On 22 January1973, the US Supreme Court struck down all existing criminal abortion laws in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. The court ruled that a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester was protected under the "right of privacy... founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty". It cannot be said that abortion was not performed before that ruling was given, but in legalising abortion a trend was set. The child in the womb would no longer be protected but would be subject to the whims of the mother carrying her or him. An unwanted pregnancy, a disabled child, an inconvenience now easily compatible with the disposable mentality can now be legally annihilated - killed. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), around 40 to 50 million abortions are performed annually, corresponding to around 125,000 daily. Half of them are performed in unsafe conditions, resulting in 70,000 to 200,000 maternal deaths.

Abortion has always been controversial. The pro-choice view abortion as a woman's right, the voiceless child is never considered as having any rights. The pro-life, backed by science argue that there is in fact a human life, distinct from the mother, whose right to life must be protected.

A mother in anguish at the loss of her growing baby did not lose a foetus but miscarried a baby. Terminology is key in the abortion debate. A preborn child is not referred to as a baby but the 'pregnancy' or foetus. The preborn child is not killed during abortion but 'terminated'. Some premature babies are the same size as foetuses, therefore it is not a question of size. An embryo or a foetus is not protected by the law in many countries, while newborns are. Can we therefore deduct that a child in the womb is unprotected while a child lying in a cot is? Did the short journey from the womb to the cot give this basic right to the newborn? Or is it dependency? A newborn is totally dependent on another human being for its nurturing, as is a baby in the womb, who requires nourishment from its mother.

For 42 years however, abortion advocates have sought to bestow upon 'choice' a nobility all of its own, a nobility to which it has no claim. They refuse to be called "pro-abortion", but gladly accept the label "pro-choice" (despite the fact that there are countless other issues for which they are decidedly not pro-choice). The fact is that laws against rape, murder, assault, theft, speeding, drink-driving and even smoking are all "anti-choice". They take away legal protection from one particular choice in order to protect a more fundamental freedom. All such laws are "legislating morality". That's the only way society can survive. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. In the end, we are only free to choose so long as that choice doesn't kill or harm someone else, and our governments are responsible for taking away those choices that do. One day the world will look back and ask "How did we allow the genocide of abortion to continue for so long?"

"We need to be clear: The quality of a civilisation can be measured by the respect it has for its weakest members. There is no other criterion." - Dr Jérôme Lejeune

 

Mary Gaerty

President

National Council of Women