The Treasure Hunt

The Issue of Abortion... Which Side Are You On?

Week 15 Final Argument

Robin Johnson

Professor ..........

English 111

... .... Community College

As a teenager, I saw a nation go from abortion being illegal, to becoming legal: then grudgingly accepted... and now, in certain circles it is being pushed as a way of population control. Regardless your personal views on this subject, a satisfactory conclusion (for the majority of the people) must be reached in order for this country to move forward in a more positive direction. 

Not only in our own country, but in many parts of the world a real battle still rages on this issue of abortion, and I believe it always will: as all sides involved have their own strongly held beliefs. That is why I think the most sane thing to do within our own country, is to (once again) allow the voters of individual states to decide where they stand on this issue.

I also believe that abortion is an issue that every single person in this country ought to care passionately about, and that would be true even if you have no vested interest in it. The reason for that is there are politicians who will legislate, and make laws which will ultimately affect every single American: and some of those men and women who are being elected to public office are being elected solely on the basis of which side of the fence they are on for this issue of abortion on demand. 

Because there is a great divide in our country on the idea of abortion, I believe there is coming a day when "abortion on demand" will be legally revisited: when that day happens, politician's who are in power need to view this subject in a different light than most of them do today. I believe those men and women who hold political offices needs to lay aside their own views, and biases, and legislate for the majority of the American people. 

The truth that we are a deeply divided country is seen by the fact that a large percentage of Americans have chosen to live in communities and states where people who hold like-minded values also live. The fact that we are deeply divided is most readily seen during an election year, as maps of America are marked off in colors of red and blue. You will see that many people who will vote for a conservative politician have congregated together and they live in states which have been designated as "red states." On the other side you have people who have also congregated together because of their own beliefs and many of them live in "blue states."

The divide is such that there are states in America (blue) where the majority of voters believe it is the sole right and discretion of the mother to make the decision to carry, or not to carry a child to full-term, and because of that they would vote for politicians who would uphold their own views. It is also true that there are states in America (red) where the majority of voters believe it is not the mother's sole right to determine whether or not to carry her baby to full-term, and because of that they would vote for politicians who would uphold their own views. It is time that politicians recognize this fact and place power back into the hands of the individual states, and the people who have chosen to reside there. 

As we have already learned in this class, there are usually more than two sides to any given issue: however, the two main sides for this issue are that the life of an un-birthed baby ought to be protected... and the other point of view is that it is the sole right of the mother to decide the fate of her own child. 

Many people who oppose abortion on demand do so for reasons of religious beliefs or statements of faith. In Washington, D.C. on October 7, 1979 Pope John Paul II said, "All human life--from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages--is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person... if a person's right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother's womb, an indirect blow is struck at the whole moral order." 

Of course, there are also voices from those who believe it is a woman's sole right to carry her baby or not. Edward Abbey (American author) said, "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the state."

In America we have had a long history with abortion. Margaret Sanger (co-founder of Planned Parenthood) had a desire to eradicate those she thought especially unfit to live and (or) reproduce. Her writing's and public speeches are awash with her apparent hatred of minorities, especially blacks and the very poor. 

The first abortion clinic she started was in Harlem, New York. The reason she wanted to start her first clinic there was that of the 330,000 blacks who lived in New York in 1929, almost 70 percent of the total population of blacks were in Harlem (Green). Even today, in America 2012 all but a small handful of Planned Parenthood clinics are in predominantly black areas. The purpose, of course, is so that those Sanger believed were less fit to live, e.g., blacks and poor... would have easy access to abortion clinics. 

"In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this "experimental clinic," which officially opened on November 21, 1930" (Green).

What seems odd to many, and I must include myself in that group, is the large number of people within the black community who seem to embrace the idea of abortion on demand. The reason that I, and others like me find this peculiar is that a disproportionate number of black babies are being aborted. I believe the reason why many blacks also joined with Sanger's idea of terminating their offspring might be best explained by the following quote. 

"Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as "inferior" and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its "work," blacks in Harlem: were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s black population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s); comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment; had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites; had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City" (Green). 

Margaret Sanger was a devotee of Thomas Robert Malthus. Malthus taught what would later be termed eugenics, i.e., selective breeding among humans to develop a better race: he wanted to force those whom he considered not to be "worthy" of life... to live lives of celibacy: in this way their line(s) would eventually die off.

In Matthus's Magnum Opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population he wrote: "All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing mortality" (Green).

Author Grant, in attempting to dissuade the black race from accepting these ideas calls this, "scientific racism" (Green). He said that Malthus's form of racism is based on genes, rather than skin color or language. 

In an article entitled The Negro Project, Mr. Grant writes: "The issue is not 'color of skin' or 'dialect of tongue,'" but quality of genes. Therefore, as long as blacks, Jews, and Hispanics demonstrate 'a good quality gene pool -- as long as they 'act white and think white' -- then they are esteemed equally with Aryans. As long as they are, as Margaret Sanger said, 'the best of their race,' then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens. By the same token, "individual whites" who shoe (sic) "dysgenic traits" must also have their fertility "curbed right along with the other 'inferiors and undesirables'" (Green).

 

The two sides on the abortion issue that are the most talked about are the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movements: however, there is a "third-side" to the abortion issue, and this side (in my opinion) is the most heinous, e.g., forced-abortions! The idea of forced abortions and sterilizations put forth in theory by men like Malthus, Dr. Guttmacher, and certain women like Sanger, we now see being put forth in practice in countries like China and India. Officially speaking, both countries have policies against forcing girls to abort their babies, albeit, the practice continues unabated.

Within the last week there was another high-profile case that was an Internet sensation. This particular story is of a young Chinese girl being kidnapped, and then forced to terminate her baby: along with the story there were pictures of this 22-year-old girl... and lying beside her was her dead baby.

"Officials in Zhenping county had claimed that Feng agreed to have an abortion, after repeated persuasion." But her husband, Deng Jiyuan, said she had been hooded, abducted and forcibly injected to induce the abortion after the couple failed to pay a 40,000 yuan fine for breaking family planning laws. He said they could not afford to do so. His sister said on Tuesday he had called her to say he was safe but that she did not know where he was" (Branagan).

Those who believe the only way for the world to continue for future generations think that countries have both the right, and a duty to limit the number of people who are born. For people on that side of the issue they applaud stories like what was just related about the young Chinese couple. On the other side of this volatile issue there are those who believe that a child in the womb is a life which is God-given, therefore, no one but God has the right to take that life. 

For me, one of the the biggest concerns with the whole idea of abortion on demand is the "slippery- slope argument:" simply stated, it is the idea that once and action has begun it will inevitably lead to unintended consequences. For example: those on the liberal side of this issue use the catch-phrase,

"pro-choice" to designate their own position on abortion. However, for those people... where is the "choice" for girls like Feng, of China?

Whether or not it was ever intended by some on the left to call for forced abortions is immaterial... that is what abortion on demand has gravitated to: remember, the 'slippery-slope' always has unintended consequences.

At a 1969 White House conference on hunger, and a panel that was entitled "Pregnant and Nursing Women and Infants," headed by Planned Parenthood's Dr. Alan Guttmacher and Dr. Charles U. Lowe of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave the following recommendations: [This panel recommends] (1) mandatory abortion for any unmarried girl found to be within the first three months of pregnancy, and (2) mandatory sterilization of any such girl giving birth out of wedlock for a second time" (Handler). 

(It is important to remember that whenever you read of such men (as Guttmacher) and such committees (as the White House conference on hunger) that this is not Communist China, or India, where these ideas are being discussed... rather it is modern day America.) 

For me, the entire issue of abortion on demand comes down to one single thought. If we could with certainty know when human life begins, then surely all but the most callous of human beings would not want that life to end before it has even begun its journey? I suppose that from lay-people to theologians, it seems that all of us have our own opinions on when life begins? What if we could know? Do you believe such certain knowledge would make a difference for those who might consider having an abortion: that is, if they honestly knew that a life had begun, and that what was growing in their womb was not merely, "fetal-tissue?"

In order to know wouldn't it make sense that you would turn to those who would be truly expert in understanding human life? There is a group of people who their field of expertise is understanding life and when it begins... and would you believe there is a true consensus among them as to when human life begins? This group I am writing about and who are experts all say the very same

thing: human life begins at conception!

Many theologians are on the "right-to-life" side of the issue, however, they might well have their own agenda, and because of that their opinions on this issue might not carry as much weight? On the other side, "pro-choice" people like those of Planned Parenthood and like-minded individuals also have their own agendas, e.g., sexual freedom and gratification without worry, and (or) population control. 

Because both groups, "pro-choice" & "pro-life" have their own agendas, they sometimes slant facts and news stories: in addition they cloud the issue in other ways to support their own causes. But, what if there were a group of educated men and women who are completely diverse in their personal lives, from agnostics to devout believers, and their only agenda is to study and present their findings... wouldn't that be a group of experts who ought to be believed?

The group I am referring are called: biologists, and geneticists. In April (23-24) 1981 a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held hearings in Washington D.C. on this one subject only, "When does human life begin?" By the end of the hearing a consensus had been reached, human life begins at the instant of conception.

French geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, discoverer of Down's Syndrome said, "If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being it could not become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen... This is not opinion; it is a fact" (Alcorn).

Dr. Landrum Shettles, who has been called the, "Father of In Vitro Fertilization," stated the following; "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind" (Alcorn).

Dr. Michelle M. Matthews-Roth, from Harvard Medical School, confirmed that testimony and gave support with more than 20 embryology and medical textbooks, which all confirm the following truth; life begins at conception (Alcorn). Roth stated, "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive... it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data" (Alcorn).

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, of the Department of Genetics -- Mayo Clinic said, "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception" (Alcorn).

At this same committee Leo Schneider (famed mathematician) said, "You are composed of trillions of cells now, but at one time in your life you were just a single cell. It is important to realize that even as that single cell 'you' were informationally complete and unique, with sufficient content to fill "1000" volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica" (Alcorn). 

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded by saying, "I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life... I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being" (Alcorn).

The late Dr. Daniel C. Overduin, the well-known Australian Lutheran theologian, once said that the best way to be able to answer the question regarding the beginning of life is simply by going backward in time. He quotes from Scientists for Life in the Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life: "Before you were an adult, you were an adolescent, and before that a child, and before that an infant. Before you were an infant-- i.e., before you were birthed-- you were a fetus, and before that an embryo. Before you were an embryo, around the time of your own implantation, you were a blastocyst, and before that a morula, and before that a zygote or fertilized ovum. Therefore, while life is continuous, your life began when the nucleus of your father's sperm fused with nucleus of your mother's ovum, or at fertilization" (Prestwich).

"Biologically there is no argument about when a new human life begins; it begins -- as all scientific data prove -- at conception (fertilization). No reputable scientist denies this" (Prestwich).

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: "The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter--the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals" (Alcorn).

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate Hearings, "Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins" (Alcorn).

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms, unequivocally, "The basic fact is simple: Life begins not at birth, but conception" (Alcorn).

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty

thousand abortions (Alcorn).

Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths" (Alcorn).

In his film, "The Silent Scream," Nathanson later stated, "Modern technologies have convinced us that beyond question the unborn child is simply another human being, another member of the human community, indistinguishable in every way from any of us." Dr. Nathanson wrote "Aborting America" to inform the public of the realities behind the abortion rights movement of which he had been a primary leader. At the time Dr. Nathanson was an atheist. His conclusions were not even remotely religious, but squarely based on the biological facts (Alcorn).

The reason people like these men and women, and all biologists and geneticists ought to be believed is that they have no agenda in presenting their findings. They are scientists from all walks of life and every one states the same truth. While it is true that the battle on abortion still continues, those men and women who are experts in the study of human life all speak in the very same voice; human life begins at conception!

Both sides, and at different times claim some victories. In 2007 there was a victory for those who are against abortion as a 5-4 vote by the Supreme Court struck down a bill that (then) President Clinton had twice upheld with his veto power. The excerpt which follows is part of a speech given by the president of Operation Rescue. 

"We're moving beyond putting roadblocks in front of abortions to actually preventing them," said Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national abortion--rights opponent group based in Wichita, Kansas. "This swings the door wide open" (Stephanie Simon).

The vote the Justices upheld was a federal ban on a procedure critics call "partial-birth" abortion, "... which involves partially delivering the fetus, then crushing its skull. "... the ruling included strong language asserting the state's 'legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life'" (Stephanie Simon). 

In my argument paper I am to try and present as fairly as possible what would be considered the "pro-choice" side of the abortion issue. In my attempt to do this I typed in several searches for reasons "why" people want to keep abortion legal? Of the nine sites I read, there are certain statements that are repeatedly made as to why abortion ought to remain legal: rape, incest, and health of the mother, and (or) baby, were the four dominant themes.

Even myself, a person who is against abortion on demand, could understand the angst any mother would be facing with a pregnancy because of an incestuous act, or a rape. I also would understand how frightening it would be to attempt to carry a child and knowing that your own life might be in danger, or there might be a potential handicap for an un-birthed child? So, I concede that there are times when abortion is not as black-and-white as what is sometimes portrayed by both sides.

In trying to put a figure to the number of abortions that are carried out in this country on an annual basis because of any of the four situations involving rape, incest, or health of the mother or baby... I found two, of the nine sites I visited which helped the most.

In a further attempt to be "fair" to the other side, I purposefully am only recording information from two sites that promoted abortion, or at least they did not appear to be against it? I figured by doing it this way they would not have any reason to inflate their figures?

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% occur because of potential health problems, either the mother or the child, and 93% occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient (Guttmacher).

If the number of abortions are accurate, as reported by WebMd and the statistics, and percentages why women get abortions are accurate ... then, there are 84,000 babies (in America) each year who are aborted because a mother has been raped, or involved in incest, or their health is threatened, or there is reason to believe their child would be seriously handicapped at birth?

That would mean that every year in America there are 1,116,000 (one million, one hundred and sixteen thousand) babies who are being aborted for reasons other than the four named reasons why the proponents of "pro-choice" claim they want abortions to remain legal.

I don't suppose there is any possible way to put an exact number for how many abortions there has been in America for (social reasons) since Roe v. Wade in 1973, but, if the number of annual abortions stated by WebMd is accurate, I can extrapolate backwards and make an educated guess. In the past 39 years there would have been approximately 45,000,000 babies who have been aborted in America simply because the child is, "... unwanted or inconvenient" (Guttmacher).

The number of babies who would have been aborted in that same period for the four named reasons as to why abortions ought to remain legal: rape, incest, health of mother, or possible handicap of the child --- there would have been only, 3,250,000 abortions.

In conclusion, it is at least worth mentioning in my argumant paper on abortion that the woman who was "Roe" (Leah McCorvey) in the landmark case Roe v. Wade never had an abortion herself, and many years ago changed her mind about the idea of abortion. Please read carefully the epiphany she had, and what, in her own words, caused her to change her mind.

McCorvey, who did not have an abortion but rather gave her child up for adoption as her case wound toward the Supreme Court, did not pinpoint a specific date when she changed her mind about abortion but suggested to ABC News that she had been troubled one day when she noticed some empty swings in a Dallas playground (Verhovek). 

"They were swinging back and forth but they were all empty and I just totally lost it," she said. "And I thought, Oh my God, the playgrounds are empty because there's no children, because they've all been aborted" (Verhovek).

The battle still rages... as all sides continue to weigh in, and that is why I believe the written law of abortion on demand needs to be returned to individual states and the people who have chosen to live in those states. That is the only way that the majority of Americans might reach a happy medium where both sides gets something that they like.


                                                   References 

Alcorn, Randy, Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception,

http://www.naapc.org/why-life-begins-at-conception Retrieved 1, July 2012

Branagan, Tania. "China Sacks Official in Forced Abortion Case." 27, June 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/china-sacks-officials-forced-abortion

Retrieved 1, July 2012.

Green, Tanya L. "The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Plan for Black America."

http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html Retrieved 1, July 2012

Guttmacher, Alan, Abortion, The Alan Guttmacher Institute. (www.agi-usa.org) Your Source for the Facts on Abortion, http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S.%20specific Retrieved 21, July 2012

Handler, Denyse, Reprinted from The Worker, bi-weekly newspaper of the Canadian Party of Labour, Abortion, Population Control, Genocide: The 'Scientific' Killers and Who Sent for Them,

http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section2.htm Retrieved 1, July 2012

Simon, Stephanie. "Readability: 11-12 Grade Level." The Journal Gazette, 20 April 2007.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/cgi-bin/welcome/lookup.pl/?q=%2Fiw-search%2Fwe%2FInfoWeb %3Fp_action%3Ddoc%26p_topdoc%3D1%26p_docnum%3D1%26p_sort%3DYMD_date%3AD% 26p_product%3DAWNB%26p_text_direct-0%3Ddocument_id%3D%28%2520118A6869D917EF58%2520%29%26p_docid%3D118A6869D917EF58%26p_theme%3Daggdocs%26p_queryname%3D118A6869D917EF58%26f_openurl%3Dyes%26p_nbid%3DX4BB51WJMTM0MTE1ODg1My4xMjgyMDk6MToxMzoxNjguOTEuMTcuMTIw%26%26p_multi%3DFWJB, Retrieved 1, July 2012

Suleiman, Mustafa. "Azhar scholars reject Egypt abortion draft law." 22, March 2010.

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010.22/103775.html Retrieved 1, July 2012.

Verhovek, Sam Howe, New Twist for a Landmark Case: Roe v. Wade Becomes Roe v. Roe, The New York Times, 12, August 1995 http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/12/us/new-twist-for-a-landmark-case-roe-v-wade-becomes-roe-v-roe.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Retrieved 22, July 2012

WebMd July 23, 2012 Abortion--Reasons Women Choose Abortion,

http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion Retrieved 22 July 2012

Prestwich, Winifride, You Were Asking, Published: Sunday, October 16, 1994

http://www.theinterim.com/issues/you-were-asking-by-winifride-prestwich/ Retrieved 1, July 2012