The Abortion Debate: Pro-Life

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski
Video by Connect Mason Reporter Edwin Mora

• To see the Pro-Choice perspective, click here
• For coverage of this week's Pro-Life Forum, click here
• VIDEO: View student opinions below.

Every worldview has its axioms, or assumptions that must be true in order to preserve validity. Whenever these basic points of unity are undermined, the entire position is undermined. Enter the Pro-Choice Movement, an entity like other ideologies that has a set of assumptions that must be true in order for the movement not to be in vain. However, as evidenced by a sampling of assumptions gathered, the reader shall bear witness to the flaws of a movement shrouded in emotional arguments, D.C.-area marches and political activism.

.

It all starts with feminism. Groups supporting unlimited access to abortion have hijacked the radical idea that women are human beings. Abortion activists’ greatest PR success has got to be installing the illusion that women’s rights and a gruesome medical procedure are inseparable. This would be a surprise to Susan B. Anthony, the pioneering feminist from the 20th century. A proponent of women’s suffrage, Anthony referred to abortion as “child murder” and called what many dub a fetus “the unborn innocent.” Alice Paul, author of the original Equal Rights Amendment, said, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women."

Feminist opposition to abortion should not be surprising, for the medical risks far outweigh any benefit. Several medical problems have been associated with the procedure before and after western states began to relax abortion regulation. This has included infertility, hemorrhaging, as well as lasting damage to the cervix, urinary tract and uterus. The hazards of abortion were laid out even in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade: “When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman.” Back then, the extent of harmful effects was not truly appreciated. Over the years, studies from across the world have shown considerable evidence for a link between abortion and breast cancer, including studies that eliminate the “recall bias” including those conducted by H. Howe (1989), K. Stavraky and E. Simmons (1974), C. La Vecchia et al. (1987) and others.

This very possible link is denied by pro-choicers, who cite a recent study by a Dr. Melbye. The study attempted to show a zero correlation between abortion and breast cancer by surveying every woman born in Denmark from April 1, 1935 to April 1, 1978. Yet the study has come under fire for not accurately determining whether many of the women actually had an abortion or not. Further, Melbye acknowledged only “for the very small group of women with preterm deliveries of less than 32 weeks gestation did we observe an increased risk.” Even this critical study is open to some link existing between early termination of a pregnancy and breast cancer.

Health risks, be it manifested in a higher likelihood of breast cancer or other fatal side-effects, prompted most of the anti-abortion legislation pro-choicers later denounced as products of chauvinism. But even some who oppose the pro-life camp are willing to admit things. As pro-choice writer Catherine Whitney concedes, “In the beginning, abortion controls were based…on concern for the health of the mother.” The work of restricting abortion derived from medical professionals, as an American Medical Association position statement in the 19th century referred to abortion as “no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child.”

For many pro-choice advocates out there, the words of pioneering women’s suffragettes and concerned physicians are not enough. Nightmare scenarios of countless women prevented from terminating pregnancies caused by rape are often propagated. These incidents are grossly over-represented. Using nationwide statistics on rape compiled by disastercenter.com and the number of abortions in the USA compiled by the Alan Guttmacher institute, one sees an enlightening trend. For example, in the year 1975 over 56 thousand rapes were reported in the U.S. and 1,034,200 abortions took place, meaning that even if all the reported rapes led to an abortion, rape only accounts for 5.4 percent of abortions performed. In 1980, there were 82,990 rapes reported and 1,553,900 abortions performed, making rape at most account for only 5.3 percent. This trend continues throughout the years following the Roe v. Wade decision, with that chief emotional justification never even hitting percentage double-digits. By politically moderate standards in a typical year, over 90 percent of abortions have no justification.

Every movement has its assumptions. It’s a pity the evidence that could be mustered against the pro-choice movement’s axioms is too ample to be completely covered in this limited space. An aura of the slippery slope is hopefully gaining momentum. After all, if some of the pro-choice movements’ myths have suffered loss on this newspaper page, then what about their other claims so fiercely defended? How many fundamentals to the abortion lobby can be displaced simply by having an open mind? For self-professed “pro-choicers” who read this work, please consider these things.