ABORTION- Where Do We Draw the Line?

[Rosalinda]

On the Opinion page of the London Free Press, June 29 a rebuttal, “Abortion’s Lingering Damage” by L.L. de Veber who is a professor emeritus at UWO and president of the deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research in Toronto.

"After reviewing the various letters to the editor supporting abortion on demand and Henry Morgentaler, I would like to make a few comments and corrections.

Pro-life supporters come from various moral and religious backgrounds, but they all want to see the unborn child or fetus given some recognition and status so it cannot be eliminated simply because it’s not wanted.

They see a small, defenceless human individual, which at seven weeks has a heart beat and brain activity, and by 14 weeks these babies become viable, as in rare cases they can survive outside the womb.

About this time, before birth, they can have intrauterine surgery on the heart and other organs, at which point they become patients.

Of course, they have no legal status until a miraculous passage through the birth canal, when it is recognized by everyone as a legal human being…

 

[Rosalinda]

Prof. deVeber continues

"However, since abortion supporters choose to ignore these facts, they should be concerned about complications following abortions that are increasingly reported in scientific literature:

1. A study sponsored by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, in 2001 showed that 41,000 women who had abortions had five times the number of hospital admissions for psychiatric problems, compared to a similar number of women who had no abortion. This was a short-term study done at three months, and did not deal with long-term effects of abortion.
2. A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2003 showed an increase number of psychiatric admissions among lower-income women who had induced abortions.
3. A Finnish study of the records of 600,000 women showed a six-fold increase in suicides in post-abortion women compared to those with a live birth, three times the incidence of women in general. There are other published studies in Britain and the U.S. showing similar findings.
4. It is obvious there are large numbers of women with post-abortion psychological problems, judging by the growth of hundreds of related counselling centres in North America, the largest beig Project Rachel…

 

[Rosalinda]

deVeber continues…

"The pro-choice counselling service, Healing Choice, estimates at least 10 per cent of post-abortion women have severe psychological problems, and that many others who appear to have “moved forward with their lives” suffer various degress of guilt, grief and ambivalence, sometimes for the rest of their lives. There are documented cases of women expressing grief, guilt and spiritual pain on their death beds many decades after an abortion.

Besides these psychological problems, there are documented medical problems that are less common, yet still significant, such as subsequent premature deliveries, infertility and increased risk of breast cancer. The incidence of maternal mortality from induced abortions is unknown (Statistics Canada), since maternal deaths after abortion are classified by the cause of death (hemmorrhage, infection, etc.) and not by the procedure itself.

Although post-abortion problems may not affect the majority of women, the number of women affected is significant when one considers more than a million abortions have occurred in Canada over the last 10 years.

Finally, one wonders what sort of informed consent is offered women considering abortion, in view of the problems cited in the literature.

In the U.S., there are at least 12 states with right-to-know laws stipulating what information should be presented to these women, which I presume is more detailed than what women in Canada are offered."

 

[Rosalinda]

"Can’t turn back clock on freedom of choice by Dr. Mary McKim (A letter of hers on this same issue is posted in the Courageous Mothers Thanked thread)

Regarding the column, Abortion’s lingering damage (June 29).

“No amount of correlation ever proved causation,” is a maxim drummed into all medical students. It is one which my colleague, Dr. L. L. DeVeber, has conveniently forgotten in his eagerness to justify an unyielding position opposing freedom of choice.

Does he truly believe that a woman’s psychological health would be improved by her efforts to raise an unwanted child, or after the painful experience of giving one up for adoption? Is it not more likely that “psychiatric problems” preceded the unwanted or unplanned pregnancy?

Certainly, young women unfortunate enough to have suffered childhood abuse are more likely to engage in early sexual activity and behave in a self-destructive manner, due to lack of self -esteem. Does DeVeber truly believe they should be punished for their misfortune?

Considering the question of guilt, it is the attitude and outspokenness of uncompromising fanatics that contribute to this. The “pro-life” movement and right-wing religious groups are prime examples. Canadian law was changed in 1988 to allow women choice and access to safe, legal abortions.

The opposition just doesn’t get it and, in often offensive demonstrations, keeps up a futile effort to turn back the clock."