Prevalence of abortion undermines a mother’s rights

1
689

WEB-Genocide Awareness-Alison Roach

A response to the criticisms against the Genocide Awareness Project

By Suzana Kovacic
Photos by Alison Roach

A few years ago, I received a distressed phone call from a friend. She had just found out that she was pregnant.  Her doctor strongly advised abortion because of an abdominal x-ray he had ordered to assess the cause of her abdominal discomfort.  He had failed to recognize that her symptoms may be due to pregnancy and recommended abortion because of the x-ray dose her baby had received at such an early stage in pregnancy.  It would seem her doctor recognized he could be held liable for any harm caused to the unborn child due to his failure to first determine if his patient was pregnant. Abortion would cover up his mistake and protect him from potential litigation.  Abortion, however, was not what his patient wanted or needed. I helped my friend find a different doctor who treated both mom and unborn baby as equal patients, and my friend went on to deliver a healthy baby girl.

I was reminded of the difficulties facing pregnant mothers when witnessing some of the recent responses to the Genocide Awareness Project by SFU Lifeline. Opponents seem to believe restrictions on abortion undermine women’s rights. I am now seven months pregnant and like my friend, have seen how the prevalence of abortion undermines a mother’s rights. The general acceptance of abortion by society and by large segments of the medical profession has created a culture which limits a mother’s choice to receive optimal care for herself and her child during pregnancy.

Too often, mothers facing a pregnancy crisis are steered towards abortion presumably because it is a cheaper, easier or a more convenient choice. Abortion, like any medical procedure, is never 100 per cent safe. While abortion is always lethal to the baby, abortion can also carry significant risks to the mom. The recent high-profile death of a New York mother following a botched 33-week abortion testifies to the risks, as do the numerous documented cases of mothers being taken from abortion clinics in ambulances following emergency complications.

Unrestricted legal access to abortion is based on the notion that legal abortion is safe, and illegal abortion is unsafe. A recent study examined the effect on maternal mortality following a ban in 1989 on therapeutic abortions in Chile. Instead of maternal mortality rates increasing as mothers turned to illegal abortion, the mortality rate decreased. Chile now has a lower maternal mortality rate than the US. The study attributed this decrease to delivery by skilled birth attendants, access to maternal healthcare services such as nutritional programs, and an increase in women’s educational levels.

Mothers and their unborn children deserve good medical care, not abortion. Direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother. In order to understand this statement, it is necessary to first recognize there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

A pregnant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer, for instance, can have her uterus removed in order to save her life. That the life-saving surgery results in the death of her unborn child is not the intent of the surgery. In the case of medical complications that arise after the unborn child has reached 22 weeks (the age of viability), the child is delivered prematurely to allow both mom and baby to be cared for. Restrictions on abortion do not affect the availability of care offered to mothers during pregnancy.

Pregnant mothers are vulnerable. Unrestricted access to abortion increases the vulnerability of mothers and their unborn children. Initiatives like the Genocide Awareness Project should be welcomed because they help us recognize that a pregnant woman is not one patient, but that mother and child are two equal patients who should each be afforded the greatest care medicine can provide.

 

1 COMMENT

  1. Suzana, are you really a physics researcher at SFU as you claim to be?!! Where did you get your degrees from?!! You don’t even know how to provide a sound argument!! No citations to back up your ridiculous claims, ZERO critical thinking, … ! Oh my!! This article is laughable because it sounds as if some 6-year-old boy wrote this! I am an undergrad! You make it seem like it must be easy to get a PhD!!

Leave a Reply