A New York-based law firm, the Center for Reproductive Rights, has released a paper blaming the Philippines’ pro-life laws criminalizing abortion for endangering women. The group alleges that current laws force women to turn to illegal abortions that can result in complications and — in around 1000 cases annually — even death. The report basically ties the laws against abortion to what it says are human rights violations.
This is nothing new. Pro-abortion forces used the same deceptive tactic to get abortion legalized in the U.S. The deception lies on many levels, some of which we will examine.
The CRR sees access to abortion as a human right, and in their view the denial of such is effectively a violation of a woman’s rights. This claim, however, is extremely ironic because abortion is itself a violation of human rights: it is a denial of the unborn child’s right to life. Since the situation therefore involves the alleged “rights” of a woman over the right to life of an innocent child, we must ask: whatever rights a woman may have regarding choices about having children, can these be more important than the right to life itself?
Life is the most paramount right. Without it no other rights can be exercised. Therefore, even if choosing an abortion is part of a woman’s rights — as claimed by the CRR — it is necessarily a lesser right than the right to life, a right which will be denied to the victim of an abortion, the unborn child.
To get around this dilemma, many pro-abortion groups sinply deny that unboirn children are people. Doing so, however, requires ignoring basic biology and scientific evidence. Once a human egg is fertilized, it can naturally develop only into a human being. It will not become a dog or a cat. It is definitively a human being. Furthermore, science tells us that the 46 chromosomes that define a unique human individual come together at fertilization. The fertilized ovum will become only a specific human individual and not another. It is clearly then a human person.
Aside from the scientific evidence, those that deny that the unborn are people have to face another problem: if the unborn are not human, then when do they become human? Obviously, birth is just an arbitrary defining point since the transfer of location and physically parting from another person (which is what a birth involves) does not define humanity. Other changes in the embryo or fetus are also not sufficient defining points since these are simply stages in the development of a unique individual already defined at fertilization. Even born human beings are still undergoing development. An infant is physically different from an adult. Later stages in development of an already unique individual cannot therefore define the beginning of human life and personhood.
The price of “safe” abortion
There are many laws that result in difficulty and hardship. Enforcing our laws against murder, for example, often result in shootouts and great expenditures to catch murderers. Enforcing our laws against drug trafficking also results in many deaths and a host of other problems. Does that mean we should legalize murder and drug trafficking? Of course not. We should not legalize these because thyey are wrong and the hardship entailed in enforcing our laws is nothing compared to the greater evils that will befall our nation should these crimes be legalized.
In the same way, abortion is in itself a great evil, a crime against the unborn, and a violation of human rights. If indeed continued criminalization of abortion can lead to other hardships. these are little compared to the mass butchery and massive moral degradation that would occur should abortion be made legal.
We must also note that there are other ways to alleviate the alleged plight of women who find themsleves turning to abortion. There are alternatives such as adoption, pregnancy crisis centers, and even foster homes for expectant mothers. There are also other measures that can be implemented by the government that can help, as we shall see.
Poverty is the culprit
The CRR report notes that mant women turn to abortion are poor and often cite economic reasons as one reason for doing so. In one interview cited by the report, a respondent said “Only those who are better off, rich, can talk about abortion as illegal. They have no worries about raising their children. But for those who have to work daily to be able to feed their families, the poor women have limited options. They do not know what it is like to be poor and desperate,”
That fact, however, shows that the real culprit is poverty. Legalizing abortion does absolutely nothing to address this issue. If the CRR is really interested in saving women’s lives it should call for an end to indsicriminate and excessive foreign debt servicing, manimizing graft and corruption, and economic policies that promote self-sufficiency and benefit Filipinos instead of foreign interests. These will address poverty. But it seems that the CRR is more interested in eliminating persons who they see as “problems” instead of addressing the real causes.
Should difficulty of enforcement mean legalization?
The report also claims that the country’s strict abortion laws have not stopped hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. CBCP legal adviser Atty. Jo Imbong’s simple but eloquent response quoted in a story in GMANews, however, revealed the weak reasoning behind the claims of the pro-abortion group: “Kung maraming drug addicts, gawin na lang nating legal ang drug addiction? (If there are many drug addicts, does that mean we should make drug use legal?)”
Indeed, we can even be more to the point: Just because it is difficult to eliminate all cases of murder doesn’t mean we should legalize it. Abortion is, after all, the killing of the most innocent and defenseless members of our society. In case anyone misses the point, killing the innocent is murder.
Safe equals legal?
Underlying the CRR’s propaganda is an assumption that legal abortions are also safe for women who decide to have them. This ignores the fact that all abortions are unsafe for their primary victims: the unborn. It also overlooks the fact that legal abortions aren’t always medically safe for the mothers. Many “legal” in other countries abortions are actually carried out in unsanitary conditions and are every bit as dangerous to women as illegal ones.
We should also remember that women are also victims of abortion. More evidence is coming out that those who have had abortions have a higher risk of suffering miscarriages, cervical cancer, psychological problems, and even suicide.
The CRR wants to legalize abortion in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, where the fetus is impaired, where the pregancy is the result of rape or incest. But the Philippines does allow for measures necessary to save the mother’s life which may indirectly result in the death of the unborn baby. This is not a direct abortion and in some cases is even allowed by the Church.
As for fetal impairment, that involves a moral judgement which essentially says that a certain type of person should not be allowed to live. Following this “logic,” should we now start killing people with Down’s Syndrome? The reasoning is absurd and is not grounds for killing an innocent person.
Rape and incest are likewise not valid grounds for killing an innocent child. As Atty. Imbong pointed out, “Hindi naman kasalanan ng baby yun eh. Bakit siya papatayin? (The rape is not the baby’s fault. Why should the baby be killed?)”
By the way. although it is not emphasized in its new report, many pro-abortion groups want to allow abortion in cases where the pregnancy can cause “psychological distress.” That last term is really a catch-all phrase that can mean just about anything. It is used to disguise the real objective, which is abortion on demand, for any reason. Abortion is seen by these people as a right, not as the violation of human rights (of the unborn) that it really is.
Reproductive health and abortion linked
The report and its accompanying call for legalization of abortion exposes the hidden agenda behind the “reproductive health” propaganda to which our people have been subjected lately. Contraception, population control, and contraceptive sex education are actually closely linled to abortion. They feed on each other and together make up a very profitable billion dollar industry!
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly stated that, in the Obama administration’s view, reproductive health includes access to abortion. All the elements of the reproductive health agenda — abortion, population control, contraception, promotion of so-called sexaul freedom (meaning casual sex without responsibility) and sex education taught apart from values, form a single discriminatory, eugenics-based worldview that sees pregnancy, children, and population growth in the Third World as a threat that must be contained.
It is not coincidental that all this dovetails neatly with the declassified 1974 U.S. government document, National Security Study Memorandum 200. This document lists the Philippines as part of a group of countries whose growing population, which would eventually lead to prosperity, would threaten U.S. overseas economic interests and security. The document recommended the imposition of radical population control using United Nations aid programs.
The cat is out of the bag. Not content with imposing dehumanizing forms of sex education, contraception, and population control, pro-RH groups now want to legalize the murder of the innocent.
I wonder what the proponents of the RH/Abortion Bill like Edcel Lagman, Risa Hontiveros, and Jannette Garin — who all claim to be anti-abortion — have to say to this. If they keep quiet then it’s pretty obvious that they too are part of this deadly agenda.
(Note: This article previously appeared on my blog at: http://mamador.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/abortion-reproductive-rights-hoax/)