present Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University Rene Descartes in Paris, is no less sure of the humanity of the fetus. In an interview published in ‘The Tiniest Humans’ edited by Robert L. Sassone (1977), he was asked these questions: “Dr. Le Jeune, from your evidence, could we conclude that it is a scientific fact that individual life starts from the first moment of conception?” Reply: ” That is very good question, Sir and my answer is ‘Yes’.” Question: “Now, from the time of fertilization or fecundation, is it correct to say that the child is a human being right up to the moment of birth?” Reply: “As far as I can understand the use of the English word, saying he/she is a human being is a correct definition.” Question: “So, there is no stage of pregnancy later than fecundation at which he/she suddenly becomes a human being?” Reply: “Oh, that is very obvious. We are, at the very beginning, either a chimp or a man and never can a chimp become a man or a man become a chimp!”
These three men are not ‘light weights’ in the scientific world. They are acknowledged authorities in the fields of Genetics and Fetology. I do not think anyone can discard their views on a matter of such vital importance. If the NDP policy regarding abortion is based on the opinion that the fetus is not a human being, I believe your leaders have an obligation in conscience to the Canadian people to do more research on this question. In view of the present scientific convictions regarding the humanity of the fetus from conception, the statement, “No one can resolve the (moral!) question of when life begins” is totally irresponsible and socially dangerous.
Reference the 3rd proposal: “Funding must be increased for research and development into methods of contraception and to make contraceptives available to all. Abortion is not a form of birth control; it is, in part, a sign of the failure of birth control. Efforts to provide methods of contraception which are effective and safe for women and men must be stepped up.”
This statement leaves one wondering if the people who formulated it have done any reading on the research into the results of contraception and its connection with abortion. The Badgely Report (1977) showed that 84.4% of the women who had abortions were experienced in the use of contraception. Another Government sponsored publication entitled, ‘Birth Control and Abortion’, (Robertson et al., Sex Education, a Teacher’s Guide, published by the authority of the Minister of Health and Welfare, 1976) says, “As long as contraception methods are not 100% effective and safe and as long as women wish to control their fertility, requests for abortion can be expected to continue. Today abortion is the most widely used birth control in the world.”
A statement by researcher Kingsley Davis, in his report to the U.S Commission on ‘Population Growth and the American Future’ is relevant to this issue. He writes, “The current belief that illegitimacy will be reduced if teenage girls are given effective contraceptives is an extension of the same reasoning that created the problem in the first place. It reflects an unwillingness to face problems of social control and social discipline, while trusting in some technological device to extricate society from its difficulties. The irony is that the illegitimacy rise occurred precisely while contraception was becoming more rather than less widespread and respectable.” I hesitate to pile up quotations but perhaps they will help to convince you that my opinions are not the rantings of a fanatic. They are based on the findings of people far more expert than I am. Malcolm Potts, the former medical director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, predicted in 1973, “As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall in the abortion rate.” Japanese research has shown that women who use contraception have six times as many abortions as women who do not.
Judging from the results of scientific study so far, the ‘perfect’ contraceptive is a long way off. In the meantime as contraception is made ‘available to all’ the abortion rate will continue to rise, unless Canadians are different from the people of the other 54 countries in which contraception has been made available to all!
But the ‘failure’ of contraception is by no means my only objection to the Report’s proposal regarding the universal availability of contraception. I presume that the NDP would claim that if it were to form the Government of Canada its main object would be to give us a ‘better Canada’. Canada can be better only if Canadians are better people. By that I do not mean merely economically better, but of a finer caliber of character. Distributing contraceptives widely cannot but make teenagers even more irresponsible sexually than they are at present. I cannot think of a worse philosophy of life to put before young people than this, “Have fun but don’t be responsible! Follow your whims but don’t take responsibility for the results!” Such a philosophy can only result in a disregard for matrimonial fidelity and the inevitable breakdown of family life. And it certainly will not foster respect or reverence for women on the part of young men. The deplorable breakdown of family life in the States cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of the entire scene of sexual permissiveness.
When ‘The Pill’ was first launched on the world it was acclaimed as the panacea for all the ills of society, especially the threat of overpopulation. The results have been both sad and significant. In order that a nation may barely reproduce itself the very least population growth must be an average of 2.2 children per family. In the U.S today the average number of children per family is 1.8. In Canada I think it is even less. For the first time in its history, America has more people over 65 than under 5. Surely this says something. In France, there are more Moslem children in the schools than Christian. This is because thousands have been brought in from North Africa to keep the workforce going. It has been estimated by Dr. Tremblay, a scientist, that if the present trend – declining French population; increasing Moslem population – continues, by the year 2035, France will be a Moslem country. In a desperate effort the French Government is offering large grants to families to have more children, but the ‘contraceptive mentality’ has taken hold and will not change.
To conclude, I see no merits in your Report on Abortion. If implemented it would reduce the country to an even worse condition than it is at present.
