Carolyn C. Gargaro

Abortion is wrong because it entails the killing of innocent human life, maintains Carolyn C. Gargaro in the following viewpoint. Human life begins with the union of sperm and egg, she argues, because fertilization creates a unique individual with a complete genetic code. Furthermore, since an unborn child has a different genetic makeup from that of its mother, its life should be seen as something that is separate and distinct from the mother. All unborn children, therefore, are fully human and should have their fundamental right to life protected, the author asserts. Gargaro is a freelance writer and web page developer.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1. According to Gargaro, what are some of the legal rights that unborn children have"
2. What risks does abortion pose for women, according to the author"
3. In Gargaro’s opinion, why should fetal viability not determine an unborn child’s right to life"

Today, more than twenty-seven years since the legalization of abortion, over 30 million legal abortions have taken place in the United States. To me, this is an issue which is more than a simple question of women controlling their own lives and bodies. It is a matter of life and death for an innocent human being.

Right away, some will say that abortion is not a matter of life and death, arguing that a fetus is not a “person”, or a “human being”. Yet, medical research proves that the fetus is a living organism from the moment of conception. Though it may be argued that this living organism is not a person, it seems that it can be nothing other than a human being. I realize that it may be difficult to think of a three- week old fetus as a human with rights. The way I think to best explain this is to start by going back to the sperm and the egg.

Life Begins at Fertilization

A sperm has 23 chromosomes, and no matter what, even though it is alive and can fertilize an egg, it can never make another sperm. An egg also has 23 chromosomes and it can never make another egg. So we have eggs and sperm that cannot reproduce. A solitary egg or a solitary sperm does not have the complete genetic code for a separate human being. The ovum and the sperm are each a product of another’s body: unlike the fertilized egg, neither is an independent entity. Neither one is complete. Like cells in someone’s hair or fingernails, an egg or sperm does not have the capacity to become other than what it already is. Both are essentially dead-ends, destined to remain what they are until they die in a matter of days. This negates one common argument—that the unborn isn’t human, or else every time a man ejaculated, or a woman menstruated, an “unborn” dies. Obviously this is ridiculous—a sperm without an egg and an egg without a sperm does not constitute human life.

Once there is the union of a sperm and egg, the 23 chromosomes are brought together in one cell with 46 chromosomes. Once there are 46 chromosomes, that one cell has all of the DNA, the whole genetic code for a genetically distinct human life. It isn’t a “potential” human life, or some “other” type of life because something non-human does not magically become human by getting older and bigger—whatever is human must be human from the beginning. Everything that constitutes a human being is present from that moment forward—the only thing added from that point on is nutrition so the unborn can grow. This new life is not a sperm or an egg, or even a simple combination of both. It is independent with a life of its own, and the development is actually self-directed. A sperm can’t do that—neither can an egg. They do not “develop”.

The baby’s blood supply is also completely separate from the mother’s. If they are not separate bodies, how could a mother and child have different blood types? If a child’s and mother’s blood mix, it can be fatal for the child if the Rh factors are different. There is a shot to prevent this, but if there is not, and the blood of different Rh factors mix, the baby can die. Now, I cannot think of any doctor that would kill a newborn baby the moment that it was born. My question is, now, can that baby be killed a minute before it is born, or a minute before that, or a minute before that? You see what I’m getting at. At what minute can one consider life to be worthless and at the next minute that life to be precious"

Even most medical texts and pro-choice doctors agree with geneticist Ashley Montagu, who has written: “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but at conception.” The beginning of human life is not a religious, moral, or philosophical issue; it is a scientific and biological one. From the time those 23 chromosomes become 46 onward, the unborn is a living, developing individual with a unique genetic makeup.

Medical Ethics"

What surprised me most was statements from abortionists themselves who seemed to know that they were destroying life, a human life. For instance:

Neville Sender, M.D., who runs an abortion clinic, Metropolitan Medical Service, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin: “We know it is killing, but the states permit killing under certain circumstances.”

Warren Hern, M.D., of the Boulder Abortion Clinic in Boulder, Colorado: “There is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator. It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.”

Abortionist at a New York City hospital, as quoted by psychologist Magda Denes in her book, In Necessity and Sorrow: “Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I’m trained to conserve life and here I am destroying life.”

Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers: “Women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. It is a form of killing. You’re ending a life.”

So much for medical ethics.

The Rights of the Unborn

Ihope to have at least shown that the unborn is a human individual. It is also interesting that this individual, who can be denied life, has other rights. An unborn baby can be injured in an accident and at a later date, after being born, can sue the person who has injured him; a fetus can inherit an estate and take precedence over a person who is already born as soon as that fetus himself is born. In addition, the US Congress voted unanimously in 1974 to delay the capital punishment of pregnant women until after they have given birth.

The problem I have with abortion is: why should we deny this individual the right to live? At what point is the unborn worthy to live? I realize that there are other difficult questions regarding abortion, and I will address a few of them.

Some believe that even though there may be life, or potential life, or however one wants to refer to the fetus, that denying a woman the right to an abortion is denying her control of her body. Being a woman myself, I am obviously against people trying to control women or their bodies. But the fetus is a completely separate life from the woman. It has a completely different blood type and genetic code; it is not just part of the mother’s body. It is temporarily residing there, and birth is just the change of residence from an already living, active person. Just because the unborn is dependent on the mother for nine months, does that give anyone the right to choose to end its life? Being dependent on others should not deprive a helpless human being the fundamental right to live, as we do not base humanness on whether another person is around to take care of that life. Trying to justify abortion by arguing that the unborn does not have this right is a form of discrimination based on age and the fact that they cannot speak for themselves.

What About “Unwanted” Children"

There is also an issue about child abuse, that unwanted children will be unloved and abused. There are two tough questions here. First, what does “unwanted” mean? If the mother does not want the child, there are thousands of childless couples who certainly would want that child. Also, someone’s right to live should not be based on how much one individual wants them. Do we dispose of born children who are abandoned and obviously not wanted"

The Violent Killing of a Baby

Now, I want to be the first to admit that not everyone sees abortion as the ending of a life. There are probably some people who still see a baby in the womb as unfeeling tissue, like a mole or subcutaneous fat. They see the baby in the sonogram looking like a baby and they don’t believe it’s a baby. They see the baby reacting to a needle and moving away from it and they don’t think it’s a life. They know that a baby in the womb relaxes when she or he hears soothing music and they don’t think there’s a baby there. There are people who know that babies look just like postpartum babies very soon after conception, when they are still in the womb, and have a strong sense of pain, but those people can still call an abortion something other than the violent killing of a baby. None so blind as those who will not see, goes the adage.

Benjamin J. Stein, American Spectator, May 1998.

There are also countless programs across the country that can provide counseling, housing, medical care, job training and other services for anyone with an unplanned pregnancy who would want to keep their child. Many loving couples are also seeking to adopt children—in fact, there are many more parents waiting to adopt children of all types—white, black, handicapped or not—than there are available children.

Secondly, there is no correlation between unplanned pregnancies and the subsequent abuse of the children—in fact, it is most often the wanted children who are abused. For instance, a study of 674 battered children in California found that 91% of the children were wanted, compared to 63% for the control groups nationally. I have not yet seen a study (and I have read a large amount of pro-choice material) that correlates the two.

Child abuse has also increased by 500% since abortion was legalized in 1973. . . .

The Dangers of Abortion

Iwould also like to address the potential problem of women seeking “back-alley,” or illegal abortions if abortion is not kept legal. What is interesting about this argument is that Roe v. Wade basically made people who were previously considered illegal abortionists, now legal abortionists! As quoted in Roe v. Wade: “The state is constitutionally barred, however, from requiring review of the abortion decision by a hospital committee or concurrence in the decision by two physicians other than the attending physician. The Constitution also prohibits a state from requiring that the abortion be in a hospital licensed by the Joint Committee on Accreditation of Hospitals or indeed that it be a hospital at all.” By virtually eliminating state regulation of abortions, the Court simply let illegal “back-alley” abortionists to go legal, with their procedures unchanged.

It should also be remembered that a death occurs every time an abortion is performed—the death of an unborn child. Women have control over choosing an illegal abortion that they know could be harmful. The unborn has absolutely no control when the mother chooses to abort. In addition, abortion is a surgical procedure, and even though it is legal, it still puts many women at risk. Many women suffer post-abortion complications, such as severe muscle damage and damage to the uterine wall, which can lead to scarring, future miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other future medical problems. In addition, induced abortion approximately triples the risk of suicide; women who carry full-term have about 1/2 the risk of suicide as the general female population.

Viability Does Not Determine Personhood

Many people who I’ve talked to say, “Well, abortion is acceptable because it’s done before the fetus is viable.” First, viability is not something which should be used to determine whether someone is “human enough” to have the right to live, since viability is based on medical science. Medical science does not determine when someone becomes human. In 1990, a 25-week-old fetus could not survive outside the womb. Now it can. Maybe in ten years, a 15-week-old fetus will be able to be sustained outside the womb. Does this mean that the fetus, in 1999, is not human, but a fetus of the same age in 2007 is somehow more human? The point of viability constantly changes because it is based on medical technology, not the fetus itself. What if one hospital had the technology to keep a 20-week-old fetus alive but another hospital only had the technology to keep a 28-week-old fetus alive? Is the fetus “human” and worthy of life in one hospital but not in another"

Secondly, abortions are done after viability because abortion is basically legal the full nine months. As defined by the Supreme Court, “viable” is “capable of meaningful life.” According to Roe v. Wade, after viability has been reached, the life is not a person in the “whole sense”, so that even after viability the fetus is not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee that life shall not be taken without due process of the law. States may, but are not required to, prohibit post-viability abortions. Only twenty-one prohibit them now. Only 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks, and about 4/100ths of one percent (300–600 abortions) take place after 26 weeks. “Viability” is usually considered to be about 24 weeks, so it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how many “post-viability” abortions occur.

However, “late-term” abortions are described as abortions occurring after the 16th week, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a well-known pro-choice institute. Many people believe that late-term abortions are only done for extreme circumstances, as is the case with most post-viability abortions, but this is not the case. In one pro- choice study of women who had an abortion after the 16th week, 71% said they “did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,” and 24% “took time to decide to have an abortion.” Only 2% said “a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy,” and the report did not indicate that any of the late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. Look at a picture of a baby aborted in the fifth month of pregnancy, and then try and say abortion does not end a human life.

Most Americans Are Pro-Life

Despite the opinion that I have heard from many people, the majority of the American public is pro-life. In addition, pro-life people are not against sex or women’s rights. Sure, there are some radicals, but there are radicals in every group. Some say that the pro-life side is run by men who want to control women. This is untrue, and I think the situation may be reversed. How many women have had an abortion because they have been pressured by a man—their father, boyfriend, or husband? And who primarily performs abortions? Male doctors. In essence, I feel that making abortion an acceptable, and even preferred option in some cases, is yet another way to control women. Think about it—get the woman to have an abortion, and the man doesn’t have to be burdened with any responsibility. If men were the ones who had to go through abortions, I’m sure the medical community would be much more interested in developing fool-proof birth control. . . .

The pro-life stand is not just an anti-abortion stand. It is one to try and prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to take care of the mother and child if one does occur. Pro-lifers will also counsel people after an abortion if they suffer physically or psychologically. Women, especially teenagers, are often totally distraught after an abortion and have no one to turn to because the clinic did not offer post-abortion counseling. These girls have turned to people from the pro- life community for help, and they have been helped, not yelled at or condemned. To be hateful or vindictive towards these women is not the point. Pro-lifers stand up for the sacredness of life, and speak mainly out of love—love for the babies that we will never see, for the frightened women who don’t understand what they are going through. I always urge people to remember also, that it is the abortion clinic workers, not pro-life volunteers, who are receiving a financial gain in persuading women into the choice of whether or not to have an abortion.

What I also find interesting is that pro-lifers are always asked the question, “If you’re so compassionate, why don’t you take care of all the ‘unwanted’ children"” Using that logic, if pro-lifers believe that abortion is wrong and thus should pay for every “unwanted” child, then the prochoicers, who believe abortion is not wrong, should pay for all women’s abortions.

Funny, I’ve heard many stories of these “compassionate” clinics turning women away if they didn’t have enough money. For instance, in March 1994, a single, unemployed woman was turned away from a St. Petersburg abortion clinic because she didn’t have enough money.

There is no easy answer to this situation, and I do not think unwanted pregnancies are something to be taken lightly. However, I feel that the medical community should emphasize finding safe and effective birth control that would eliminate the need for abortion. That would be the easiest solution, because even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the debate will still rage on, and some abortions will still occur. But before effective birth control is found, before society changes its attitude toward pregnancy, and makes it more acceptable for women or young girls to be pregnant, the answer to this societal problem is not to kill the innocent.