The Current Controversy Over Abortion

We will discuss some of the main arguments raised against our case for a woman's right to choose.

a) 'Abortion is Murder'

This argument is based on the claim that a foetus is a 'human being' from the moment of conception. Faith and scientific theory are cited in support of the argument, but there is no consensus about either aspect. Articles of faith have for a long time been regarded as matters of conscience and left to the individual, not the law, to resolve. We support the scientific theory that life is a continuum, with the process of conception merely a stage along the way. We feel that if opponents of abortion were consistent they would oppose all contraception - but only some of them do.

'Human life' is different from 'human being'. Embryonic human life has only the potential to become a human being. The prevailing attitude, which is perfectly sensible and rational, is that at birth we begin life as social entities, and it is at birth society regards us as human beings, counting our age from that point.

Society gives meaning to the term 'human being'. It also gives meaning to the concepts of 'sanctity of life', 'murder' etc. Pacificists and vegetarians can forcibly argue that there is no such thing as 'sanctity of life' in our society. 'Abortion' is clearly defined by the law as a different crime from 'murder', but this law is not enforced. This may seem like a problem of semantics, but the point is that in practice and theory there is one certainty - consensus will never be reached about the 'sanctity of foetal life'. It is a matter of conscience; women will always have abortions.

b) The Present Law is Satisfactory'

Many of our opponents want the existing laws to remain. They do not propose a total ban on abortion, although the law allows abortion on wider grounds than for the preservation of the physiological life of the pregnant woman - which is presumably the only allowable ground for those to whom abortion is murder. Anti-abortionists are prepared to make exceptions to their own 'rules' as they see fit. There has been some panic, however, since the establishment of the Auckland Medical Aid Centre because it is possible that referring doctors are interpreting the law more liberally than they see fit. Obviously their main concern is to keep the decision out of the reach of women and sympathetic doctors, and to contain abortion within limits acceptable to themselves.

c) 'Abortion is Dangerous'

Claims and counter-claims abound on this question. We are convinced there is no doubt that early abortions performed on healthy women under proper medical conditions are even safer than childbirth. To ensure an early abortion women must not be kept waiting while someone else decides their fate.

We concede there are dangers in the abortion procedure, just as there are dangers in any operation. But how can these be compared to the dangers of illegal abortion performed by unqualified people; and often late in pregnancy because a woman has failed to induce an abortion or find an illegal abortionist in the early stages.

The psychological effects of abortion on healthy, well-adjusted women are small. About 10% may suffer some remorse, only 2% suffer real depression. The incidence of depression following childbirth ranges from 10-15%; it can be incapacitating and lead to family stress and marital breakdown, and has until recently often been ignored or dismissed by doctors.

d) 'Abortion Lets the Man and Society off the Hook'

This appears to be a strong argument because often women with unplanned pregnancies do not receive the supportive services they need, as we have already mentioned. However the argument ignores the fact that women are capable of independent rational thought; that many men may be extremely supportive; that frequent pregnancy is debilitating, and that child-rearing is a demanding occupation, etc. It assumes that women are always 'conned' into abortion; we suspect that they are more often 'conned' into sexual relations which they will come to regret bitterly afterwards if they become pregnant, because of society's punitive attitude. Finally this argument is very cruel. It overlooks individual suffering and insists we wait for utopia, which, considering the laws restricting abortion have been in force for a century and a half, is a long time coming.

e) 'Adoption Solves the Problem of Unwanted Pregnancy'

We believe it is inhuman to force a woman to bear a child she does not want. Childless couples must be helped by other means which do not depend on the sacrifice of a woman's dignity. The plight of the infertile couple and the woman with an unwanted pregnancy is much the same; neither have any choice in a matter which concerns them so deeply. Society has been very ready to promote scientific research to assist the infertile escape their biological ill-fortune: should it now show the same compassion to women with unwanted pregnancies?

It must also be a relief to women who would prefer to choose adoption as a solution to unwanted pregnancy to know that there is now a pool of adoptive parents available, which was certainly not the situation a few years ago.

We do not think enough research has been done into the effects of adoption on the mother. We have heard of a number of cases where women find parting with the baby so traumatic that they often deliberately become pregnant again in much the same circumstances.

f) Legalised Abortion will mean Overcrowded Hospitals'

Women should not be penalised for the failure of successive governments to provide adequate health services. Whether they want their pregnancies ended or carried to term they should have access to proper medical care. It should, moreover, be possible to train paramedical staff to carry out early abortions and give birth-control advice so the burden on doctors is not increased.

We have always found this a peculiar argument because the end result of uninterrupted pregnancy is birth and confinements take a lot more time and space than straight-forward abortions, and leave two people to care for. However, we do not consider women should bear this in mind when deciding about pregnancy.

g) 'Legal Abortion Will Lead to Permissiveness'

We suspect the desire to enforce one morality (their own) for all, accounts for some of the motivation and zeal of the opponents of abortion. These self-appointed guardians of public morality try to discourage extra-marital sex with punishment on the assumption that all unwanted pregnancies occur outside marriage. The idea of sex as being sinful, particularly for women, unless it is purified by forced motherhood, still bubbles beneath the surface. Oddly enough the same people assure us that permissiveness and moral decay are already upon us, although the abortion laws have not been changed.

There are many reasons why women become pregnant unintentionally, not the least of them being ignorance of, or lack of access to, contraception - for which we may have these very moralists to blame.

It is barbaric to punish women by insisting on unwanted birth. And what effect does this attitude have on children who are bom to punishment?

h) 'Legal Abortion Will Lead to Euthanasia'

We are seeking recognition of the individual woman's right to control her body. We are opposed to the idea that the state, or its appointed agents, should enter into the decision at all. We find it hard to see how people can associate this with the killing of the aged or infirm.

Reference is frequently made to Nazi Germany as an example of what can happen when the 'sanctity of human life' is violated. We remind the Commission that Hitler was a staunch guardian of prenatal (aryan) life, ruthlessly suppressed abortion, and executed women convicted of the offence.

i) The Population Will Decline - The Labour Force will be Depleted'

This argument is prepared to subordinate women's rights to what is claimed to be 'the interests of the nation'. With precisely such philosophy did Hitler found his repressive regime. There are more rational and humane ways to ensure a productive society than arbitrarily raising or lowering the population level.

The ideal of claiming population considerations to refuse a woman the right not to have a child is as obnoxious as the idea of using the excuse to refuse her the right to have a child. We would protest just as strongly if the tables were turned and women were forced to have abortions. We firmly support the idea that people should have the size of family they want because freedom of choice is our major concern, not which of these choices is made.

(j) Abortion on Request will Deny Men's Rights'

A right-to-decide for the father-to-be cannot page 3 be legislated for without condemning some women to compulsory motherhood. In any healthy relationship mutual agreement would easily be reached without resort to law. We oppose any measures which bolster the tradition of regarding women as breeding machines, and their children as property.

(k) 'Women Will Abuse the Freedom and Have Abortions at Will'

This is like saying that people will get sick to take advantage of free medical care. The first line of defence against unwanted pregnancy is knowledge of and access to effective, safe contraception. Since we do not believe abortion itself to be wrong, we have no objection to the number of times women resort to it. There may be a problem of motivation regarding the use of contraception and we discuss this more fully later in the submission.