What difference does technology and science make in the abortion debate?

The British Parliament recently rejected the argument to reduce the upper limit of abortion for non disabled children, despite reports that babies have a greater chance of surviving before 24 weeks. Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, essentially argued that there was no evidence that technology had made a difference to the abortion debate.[1]

There have been extensive changes in the medical and scientific understanding of the development of the unborn child since 1967. We now have a greater knowledge of the damaging psychological impact of abortion[2], and with this we should examine the provisions that surround abortion in order to allow women to address to issues and be fully aware of the nature and consequences of abortion. Nine out of ten MPs favour a continuous review of the law in the light of new medical discoveries.

Other studies have shown evidence of the foetal pain of abortion,[3] an improvement in survival rates for those born before 24 weeks[4] and a link between abortion and breast cancer.[5] Some of these studies have been disputed, but more and more studies continue to validate these links. Many politicians and experts, including the House of Commons select committee,[6] have preferred to overlook this evidence, rather than consider the developing medical consensus of the damage of abortion to both the unborn child and the mother.

I believe that abortion is the most important and contentious issue our country faces because every year, 200,000 unborn children die by induced abortion, when they do not have the ability to defend themselves. These children, who have the dignity of being members of the human race, do not have the ability to speak for themselves. It looks like the British parliament has no interest in their cause: in the last 18 years in parliament, more than 700 hours were spent debating foxhunting legislation whereas just 3 hours were spent seriously debating the value of unborn children!

Yet it is undeniable that technology has made a phenomenal difference to the abortion debate. Professor Stuart Campbell has created 3D images of babies that have struck hearts and minds helping us to see the human face of the unborn babies.[7] His pictures show babies in the womb sucking their thumb, yawning and smiling. This has helped to communicate the human nature of the foetus- a convincing counter argument for those who just believe it to be a clump of cells. Modern technology has helped us to visualise what normally is hidden inside the womb, helping us to see that a baby inside the womb is not terribly dissimilar to one outside the womb.

Doctor Bernard Nathanson has used the technology of broadcasting to show action and reaction inside the womb. The film shows how a baby, just prior to being aborted, gives to considerable stressful signs and attempts to avoid being attacked by the tools of the abortionist.[8] The film compelling shows how human life is present in the womb and can even struggle to live and communicate inside the womb. This caused a radical change in heart for Doctor Bernard from being ardently pro choice to firmly pro life and his film has changed the hearts of thousands of others.

With such comprehensive legislation preventing discrimination of this disabled in society, why should we be allowed to discriminate in the womb but not on the pavement? In allowing abortion up to and during birth for "serious disability," the Abortion Act is at variance with The Disability Discrimination Act, which aims to end discrimination against the disabled. The Disability Rights Commission has questioned the discriminatory nature of our abortion legislation. Many are still unaware that abortion is still a crime in this country because it has only been partially decriminalised.

Above all, a new sexual revolution needs to occur before abortion diminishes in the western world. This will happen through the rediscovery of modesty and chastity as joyful ways of life. The discovery of compassionate alternatives need to be provided, such as housing, adoption and counselling for those involved in this trauma. Abortion is a tragedy, yet there is healing, compassion, mercy and forgiveness for those who have had this terrible experience.

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7059169.stm

[2] Abortion has been shown to be damaging to mental health. Fergusson D et al. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2006; 47(1): 16-24. Reardon DC et al. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2003; 168 (10): 1253-6 Coleman PK et al. State-funded abortions versus deliveries: a comparison of outpatient mental health claims over 4 years. American Journal Orthopsychiatry. 2002; 72,1: 141-152. Coleman PK et al. A history of induced abortion in relation to substance use during subsequent pregnancies carried to term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2002; 187,6: 1673-1678

[3]Anand KJS et al. Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal Pain. Seminars in Perinatology. 2007; 31:275-282.

[4] Hoekstra RE et al. Survival and long-term neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely premature infants born at 23-26 weeks gestational age at a tertiary centre. Pediatrics. 2004; 113: e1-e6. Riley K et al. Changes in survival and neurodevelopmental outcome in 22 to 25 weeks gestation infants over a 20 year period (abstract). European Society for Pediatric Research, Annual Scientific Meeting. 2004

[5]Brind J et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J. Epidemiology and Community Health. 1997; 50:465-467

[6]http://hfebill.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=5&id=20&Itemid=32

[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm

[8] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek