Ah, the war cry of all
abortion advocates. Even the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, quoted above, use this as their excuse to opposed a ban
on the partial-birth abortion. We are constantly told that we
must allow abortion in all its forms and at all stages of
pregnancy due to four major factors: the life or health of the mother,
the health (or perceived abnormality) of the fetus (baby), and, of
course, rape and incest.
But how often does one of
these four factors actually figure into the decision to have an
abortion?
Less than 2% of the 1.37
Million Abortions Per Year are Due to Rape, Incest or Health Reasons
In a study entitled
"Reasons given for having abortions in the United States,"5
Wm. Robert Johnston includes this chart. (Figures in parentheses are
range of values from other studies cited in the article.)
REASONS
FOR ABORTIONS: COMPILED ESTIMATES
Rape— 0.25 % (0.1-1 %)
Incest— 0.03 % (<0.1 %)
Physical life of
mother— 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
Physical health
of mother—1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
Fetal health—0.4 %
(0.1-1.0 %)
Mental health of
mother— depends on criterion (0.1-17 %)
"Personal choice"—98%
(78-99 %)
—Too young/immature/not
ready for responsibility—(32 %)
—Economic—(21-28 %)
—To avoid adjusting
life—(16 %)
—Mother single or in
poor relationship—(12-13 %)
—Enough children
already—(4-8 %)
Quantifying cases
involving the "mental health" of the mother is difficult due to the
highly subjective use of this term. It is likely that the number of
cases involving medically-defined mental illness falls towards the
low end of the range given above.
These official state
statistics suggest that the commonly cited AGI [Alan Guttmacher
Institute (the research branch of Planned Parenthood)] figures for
the "hard cases" are high, perhaps by a factor of two. In any case,
however, there appears to be consensus that the hard cases—rape,
incest, life/health of mother or baby—are a very small fraction of
cases. … In contrast, AGI’s 1988 survey… suggests that a
significant fraction of abortions are done by mothers who are
not unable to care for a child, but simply do not want their
lives inconvenienced.…6
Did you catch that?
Less than 2 percent of the 1.37 million or so abortions each year
have anything at all to do with health issues, or with pregnancies due
to rape or incest, those so-called "hard cases"! That means that
there is no "moral" justification for the other 98 percent.
Embryonic Stem Cell
Research vs. Adult Stem Cell Research
Most discussions of stem
cell research unjustifiably hold out hope that by creating human
embryos (the point where all life begins) that if we harvest the stem
cells from these humans, thereby destroying them, it is worthwhile to
do so, as these cells will cure a multitude of diseases in people.
This is morally wrong—you
don’t kill your son to help your mother. And, in fact, the scientific
evidence to prove this point does not support the unrealistic
expectations for cures.
Do Embryonic Stem Cells
Hold the Best Hope for Michael J. Fox or the Disabled Such as the Late
Christopher Reeve?
The media feeding frenzy
regarding embryonic stem cell research has begun to heat up again in
recent days. Dr. Adrienne Torda, senior lecturer in medical ethics at
the University of New South Wales, Australia, explains:
The death of
Christopher Reeve has thrust the issue of stem-cell research into
the limelight. Best known as a strong and fearless fighter, both on
the big screen, and in real life after his tragic accident which
left him severely disabled, his tireless and articulate appeal for
support for embryonic stem cell research did an immeasurable
amount to raise awareness about this field of research.
Figures such as Reeve,
Michael J. Fox or Ronald Reagan have been used in the campaign for
stem-cell research, raising public optimism of the many diseases and
disabilities that could be helped by research in this field.
But as Hollywood seemed
to take control of the issue, it was easy to gain the impression
that within just a few years [embryonic] stem-cell technology
would allow the disabled to get up out of their wheelchairs and
walk again, with many diseases also soon to be cured.
Any publicity might be
good publicity, but these extraordinarily high expectations
of quick clinical results are unsustainable, and
unsupportable, since any realistic therapeutic advance is decades
away.7
Other experts agree on
this last point:
Princeton University
Professor Robert P. George says, "No one knows when—or even whether or
not—human embryonic stem cells will be therapeutically useful in
treating any major disease or injury."8
Maureen L. Condic,
Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of
Utah, is working on the regeneration of adult and embryonic neurons
following spinal cord injury. She says, "To date there is no
evidence that cells generated from embryonic stem cells can be safely
transplanted back into adult animals to restore the function of
damaged or diseased adult tissues."9
Adult Stem Cells vs.
Embryonic Stem Cells
There seems to be some
confusion even among reporters as to what constitutes adult as opposed
to embryonic stem cells.
Embryonic stem cells come
from human embryos (these may be the so-called "left over" embryos
from in vitro fertilization, or those created through some form of
cloning—using cells from an adult to fertilize the egg). In either
case, the embryo is destroyed so the stem cells can be "harvested"
some time in the first 5-10 days of life.
We have elsewhere argued
extensively that this embryo is a unique human being10,
and to destroy it is to end a life. Clarke Forsythe, Director of the
Americans United for Life Project in Law and Bioethics gives support
for this same point:
William Larsen in his
1993 text, Human Embryology, states: "the nuclei of the male and
female gametes unite, resulting in the formation of a zygote
containing a single diploid [having the full complement of
chromosomes] nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin
at this point." Larsen also states that "the moment of zygote
formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of
embryonic development."…
O’Rahilly & Muller in
their 1994 text, Human Embryology & Teratology, state… "[a]lthough
life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark
because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct
human organism is thereby formed."11
We are opposed to the use
of embryonic stem cells in research or in treatment,
because there is no way they can be harvested other than by killing
the "donor."
On the other hand,
so-called "adult" stem cells can be harvested with no threat to life
at all. Sources include: umbilical cord blood, the placenta, tissues
such as bone marrow, lung, pancreas, brain, breast, fat, skin and even
tooth pulp. The Christian Medical and Dental Association remarks,
"Bone marrow stem cells have been recognized and used in treatment for
over 20 years. Only recently were stem cells found in many other
tissues. There may be stem cells in each of the 210 different types of
tissue in the human body."12
Wolfgang Lillge, M.D.,
writes:
It has been known for
about 30 years that stem cells are present in the tissue of the
adult, but it was assumed that they could only form cells of a
particular tissue. That is, reprogramming them was considered
impossible. In recent years, however, pluripotent stem cells were
discovered in various human tissues–in the spinal cord, in the
brain, in the mesenchyme (connective tissue) of various organs, and
in the blood of the umbilical cord. These pluripotent stem cells are
capable of forming several cell types–principally blood, muscle, and
nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop
them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of
growth factors and regulating proteins.
This shows that in
tissues of the body, adult stem cells possess a much greater
potential for differentiation than previously assumed. This
knowledge must be brought into the public consciousness with all
possible emphasis.
If stem cell research
were really only meant for therapeutic uses, which it most obviously
should be, adult stem cells would promise a very productive research
field–and beyond that, a possibility, without moral objection, to
discover fundamentals of the dynamics of tissue differentiation.13
Hope is in Adult Stem
Cell Research
However, news about the
very significant advances in the use of adult stem
cells is sadly missing from most media reports on stem cell
research. Wesley J. Smith lists some of the things you probably did
not see on the nightly news in his article, "Spinning Stem Cells":
It’s worth recapping
just a few of the other advances made in adult-cell therapies and
research in the last two years, all of which were significantly
underplayed in the media:
• Israeli doctors
inserted a paraplegic patient’s own white blood cells into her
severed spinal cord, after which she regained bladder control and
the ability to wiggle her toes and move her legs. (I only saw
reporting on this case in the Globe and Mail, June 15, 2001.)
• Immune systems
destroyed by cancer were restored in children using stem cells from
umbilical-cord blood. (There was a good story in the April 16, 2001
Time, but other than that I saw no reporting.)
• At Harvard
University, mice with Type I diabetes were completely cured of their
disease. The experiment was so successful that human trials are now
planned. (This was reported in the July 19, 2001, Harvard
University Gazette, but I saw no coverage at all in the
mainstream press.)
• Diabetic mice treated
with adult stem cells achieved full insulin production and all
lived. This is in contrast to an experiment in which embryonic stem
cells injected into diabetic mice achieved a 3 percent insulin
production rate and all the mice died. (According to the May 2001
STATS, published by the Statistical Assessment Service, the
embryo experiment made big news while the media ignored the adult
cell experiment.)
• How many humans have
been treated by embryonic stem cells? Zero. Indeed, before human
trials can even be safely undertaken researchers will have to
overcome two serious difficulties that stand between patients and
embryonic-cell regenerative medicine: 1) ES cells cause tumors, and
2) ES cells may be rejected by the immune system. Surmounting these
difficulties — if they can be surmounted at all — will take a very
long time and much expense. There is no risk of rejection with adult
cells, by contrast, because they come from the patients’ own bodies.
Nor, at least so far, does adult-stem-cell therapy appear to cause
tumors. This puts adult therapies years ahead of the game.
Smith continues:
The media continue to
imply that embryos hold the key to the future. But increasingly, it
looks as if our own body cells offer the quickest and best hope
for regenerative medicine. The time has come for the public to
insist that the media stop acting as if adult stem cells are the
"wrong" kind of stem cells, and report to the American people fully
and fairly the remarkable advances continually being made in adult
regenerative medicine.14
Same-Sex Marriage
In his book Marriage
on Trial, Glenn Stanton, Senior Analyst for Marriage and Sexuality
at Focus on the Family, explains why the fight to preserve the
traditional definition of marriage is so important. He says:
By Legalizing Same-Sex
Marriage, We Lose…
1. the unique value of
male and female… [one or the other is] not necessary for the
family, … kids don’t need mothers or fathers…
2. the special value of
your marriage… A natural marriage includes the wonder of a
relationship where you are creating and bearing new life together
and raising that new life to full and healthy human maturity….
Same-sex marriage changes all this and says …it is mere personal
preference…
3. the necessary social
value of monogamy… Monogamy, research and experience tells us,
is virtually impossible in male homosexual relationships…. same-sex
marriage will very likely encourage society to see monogamy as
optional.
4. the dignity and
status of women… If two married men are morally equal to a
married man and a woman, then the social value of a husband… is lost
as a social ideal. More women will be left to fend for
themselves…Research by Scott Coltrane shows us that societies with
lower rates of father involvement in the lives of their children
have lower respect and provide less significant social opportunity
for women….
5. the well-being and
safety of children… Children are put at serious risk of physical
and sexual abuse when they live in a family with a nonbiological
parent. Therefore, all same-sex parenting potentially puts children
at serious risk….
6. the right to
religious conviction and democracy… When it is established that
gay marriage is a "fundamental human right," it is reasonable that
it will be taught as normal in every public school… Churches could
be pressured to perform same-sex weddings…Your right to oppose
homosexuality or oppose it being taught… could be lost. It could
become hate speech to say children need a mother and father. [That
is exactly what happened in Canada.]…
7. the mechanism that
delivers the next healthy, productive, safe generation…When
there is no special value to (1) males and females permanently
committed to, sacrificing for and completing each other, and (2)
biological, pro-creative childbearing and rearing, then we erase the
mechanism that has allowed all civilizations to bring forth the next
healthy, socially productive, compassionate and considerate
generation.15
Traditional Marriage is
Important for Children
Glenn Stanton and
co-author Dr. Bill Maier list a number of reasons traditional
heterosexual marriage is beneficial for both parents and children.
They say:
Healthy marriage
provides rich benefits for… children by way of
increasing
• all levels of
intellectual and educational development
• all levels of
physical and emotional health
• increased sympathy
and consideration for others
decreasing
• the need to visit
doctors for physical and emotional problems
• incidents of idleness
(being out of school and not working)
• being in trouble at
school or with the law
• participation in
drugs, violence and premarital sexuality and childbearing
• the danger of
physical and sexual violence
• the likelihood of
living in poverty16
Finally, Stanton and
Maier list these reason children benefit from living in a traditional
family, where both mother and father are present in the home:
• Mothers and fathers
parent differently
• Mothers and fathers
play differently
• Fathers push limits,
mothers stress safety
• Mothers and fathers
communicate differently
• Mothers and fathers
discipline differently
• Mothers and fathers
help children prepare for life and the world differently
• Mothers and fathers
provide a unique look at the world of women and men
• Fathers teach respect
for women, and mothers and fathers teach respect for relationship.17
Why Should Americans
Fight for Traditional Marriage?
In another article Glenn
Stanton explains why we must continue to fight for traditional
marriage. He says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of
children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our
culture. For, as marriage goes, so go our children – and with them –
the future of humanity."18
But Isn’t Same-Sex
Marriage a Civil Right?
Gay activists claim that
the right to same-sex marriage is right up there with the rights of
blacks to be treated equal, the right of women to vote, etc.19
But many of those
involved in the Civil Rights movement, disagree. In fact, they are
offended by the comparison. Correspondent Steve Jordahl filed an
article entitled "Gay ‘Marriage’ Not a Civil Right" for Family News in
Focus. He reports one black activist’s reaction:
…Dr. Walter Fauntroy
takes issue with the gay activist claim. Fauntroy, who coordinated
the historic civil rights March on Washington in 1963, said he will
never accept the civil rights comparison, especially in a culture
where the family structure is already decimated.
"What happens in my
heart is that I know the difference," he said. "Don’t confuse my
people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction,
by giving them another definition of marriage."
He adamantly supports
equal rights for all people in the areas of income, education,
health care, housing and criminal justice, but he said there are two
essential components gay "marriages" would never be able to provide.
First, gay couples can’t—by themselves —procreate.
"Nor can (homosexual
couples) effectively prepare the next generation for civil society,"
Fauntroy said. "Every boy needs a loving relationship with a man and
a woman."
Seventy percent of
African-American children, he added, are being raised by single
parent families.20
Jeff Jacoby of the
Boston Globe puts it even more bluntly:
Last month, as
Massachusetts lawmakers prepared to debate a constitutional
amendment on the meaning of marriage, the state’s leading black
clergy came out strongly in support of the age-old definition: the
union of a man and a woman. They were promptly tarred as enemies of
civil rights. "Martin Luther King," one left-wing legislator barked,
"is rolling over in his grave at a statement like this."
But if anything has
King spinning in his grave, it is the indecency of exploiting his
name for a cause he never supported. The civil rights movement for
which he lived and died was grounded in a fundamental truth: All
God’s children are created equal. The same-sex marriage movement, by
contrast, is grounded in the denial of a fundamental truth:
The Creator who made us equal made us male and female. That duality
has always and everywhere been the starting point for marriage. To
claim that marriage can ignore that duality is akin to the claim,
back when lunch counters were segregated, that America was a land of
liberty and justice for all.21
Notes
