Hippocrates would be appalled

THE EDITOR: Please accept my contribution to the ongoing debate on abortion. History shows that when civilisations degenerate morally, the strong and powerful begin to victimmise the weak, the elderly, the young and the unborn. The Carthaginians burned thousands of babies to their god Moloch, and many other babies were sacrificed to the pagan god Baal. These infants — offered under the pretext of religion — were socially undesirables: the handicapped of those born out of wedlock. When Rome degenerated morally, Romans began to “expose” unwanted babies. Infants were taken out to the wilderness at night to be frozen or eaten by wild animals.
       
The fortunate ones would be rescued and raised by Christians. Throughout history, wicked societies committed atrocities against babies. Many people today think we have to legalise abortion because we are enlightened and progressive, and have advanced medicine. No, like previous wicked civilisations to sanction abortion is to degenerate morally. It’s an old story! How could some doctors who had spent years acquiring skills to heal people now turn around and use these skills to kill the weak and defenseless? How could these doctors, who have sworn an oath (the Hippocratic Oath) never to help a woman have an abortion or to aid a person in taking his life, now turn around and perform abortions on demand? Hippocrates would be appalled if he could see all the doctors of our so-called “enlightened” age perform these scandalous operations. Direct abortion is the deliberate killing of an unborn baby; this is certainly an unspeakable crime that will draw a curse on our young nation of Trinidad and Tobago. Any lack of outrage over abortion will be a clear sign of a dangerous moral crisis. We must be vigilant not to allow a small vocal minority to impose their will on us in Trinidad and Tobago.

Surveys show in Europe that less than two percent of the population agree that marriage is possible between the same sex, yet the law changed to accommodate same sex unions. The arguments of those who are trying to make abortions legal have been answered over and over again, yet we see them repeated over and over again in the press. Let’s look at those once again at the “arguments.”
(1) “It’s my body; I have the right to choose.”
Answer: Abortion kills an innocent human being who is distinct from his mother. A mother has no more right to kill her unborn child than she does her born child. From the moment of conception, the mother carries in her body a genetically unique human being. The mother cannot morally take even her own life, much less her baby’s. Think about it: does a father have the right to kill his child just because he lives in his father’s house? Of course not. Neither does a mother have a right to kill her baby just because he lives in his mother’s womb.
(2) “The foetus is just a clump of cells, a glob of tissue.”
Answer: Even when it is a single fertilised egg, the fetus already has its own life principle and it own genetic makeup. This tiny clump of cells is a uniquely distinct individual who, with only the addition of time and nutrition, will develop into a mature human being. The only difference between a foetus and a five-year-old is a few years and meals. Just because the baby is small doesn’t mean that he is not a human being. What else could the offspring of two human beings be? At one time all of us were “just a clump of cells.” But what important cells they were for us.
(3) “An unborn can’t reason or interact with people. Therefore, it’s not really a person so we can kill it.”
Answer: What about children who are born with mental impairments? What about people who go into comas? Do they cease to be persons? Wouldn’t the same logic apply to kill people who are unconscious or fast asleep?
(4) A foetus becomes human when it can live on its own, outside the mother’s womb.”
Answer: How many two-year-olds can live on their own, without food and care from their parents? If being dependent means not being human, then toddlers, the handicapped, the injured, the sick, and the aged could be killed on demand.
(5) “You cannot legislate morality.”
Answer: We legislate morality all the time. We have law against slavery, bigotry, rape, incest, theft, murder, drunk driving, and child abuse. Why? Because these things are immoral: they are intrinsically wrong.
No one believes we should allow practising child abuse “in the privacy of our own homes.” We pass all kinds of laws to keep people from doing horrible things. Abortion is horribly wrong, and our law should continue saying so.
(6) “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I’m not going to tell people what to do.”
Answer: Abortion is not an issue on which we can remain neutral: it is either horrible murder or harmless medicine (like removing a mole). If it is a murder, then we cannot allow it to continue. Imagine that you were walking down the street and, looked up, you saw a woman about to drop her three-month-old baby out of the window. Would you turn and walk away saying “Well, I wouldn’t do that, but I won’t interfere; after all, it’s her decision?”
(7) “I’m opposed to late-term abortions, but I think we should allow abortions in the first trimester (first 120 weeks of pregnancy).”
Answer: Every argument used to justify early abortions can be used to justify late abortions. Every argument against late abortions is equally valid against early abortions. What is there about a twelve-week foetus compared to a twenty-week foetus that allows us to say we can kill the one but not the other? This is a purely arbitrary division with not basis in biology, philosophy or morality.
(8) “We must make exceptions for rape and incest.”
Answer: Rape and incest are hideous crimes; people who commit them should be punished. Nevertheless, a baby that results from rape or incest is an innocent human being with the same right to life as everyone else. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Why should we add the crime of murder to these other crimes? Killing an innocent human being is never justifiable.
(9) “I could not give my child away for someone else to raise.”
Answer: A child is not a possession to control, but a person to love unconditionally. What kind of mother would rather kill her baby than give him a chance to be happy with an adoptive family? It’s the height of selfishness to say: “If I cannot have my child, no one will.” Recall how King Solomon detected which woman was the child’s true mother (1 Kings 3:16-27).
(10) “Better an aborted baby than an unwanted baby.”
Answer: Once we decide that we can kill because he is “unwanted,” we are applying the same logic Hitler used to kill “unwanted” retarded children and “undesirable” races like the Jews. No unborn baby is unwanted. God, who willed to give them life, wants them. There are many couples here in Trinidad and Tobago longing to adopt.
(11) “You cannot prove that the foetus is a child.”
Answer: True, but you cannot prove that the foetus is not a child. The mere possibility of human life should lead us to protect the foetus. (If a hunter thought there was any chance that the creature behind a bush might be a person instead of a deer, he would be morally obliged not to shoot). No doctor then can claim that he could destroy the foetus because it is not a child.

I know that all that is written here will not convince those who have made up their minds to promote abortions. Many people who support abortions already are convinced that unborn babies are human beings — they just don’t care! But I pray for those who are promoting the death of our children, because the blood of those innocent children cries out to God (Genesis 4:10). On judgement day all will have to answer to almighty God. Yours in Jesus and Mary...

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK
Port-of-Spain