Except, there is an inconsistency in when science matters and when it doesn’t. When discussing human life, and the genesis of each human being, science is completely ignored and that includes the possible experience of pain a fetus may feel during the abortion procedure.

In Europe, restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks’ gestation are common and accepted, and, as such, fetal pain is addressed much differently than in Canada or the United States. In North America, many people come from a perspective of fear, where any consideration given to a fetus is viewed as an attack on women’s rights.

Studies from India and the United Kingdom refer to the rising demand for fetal surgery, and the “considerable evidence that the fetus may experience pain” leads to the uncomplicated conclusion that the right types and doses of anesthetic need to be determined for various procedures. It is clear that anesthesiologists require specialized training to address the needs of pregnant women and their pre-born children.

Multiple studies have shown that even babies who are not yet viable (before 20-24 weeks) exhibit consistent, measurable stress responses to pain. While many still debate the brain science behind this, a study out of the UK says these reactions themselves are enough to result in “a moral obligation to provide fetal anaesthesia and analgesia.”  It has also been shown and attested to by multiple doctors specializing in the field of fetal surgery that “pain and stress may affect fetal survival and neurodevelopment.”

A study from Belgium admits that providing anesthesia prenatally presents a challenge, both from the perspective of its questionable necessity as well as dosage considerations. Still, recognizing the delicate balance when both mother and child need to be taken into account is fundamentally different from the Canadian question of whether both need to be taken into account.

Kirti Saxena, published in the Indian Journal of Anesthesia, states, “After surgery there are two patients to be cared for, and a second operating room should be available in case further surgery is needed in the neonate.”

As science and medicine continue to advance, fetal surgeries will become more common. Increased prenatal testing and diagnosis may lead to increased abortions, but seem just as likely to lead to increased demand for reliable fetal surgeries to give children their best chance at life.

In Canada, we need to follow the lead of our European counterparts, where fetal surgery and fetal anesthetic are inextricably linked, and where the humanity of the second patient is assumed, not demonized. This will allow fetal surgery as a field to improve and develop to become another support system for women.  Our laws need to reflect the humanity of the second patient in fetal surgeries, honouring the mothers who choose to give their babies a chance as well as the doctors who pour their talents into such tiny, fragile patients.

This article was written by Anna Nienhuis, Research and Communications Coordinator for WeNeedaLAW.ca. It first appeared in LifeCanada’s Reflections Magazine and is reprinted with permission.

The pro-life movement loves ultrasounds, for good reason. Those beautiful pictures show waving arms, kicking legs, tiny noses, and beating hearts. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a grainy black and white ultrasound picture is no different. Anyone who believes the pre-born child is a simple clump of non-descript cells cannot walk away from a ultrasound and still believe that. 

Have you seen your ultrasound,

With your own two eyes?

Was it not incredible?

After you heard their lies?

They told you it was nothing

“A little thing, don’t fear.

It’s something we do all the time,

And you’ll be in the clear.

Just come, don’t think about it,

And soon you will forget…”

But something told you deep inside

It would cause such regret.

It’s hard, I know, but somehow

It’s easier to smile,

Knowing this life inside of you

Will make your world worthwhile.

You know, all life is precious,

So let nobody take,

Your joy out of life’s laughter,

Life’s gift, for baby’s sake.

A. Blokhuis

Feb. 10/16

Lily’s parents were devastated. Nothing had prepared them for this traumatic experience, and they will not leave the hospital without this terrible memory following them. 

This week, researchers at the University of Montreal released the results of a study showing that, between the years 2000 and 2012, similar traumatic events had been experienced by 218 families who decided their child’s life was not worth living. The only difference? Lily’s parents wanted her life ended two years after she had been born while the 218 children reported on in the University of Montreal study were still some weeks from being born before being delivered prematurely and then left to die. 

The National Post covered the results of the study with an article that began with, “Better testing for birth defects has given rise to an unusual phenomenon: growing rates of abortion ending in ‘accidental live birth’”.  It also suggests that this raises “difficult ethical issues.” 

No one would accept that the manner in which (the fictional) Lily’s life was ended ought to be legal. Yet we live in a country where no child has protection prior to his or her birth, even if they are old enough to live outside the womb, as the 218 children in Québec were. How is it that an eight-inch journey down the birth canal magically transforms us into human beings worthy of protection? Why is Canada the only democracy in the world that affords no protection to the smallest members of the human family?

Dr. Natalie Auger, lead author of the University of Montreal study, recommends that new clinical guidelines be developed to ensure that parents are counselled before bringing their pre-born children to the clinic. She is concerned that parents are not fully prepared for the possibility that their baby might be born alive and would like them to be better prepared for these traumatic experiences. Her response is incredibly callous, and illogical. It has been said that asociety will be judged on how it treats its weakest members. In Canada, it is perfectly legal to kill a fully developed child, provided he or she is on the other side of the birth canal. This injustice will only be corrected when our elected lawmakers stop treating pre-born children as a political liability and ensure they receive the same legal protections as born Canadians. 

New developments in prenatal monitoring certainly can be seen as positive although this latest news from the United Kingdom is less than encouraging. As reported by LifeNews.com there has been a 34% increase in the number of abortions on babies with Down syndrome since a new genetic test became available in 2011. From the article:

Although most of the medical community praises the new screening, fetal medicine specialist Dr. Bryan Beattie, aired a different perspective on the testing. He said, “The real issue next, in around two or three years’ time, will be an ethical one – where do you stop? Do you screen for breast cancer genes, for Huntington’s – or taking it a step further, test for eye and hair colour?”

Canada is not immune to this either and we ought not deceive ourselves. This technology is being used as a tool for eugenics, in an attempt to “improve” society by eliminating less-than-perfect pre-born children.

LifeNews.com interviewed Hayley Goleniowska, a mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said, “I fear it will lead to a larger abortion rate of babies with Down’s. In quieter moments I weep to think of what we could lose. Women need unbiased information – it’s not the test that worries me, it’s how it is implemented.”

Events over the past one hundred years have shown us what happens when taking the life of another human being is justified under the guise of eugenics. If Canada is going to give human rights more than lip service, we can tolerate modern-day eugenics no longer.

The Cosmopolitan article states:

Over the course of the study, the researchers took 80 ultrasounds of 20 babies between the 24th and 36th weeks of pregnancy. Of the 20 cases, 16 babies had non-smoking mothers and four had smoking mothers. The mothers who smoked has an average of 14 cigarettes each day. 

The results (above) show the babies whose moms inhaled smoke (top row) covering their faces and moving their mouths. The bottom row depicts the non-smokers. According to the Durham research, these pictures show that “fetuses whose mothers were smokers showed a significantly higher rate of mouth movements than the normal declining rate of movements expected in a fetus during pregnancy.”

The higher-than-normal mouth movements of the babies who inhaled smoke (resembling what the Telegraph calls “grimacing”) is further confirmation that nicotine is terrible for unborn children. This kind of behavior could indicate that the fetal central nervous system did not develop at the same rate in the babies who were exposed to smoke.

“These results point to the fact that nicotine exposure per se has an effect on fetal development over and above the effects of stress and depression,” lead author of the study Dr. Nadja Reissland commented.

It has been well documented that smoking while pregnant has detrimental effects on the developing child. This is one of the reasons why cigarette manufacturers are mandated by law to include such graphic images on their packaging.

While those who want to ensure that human beings are given the best environmental conditions possible to develop it smacks of hypocrisy that the same societal concern is not expressed regarding the intentional killing of babies before they are born; forceps and suction machines are used to inflict far more damage upon children in the womb than smoking.

According to the Cambridge Times, the measure protects patients’ right to access care and at the same time ensures that doctors meet their legal obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The president of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Carol Leet, said that physicians who do not comply with the new policy could face repercussions ranging from a requirement to upgrade their education to revocation of their medical licenses, depending on the seriousness of the situation. She said, “There have been some complaints about access to care.”

Leet said that the old policy stipulated that physicians did not have to provide services that conflicted with their personal values and beliefs, but it was non-specific about whether they should make referrals to other doctors.

Currently, 16,000 people have opposed the new policy but that hasn’t changed the CPSO’s decision.

Read more at LifeNews.com

Sometimes I know what I believe about a moral issue, but I find my position difficult to explain or defend. It’s not that I don’t have convictions, but that I have difficulty explaining those convictions. I would imagine you sometimes struggle in the same way, maybe as it applies to abortion. How can Christians convince others that abortion is wrong?

Arguments against abortion that are based on the Bible are important and simple to make, but ultimately require assent to the authority of God through his Word. Because most people deny such authority, we will leave aside the Biblical arguments and show how you can convince others through science, logic, history and human rights.

Those in favour of abortion inevitably use the slogan “Women should have the right to choose.” For the grammar geeks out there, they will note that this phrase is actually an incomplete sentence because the verb “to choose” is a transitive verb requiring a direct object. In other words, the statement begs the question, “Choose what?” This is the crux of the matter – before we can decide whether something is right or wrong, we need to know what exactly it is we are talking about.

LOGIC:

In his superb booklet, Pro-Life 101, Scott Klusendorf summarizes the pro-life argument this way:

“Elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. The rationale for that argument is clear and to the point:

1. Intentionally killing an innocent human being is a moral wrong.
2. Elective abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
3. Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.”

The issue is not nearly as complex as you might think. All it requires is proving the second premise. If the pre-born child is an innocent human being (premise #2), then elective abortion is always a moral wrong. The only issue to resolve in the abortion debate is: What is the pre-born? To quote Gregory Koukl, “If the unborn are not human, no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.” Always bring the discussion back to this question: What is the pre-born?

SCIENCE:

What does science say about the pre-born entity? (As an aside, some Christians say we should just rely on the Bible to tell others that abortion is wrong. They fail to see science for what it is: the law and revelation of God. The laws of gravity are God’s laws of gravity.)

Science tells us conclusively that there are four characteristics common to all pre-born children. (These are worth memorizing!)

1. Complete – from the moment of fertilization on, the pre-born child is complete. All the information that needs to be there is there – all it needs is time to grow. You and I were that big once too!
2. Unique – the scientific evidence of DNA proves that the preborn child is unique and genetically distinct from his/her mother (in fact, even identical twins have separate and distinct DNA!). The pre-born child is not a part of the mother (like an appendix), but a unique entity inside his/her mother.
3. Living – the laws of biology tell us that the pre-born child is alive because it is growing, developing, and undergoing metabolism and responding to stimuli.
4. Human – the Law of Biogenesis states that living things reproduce after their own kind. So, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, goldfish beget goldfish and humans beget humans. Not parasites. Not blobs of cells. Humans. Complete and unique living human beings.

Science tells us unequivocally that the preborn child is a complete and a unique living human being.

BACK TO LOGIC:

So, you’ve looked to science and made the case for the humanity of the pre-born child. But your opponent says, “But the pre-born are different than the rest of us and so they don’t deserve the same protections that you or I do.” While the pre-born are, indeed, different, none of the differences are morally relevant.

Klusendorf has helpfully crafted a mnemonic to remember the differences between born humans and pre-born humans: SLED.

Size – the pre-born are smaller than born humans, but size doesn’t determine our humanity. Infants are smaller than toddlers, and toddlers smaller than teenagers, but all are human and all are deserving of the law’s protection.

Level of Development – the pre-born are less developed than born humans, but our level of development doesn’t determine our humanity. Toddlers are less developed than adults, but both are human and both deserve protection in law.
Environment – the pre-born are certainly in a different place than born humans, but where we are doesn’t determine who we are. If we are human, we deserve the law’s protection, no matter where we are.
Degree of Dependency – the pre-born are more dependent on their mothers than most born humans, but infants are just as dependent. Our dependency doesn’t determine our humanity.

Once we have demonstrated that the pre-born child is morally no different from born humans, we see that any alleged justification to kill a pre-born could only be right if the justification also works for killing a toddler. If you ever get stuck with a tough scenario (say, questions about poverty, privacy, or even conception through rape), then “trot out the toddler”. That is, apply whatever justification your opponent has for abortion to the termination of a toddler. If it isn’t justified for the toddler, it shouldn’t be justified for the pre-born child. You can read more about this toddler tactic here.

So, let’s recap: You’ve demonstrated to your opponent that the pre-born child is a complete and unique living human being, despite four differences from born children that are morally irrelevant. But what happens if your opponent then says, “Yeah, maybe the pre-born child is a ‘human’, but it isn’t a person.” What then?

HISTORY:

If someone ever suggests to you that some human beings are not “persons”, you must challenge them immediately. History is your ally here, because history repeatedly demonstrates that the law will only separate personhood from humanity for nefarious ends. Consider these historical examples:

• 1858, Viriginia Supreme Court: “In the eyes of the law… the slave is not a person.”
• 1881, American Law Review: “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution.”
• 1928, Supreme Court of Canada: “The meaning of ‘qualified persons’ does not include women.”
• 1936, German Supreme Court: “The Reichgericht itself refused to recognize Jews… as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
• 1997, Supreme Court of Canada: “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”

In every case, with the slave, the Indian, the woman, the Jew and the pre-born child, science and common sense tell us that they are human. Only the law had the chilling audacity to strip these groups of personhood. If someone is a living human being, then they are a person. A separation between these two can only ever lead to evil.

HUMAN RIGHTS:

Quite simply, if you and your opponent believe in human rights, then you must believe that human rights belong to all humans. And for human rights to have any meaning at all, those rights should begin when the human begins: at fertilization.

The law in Canada (and in certain American states) offers absolutely no protections for the pre-born child. From conception to birth (and sometimes even immediately after birth), a pre-born child can be killed for any reason or for no reason at all. This is a gross violation of human rights. Because Christians recognize pre-born children as our neighbours, made in the image of God, Christians must be at the forefront of defending their lives. God calls us to nothing less. As Bonhoeffer once said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”