Salient. Newspaper of the Victoria University Students' Association. Vol 42 No. 20. August 27 1979
Abortion attacked
Abortion attacked
Temporary Palliative?
To the continuing debate on abortion I would like to contribute one viewpoint without recourse to emotive argument or rhetoric. Any debate on the issue inevitably begins with the classic question of whether the foetus is life or not. This article will not deal with this aspect of the controversy, as the medical profession has made a clear statement to the effect that the humanity of the foetus cannot be denied.
In 1967 the First International Conference on Abortion brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, law, ethics and the social sciences. They concluded almost unanimously (19-1) that "the majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage and the birth of the infant, at which point we could say that this was not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a 6 week old embryo, a six months foetus, a one week old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation."
Improving Conditions of Life
But even granted this, is this where the issue ends? Even if the humanity of the foetus has been proved by science, does it automatically follow that abortion must be wrong in all cases? To my mind, life must be inviolate—instead of destroying life, we should destroy the conditions which make life intolerable.
Women do face tremendous pressues in our society and, to many, an unplanned pregnancy will be the thin end of the wedge. Pregnant school-girls are still ostracised, mothers of handicapped children are given little assistance by the Government, nor, too often, from their partner, and the poor are neglected in their continuing battle for equal conditions in life.
When faced with the unwanted pregnancy of their partner, men think for more of how it will affect them — economically, time-wise, or ties-wise, rather than the welfare of the mother who is having to cope with a far greater physical and emotional strain than they could possible understand. But abortion is not the solution.
Temporary Cleaning
We are faced with a great social problem, but to suggest that abortion is the answer is similar to suggesting that to wipe the blood off a deep gash will remove the wound. It won't of course — the wound will look clean temporarily but unless it is stitched up completely, the blood will start pouring out again.
It is so easy for women who are oppressed by the patriarchal society we live in to turn to the abuses of men as justification for abortion. I believe their anger is genuine and well-justified but to argue for abortion on such grounds smacks too much of revenge.
Take the argument of rape, for example — probably the most emotion-charged argument of all and a point on which many conservatives turn liberal. Of course it is unjust that a woman should have to bear a child in such circumstances, but injustice cannot be com batted with further injustice. Should the child be condemned to die for the crime of its monstrous father? Far rather that the rapist himself should die. It is also significant however, that pregnancy very rarely results from rape. A scientific study of 3,500 cases of rape over a 10-year period in the Minneapolis-St. Paul areas revealed not one case of pregnancy. (The Educator, September 1979.)
Wanted Children
Isn't it cruel to bring unwanted children into the world, people ask? Ideally, of course it is logical that every child should be wanted. But wantedness as a criterion for whether a person should be allowed to live or not is a frightening concept, as the logical converse conclusion is that it is justifiable to eliminate the unwanted—be they unwanted wives, husbands, elderly dependent relations, coloured people etc.
Even if a mother does not plan her pregnancy and at the time of birth is unable or unwilling to keep the child, can it automatically be assumed that this child has no future and would be better off dead? The growing waiting lists for adoption make a mockery of this suggestion. There is also little substance in the argument that unwanted pregnancies are more likely to end up becoming battered children than planned pregnancies. In a survey conducted by Professor Edward Lenoski in Southern California, 90% of battered children were found to be planned pregnancies.
I could spend much time in refuting the various arguments put forward in favour of abortion but I would like to turn instead to my earlier statment that instead of destroying life, we should destroy the conditions which make life intolerable.
So how do we go about "stitching up the wound"? I do not claim to have the blue-print of a perfect new society, where no-one would consider abortion as a necessity; I do believe that we must fight injustice: we must fight the patriarchy, we must fight exploitation of the poor, we must fight racial prejudice and all forms of intolerance and oppression. But in so doing we must not include the unborn in the ranks of the enemy—by destroying life we are achieving nothing in the struggle for a more humane society.
Books for Review
The great scheme of printing regular lists of books that Salient has been sent for reviewing seems to have fallen through somewhat this year (another black mark). But in one last attempt to put the record straight, we print below a list of books that we have at present. If you are interested in reviewing any of them, call in and see Peter Beach in the Salient office (middle floor, Union Building at the graveyard end).
Tidal creek by Rhoderick Finlayson
The Riddle of the Sands by Erskibe Childers
The Growth of Crime by Leon Radzinowicz and Joan King.
The Destinies of Darcy Dancer, Gentleman by J.P. Donleavy
People in Cages-The solution that failed by Ralph Harris
Gift from the Sea by Anne Morrow LindbergTaoi
Taoism-the quest for immortality by John Blofield
Under a Glass Bell by Anais Nin
Radcliff by David Storey
The Family Arsenal by Paul Theroux