Emmanuel Community has taken note of the Trinidad & Tobago Humanist Association’s (TTHA) letter published in the September 25, 2006 edition of the Daily Express under the title “Abortion clause – abuse of Constitution.” and responds to the statements and questions stated therein.

The clause in question in section 5 (2) of the Draft Constitution reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to have his life respected and this right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.” We respond by first quoting excerpts from their letter, prefixed by TTHA.

TTHA: “Abortion is not an appropriate matter to be included in a constitution”.
EC: It will be observed that abortion is not mentioned in the clause or elsewhere in the draft. The Constitution recognises and defines FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

It is clearly reasonable and necessary to define from when the protection of these rights and freedoms begins, aided by scientific knowledge and reason. There are many false opinions used by abortion advocates to bolster the lucrative abortion trade, some of which are reflected in the TTHA statements and questions.

TTHA: “Abortion law reform is an issue that should be put in the public agenda. To call for this does not mean imply (sic) support for abortions – it implies support for democratic practice.”
EC: For democracy to serve the common good there has to be respect for fundamental ethical norms and respect for human life in all its stages of growth is fundamental for all other rights to exist.

Special interest groups have learnt to take advantage of public inertia that allows laws to be passed permitting them to profit from destructive practices such as abortion or gambling. Would the issue be raised if they were really not for abortion law reform?

TTHA: “When does human life begin?”
EC: Science states that human life is already present in the sperm and the oocyte (ovum). The real question is: “when does the life of every human being begin?"

Science again gives the answer: it begins at conception (i)when the 23 chromosomes in the sperm join the 23 in the oocyte to produce the 46 chromosomes that form a human being. (Oocyte is the correct term for what is commonly called the egg. It means “a one-cell egg”)

TTHA: “Is there a difference between a human being and a person?”
EC: No. The word “human” denotes the unique creature belonging to mankind; the word “being” denotes, in this case, a living human which, among other qualities, is made for relationship; the word “person” denotes a living human with the specific qualities made for relationships, e.g. a corpse is still human but no longer a “being” or a “person”; the ability to relate has ended.

TTHA: “Should a foetus have moral priority over an adult?”
EC: Both have an equal right to life. This a trick question. Abortion advocates like to use the very rare “hard-cases”, threat to life of the mother, rape and incest, all of which total less than one percent of all pregnancies in countries with available medical services. Internationally, once abortion has been legalised for the “hard-cases” it has been easy to expand the law to include abortion for any reason.

TTHA: “At what stage of development does a foetus become conscious?”
EC: The word “conscious” has to be properly defined. Even after birth the new-born is not “conscious” of its surroundings. Even if an adult is “unconscious” through accident or illness they have the right to life.

This question ignores the fundamental right to life of the new person and also ignores what is embedded in the word “development”. From the moment of conception (fertilisation), the new human being is hard at work developing through the stages of life: zygote, embryo, foetus, neonate, baby, toddler, child (from birth to 18), teen, and adult.

TTHA: “Should women be given the choice to have an abortion or should the State dictate this choice?”
EC: The right of every human being to life is a fundamental right. It is the State’s duty to protect the fundamental rights of each person, considering the historical fact that humans sometimes make inhuman choices from which we, or others have to be protected.

The carnage of human lives is seen in the statistics: first by far – abortion, then murder, then road accidents. Our choices are limited by the rights of others. A woman’s choice is limited by the right to life of the human being in utero.

TTHA: “Can a Constitution grant rights to a foetus, given that a constitution is intended to prevent unlawful acts by the State and a foetus cannot bring a motion if any such rights are breached?”
EC: The notion that “a Constitution is intended to prevent unlawful acts by the State” is ridiculous. A Constitution guides the laws of the State to protect human rights and freedoms.

The State’s Constitution does not grant “fundamental” rights. Those rights belong to the human being and precede society; the State recognises and protects those rights. A Constitution guides the laws of the State to protect individuals and families.

The foetus is a member of a family and the family is supposed to speak up for the rights of every member who can’t do so for themselves, due to age or infirmity.

TTHA: “Should religious beliefs carry more or less weight than ethical and empirical arguments on the issue of abortion law reform?”
EC: Simple logic shows that abortion ends the developing life of an innocent human being/person. To deliberately kill an innocent person is murder and that can never be legal.

“Ethical and empirical arguments” to commit murder deliberately ignore ethical arguments and empirical evidence to the contrary in order to impose a warped ideology for the purpose of financial gain. Abortion is a very lucrative business.

As to religious belief, the vast majority of mankind is guided by some form of religious belief which brings hope, comfort and guidance.

TTHA: “What effect, if any, does legalising abortion have on the rates of violence in a society?”
EC: Abortion is an act of violence; to legalise abortion is to promote violent acts and insensitivity to all forms of violence. Legal abortion leads to more violence of a wide variety.

Seven psychological mechanisms that contribute to violence have been outlined by Dr Philip G Ney, head of the Department of Psychiatry at Royal Jubilee Hospital, three of which we quote:
1: “Abortion decreases an individual's instinctual restraint against the occasional rage felt toward those dependent on his or her care.”
2: “Permissive abortion diminishes the taboo against aggressing [against] the defenseless.”
3: “Abortion increases the hostility between the generations.”(ii)
For the other mechanisms and greater detail, see Maria Annette Dopwell’s letter in Newsday 16/8/06, section A, page 11.

Additionally, law has a teaching role. The German Supreme Court has stated (in 1975): “We cannot ignore the educational impact (of legal abortion) on the respect for life.” (iii) Actions that are not acceptable are punishable and the severity of the punishment indicates the degree of seriousness of the action. Legalising abortion inevitably teaches that killing the most helpless persons in society is an acceptable act.

TTHA: “Does a lack of clear legislation impact mostly on poor women in procuring a termination of pregnancy?”
EC: “Termination of pregnancy” is a euphemism used to disguise the heinous crime of abortion. No one, poor or rich, should kill their children.

There is no clear evidence that poor women resort to abortion more than others. It is the poor who tend to have larger families. This is precisely why they are targetted by the people who want to control world population by limiting the number of children per family to two or less.

TTHA: “Are there any circumstances under which a woman should be free to choose to have an abortion?”
EC: No. To “have an abortion” is to kill an innocent human being. People do not have the “choice” to commit murder. This simple fact is deliberately rejected over and over again by those who seek to promote legal homicide.

By way of general comment, one of the hollow statements heard on the lips of abortion advocates is that they don’t promote abortion; they are only seeking to make abortion available to anyone who chooses to have one. One assumes that the people making those statements are aware of the contradiction.

Endnotes
i. Fertilization, then, has taken place; a baby has been conceived." Alan F. Guttmacher, M.D., former Medical Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Birth Control and Love: The Complete Guide to Contraception and Fertility [New York: Macmillan, 1961], page 12.

ii. Michael G. Smith. The Public Policy of Casey v. Planned Parenthood. 1997, Chapter 5.

iii. The German Supreme Court, Feb. 1975, quoted in John Powell, S.J. Abortion: The Silent Holocaust 128 (1981)