Abort that motion!
WE ARE hearing increased talk about a woman’s ‘right’ to an abortion. This is owing, in no small way, to The Gleaner, which decided to intensify its abortion crusade, beginning, quite ironically and insensitively, on Mother’s Day, May 13, with the publication of poll results on the topic. This irony continued throughout the month of May, celebrated as Child Month.
Now we have a member of the ruling party joining in calling for the State to permit a woman to have the right to take the life of her own child. Juliet CuthbertFlynn is the political representative in the constituency in which I am currently a registered voter. I don’t recall that members of that constituency were canvassed by her before she went to Parliament to put forward her position. So I am left to ask, whose viewpoint should a member of parliament represent? Isn’t an MP there to represent the views of his/her constituents?
Abortion not only takes the lives of the unborn, it also hurts women. The Journal of Psychiatric Research in 2008 published evidence from research done in the United States that “abortion was found to be related to a variety of mental-health problems (panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression) and substance abuse disorders”.
BODY OF HIS/HER OWN
Abortion is not an issue concerning women only. It is more than a private matter or an individual concern and thus cannot be viewed in the same way as being just another medical procedure. A rational and logical position on abortion ought to be based on the nature of the unborn child. Although the child is within the mother’s body, that child has a body of his/her own.
Modern technology has increased proof of a separate, individual human life growing in the mother’s womb. Modern technology tells us that the unborn child experiences pain, sucks his or her thumb, and responds to sounds outside of the woman’s body. We also know that the child’s heart begins to beat as early as three weeks after conception, which is before the woman realises she is pregnant. Despite this evidence, there are still demands for the State to legitimise the taking of the life of the child.
Interestingly, the 1864 Offences Against the Person Act uses the phrase “every woman being with child”. Technology is proving the unchanging truth written in this law, that the nature of the living body in a woman’s womb is that of an unborn child. Further, this wording of the law also suggests, again in keeping with technology, that the unborn child (although dependent on his/her mother) still is a separate, living being.
Women who have been victims of rape must be encouraged to report the offence as soon as possible, at which point all the medical help is to be made available to both prevent HIV/AIDS and to prevent pregnancy.
In the end, as has been said, “If the unborn is not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary, but if the unborn is human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient.”
As a member of Mrs CuthbertFlynn’s constituency, I would certainly appreciate being consulted before she makes announcements of this magnitude being matters that concern life and death of current and future citizens of this country.