Today is the 28th of November 1990. Last evening I watched the CBC news with horror.
In the first news item, Douglas Archer, the Ontario Auditor, reported that the care of seniors and mentally handicapped people in homes is so inadequate that a number of deaths have resulted. He gave the opinion that the Ministry of Community and Social Services is “kind of casual about deaths.”
The new Premier, Bob Rae, was then shown expressing indignation at this neglect on the part of the previous government. He assured the House that his government would take the proper steps to see that the sad situation would be speedily rectified. This statement was reassuring to viewers, especially those over 70. One might have breathed a sigh of relief that, at last, the province is under the care of a compassionate administration which respects human life in all the stages and will take appropriate action to see that the comfort, safety and well-being of all citizens is assured.
A reversal of values
But this sense of assurance did not last long. In fact, it was dissipated within minutes. The following item was the news that the new provincial government will do everything possible to assure free abortions for all women who request them.
The London Free Press quotes the new Ontario Minister of Health, Evelyn Gigantes as saying that “There should be access to abortions and it should be access that is not impeded.” This, of course, means abortion on demand!
The contradiction
So, here we have an anomaly. The government appears to respect human life and human rights at one end of the spectrum, but, at the other end, displays a total disregard for these. Of course, two worn-out and completely disproved arguments will be produced from the hat:
• The baby in the womb is not a human being;
• Every woman has a right to control her own body.
To assert that the baby in the womb is not a human being from the moment of conception is to go against all the findings of science in the past twenty years.
Perhaps the most convincing statement is that of the U.S. Senate Bill 158. In 1981, in preparation for this famous Bill, known as the Human Life Bill, the U.S. Senate invited top scientists from all over the world to come to Washington and give their opinions. There were 57 witnesses in all and the sessions lasted eight days. Here is the text of the Senate Report:
“Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being, a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, geological and scientific writings.”
This is not a statement made by bishops or priests. It is the considered opinion of world-renowned scientists.
I could give endless quotes from top scientists proving the humanity of the ‘fetus,’ but I shall offer just one more. It is from Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., who was a pioneer medical researcher and co-author of the book, Rites of Life; The Scientific Evidence for Life Before Birth. Here it is “…there is one fact that no one can deny: human beings begin at conception.”
Sorry, my eye has caught another. It is from world-renowned geneticist Professor Jerome Lejeune. He says, “If a fertilized egg is not, by itself, a full human being, it would never become one. Because something would have to be added and we know that does not happen.”
So, the government can’t have its cake and eat it too. They cannot claim to respect human life in old age and allow it to be destroyed in young age at the will or whim of the mother. If killing an old person is murder, so is the killing of a young person – born or unborn.
Part of the mothers body
Is the ‘fetus’ simply part of the mothers body? There are so many arguments which prove this theory nonsensical that one must choose only a few. I think the most positive is the fact that many women carry a baby with a blood type different from the mother’s.
We are told by medical scientists that it is medically impossible for a single individual to have two completely different blood types.
Another very obvious argument is the fact that roughly 50 per cent of babies are male. You just can’t have one body that is both male and female.
Father of Fetology
The late Professor A.W. Liley, Research Professor in Fetal Physiology, earned the name of the “Father of Fetology.” He made many statements regarding the baby in the womb. One of them was this: “Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the other. Genetically, mother and baby are separate individuals from conception.”
So, it is difficult to see how anybody who has done any serious reading on the subject could hold that the baby is part of the mother.
I believe it was also Dr. Liley who said that the baby in the womb is no more part of the mother’s body than a nursing baby is part of the mother’s breast or an in vitro baby is part of the petri dish. He went on to say that the fetus is so distinct form the mother’s body that if the fertilized ovum from a black couple is transplanted into a white mother, she will give birth to a black baby.
Every woman?
One of the most common arguments in favor of abortion is the feminist cliché. “Every woman has the right to control her own body.” So has every man the right to control his own body. But always within certain limits.
I have the right to drive a car on the highway. But I don’t have the right to endanger the lives of others in so doing. I can strike out with my fist. But not if somebody else’s nose happens to be in the way. In other words, the right to control our bodies is limited by the rights of other people.
A matter of months
A baby in the womb has exactly the same right to life as the mother. Her control over her own body is limited by the right to life of her child. There is a story about a young woman coming into the doctor’s office with a year-old baby in her arms. She explained to the doctor that she was pregnant again and it would be very inconvenient to have two young babies at the same time. She asked him to “terminate the pregnancy.”
The doctor opened a drawer in his desk and produced a large knife. He said, “I have a better idea. Why don’t I kill the baby in your arms and you won’t have to go through the rather nasty abortion procedure. Just bend his neck a little.” The young mother sprang to her feet and said, “You mean to murder my baby?”
The doctor replied, “That is exactly what you have asked me to do. The only difference between the baby in your arms and the baby in your womb is a matter of months.
Think about it Premier Bob!
