Garth Rattray

I tried to stay out of the 'abortion' (termination of pregnancy) debate because I don't feel that I can convey a clear position on the matter. As a general rule, I dissuade patients from trying to have terminations because it goes against my spiritual beliefs and because of the potential for serious (psychological and physical) complications, including death. However, I prefer that patients consult with someone familiar with the subject rather than get involved with a butcher. Until we can transform society in such a way as to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies, there are always going to be women and girls risking their health and lives to have 'abortions'.

I once had a patient who was a married mother with one daughter. She was seeing me during the early stages of her second pregnancy. She died suddenly and I was shocked to learn that the autopsy revealed that her demise was due to complications from an 'abortion' (termination). I'm certain that this disaster would have been averted had she felt free to discuss her intent to terminate and if she knew of a system where she could acquire one safely and legally.

Against God's will

If we legalise on-demand 'abortions', will we be thumbing our nose at God by condoning the destruction of the gift of life - human embryos, potential temples of the soul? On the other hand, if we keep 'abortions' illegal, (knowing full well that, in spite of widely available contraceptive methods and devices, there will be an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 abortions performed annually - of those, a reported 640 complications, including three to five deaths will occur), are we failing to protect those desperate and frightened women that, for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances, intend to terminate their pregnancies?

Perhaps it's all a matter of rights. Who has the greater right, the woman or the early pregnancy? Some will say that a fertilised egg has as much right to life as a mature female. Others will argue that a fertilised egg only represents the potential for life and cannot supersede a female's right to decide on matters concerning her body and life.

'Human beings'

Medical ethics dictates that we harm no one. The problem, therefore, arises when we try to ascertain when a pregnancy becomes 'someone'. Are fertilised eggs, rapidly dividing morulas and blastocysts (the stages immediately following fertilisation) essentially 'human beings', as some right-to-life advocates maintain? If so, then the pregnant female is simply a willing or unwilling host to the developing foetus and has no say in the outcome of the pregnancy.

If, however, human life begins when the foetus can survive independently of the 'host' (somewhere around 24-28 weeks of pregnancy), then, technically, until that time, it is simply a part of the pregnant female, and as such, she has the right to do whatever she wishes with it. Although most don't believe that human life begins at fertilisation, no one knows for certain when it does - therein lies the dilemma.

What is missing from this debate is the role of the male. his irresponsibility and callous selfishness is often the catalyst for females wanting to terminate unwanted pregnancies. If we legalise 'abortions', I feel that we should mandate that it be a mutual decision and be bold enough to legislate that the men responsible for the 'problem' not only co-sign for the procedure but also be with the female when it's being performed. I guarantee that the rate of unwanted pregnancies and 'abortions' will fall significantly thereafter.