Lecture given in Opole (Poland), September 1998

Philip G. Ney, M.D.

I have been doing research in the matter of childhood mistreatment and pregnancy loss long enough now to be able to reflect on the data and draw some general conclusions. These are in the form of philosophical statements.

Since there is only one truth, philosophy and science must ultimately agree. I am happy to report that what I believe is philosophically correct agrees with the conclusions of the data I have collected.

We are intimately bound in this bundle of life. Therefore, what we do to others we do to ourselves. If we deafen ourselves to the cries of the poor and the preborn children, we become less sensitive to our own yearnings and pleas. We are dehumanised. If we hurt others, that hurt will inevitably rebound on ourselves. If we kill, we are destroying ourselves.

Destroying innocent humans is destructive to every part of human life. This means that when we kill preborn babies no good is promoted, but all our science, business and healing will degenerate. Conversely, when we are protecting and enhancing every human regardless of their size, shape, race or location, then we will encourage every component of human endeavour. To protect and enhance every human life is, after all, the first duty of government. But even if it was not so, it would make good pragmatic sense to do so.

We rightly believe that everyone is created equal. Therefore everyone, regardless of size, sex, age, race or intelligence must be welcomed as an equal. It is fundamentally wrong to determine who should live and who should die on whether they are wanted or not. On reflection, you will see that the philosophy that the first right of every child is to be wanted is a most pernicious idea. It is not lost on children that if they are not wanted they have no right to be. This sentence, originating with Margaret Sanger, the "birthmother" of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, is the death sentence for millions and millions of preborn babies. Even children know that if the criteria that determines whether you live or die is your wantedness, then you must struggle to stay wanted throughout your life. You are constantly looking over your shoulder to see if people want you. You competitively struggle to be more wanted than others and this promotes the worst kind of derogatory discrimination. Moreover, when you become aware that you live because you were wanted and others just as good as you die because they were unwanted for selfish reasons and inconvenience, then you will inevitably feel guilty about existing.

Every tragedy is composed of perpetrators, victims and observers. Therefore, there are no innocent bystanders. Moreover, to prevent any tragedy, the major contribution and responsibility lies with the observer. This being so, it requires the awareness and help of politicians, physicians, clergy and judges to stop the carnage of abortion. For if you are not promoting life, you are inevitably abetting death. You may feel that as an observer you will be untouched by this widening circle of tragedy, but every aspect of history teaches us that it is the observers who deserve and inevitably feel the wrath of perpetrators and victims.

We cannot benefit at the expense of our neighbours. If some object or deed is not good for him and her, it will not be good for us. If it is not good for black, it cannot be good for white. If it is not good for men, it cannot be good for women. Therefore, if it is not good for every preborn child it cannot be good for their parents. Can you think of any regime established by slaughter or slavery that has lasted? No, it is the societies that are established on truth and justice and equal consideration for all that flourish and survive. It is the families that are kind to every member that are established in the land. This is not just because God said so, it is a natural conclusion.

There is no scientific evidence that induced abortion is safe or therapeutic. There are no proven medical, surgical, psychiatric or social indications. Remember, the burden of proof rests with those who support or perform medical procedures to show scientific evidence it is safe and good treatment. Therefore, until the practice of aborting preborn babies for any cause is proven, physicians must not perform abortions and governments may not support them. The medical/scientific agencies must carefully investigate reports of scientific side effects or harmful effects of any medical or surgical procedure. Unfortunately, in the abortion area nobody is bothering to prove it is good and safe treatment. People are not seriously taking growing evidence of the damaging effects of abortion. Governments blindly support abortion procedures without any evidence it is beneficial to their population. Why, you ask, is abortion such an aberration in an otherwise reasonably well-regulated profession? The answer probably lies in the fact that physicians have generally discarded their immutable oaths to practice ethical medicine in favour of a desire to be popular to their patients. The net effect is that physicians are becoming less and less trusted which inevitably means there will be growing cost to the government and increasing tensions between government and physicians. There are substantial reports of harm following abortion. All of these need further investigation. But remember, the burden of proof does not lie with the people who show the harm, but for those who perform or support the procedure.

Categorisations of harm --as examples only.

Surgical:

Perforated uterus, increased incidence of breast cancer. 25 out of 30 studies reviewed by Professor Joel Brind show there is a definite correlation between abortion, particularly abortion of the first pregnancy, and the later development of breast cancer.

Medical:

Humphries and Austin found that following an abortion the frequency of visits to their family practice increased by 80% for physical reasons and 180% for psycho-social reasons. Our study showed there was an impairment of general health related to all kinds of pregnancy losses, but most particularly to abortion.

Psychiatric:

There is good reason to believe that abortion is the most difficult kind of grieving. For a variety of reasons it is the one most likely to result in pathological grief which increases the propensity to depression. As a result of that, there is an impairment of the immune system and increased chances in getting cancers an infections. When surveyed, 30% of our sample population indicated at this time (point estimate) they had a desire for professional help to deal with their pregnancy loss, particularly abortion.

Abortion survivors:

Between 40%-80% of the young population in various countries have siblings who have been aborted. Consequently, they have symptoms of distrust, rage, existential guilt, despair, apathy and a sense of impending doom. These symptoms result in impairment of health and diminished productivity, all of which cost the government.

Societal:

Although it was claimed that with the availability of abortion on demand there would be fewer unwanted children and consequently less child abuse, reliable statistics show it to be the opposite. Rates of child abuse and neglect are increasing in countries that have freely available abortion.

Women who have had a previous abortion are less likely to breast feed their children. In one country, the breast feeding rate went from 87% to 18.7% of the mothers after the introduction of abortion. It is now known that breast milk contains Essential Fatty Acids that are important in the development of the brain and peripheral nerves. Consequently, without breast feeding children are not as quick or intelligent as they were designed to be. With these substantial indications of the worsening of women's and children's health, there should be an immediate cessation of abortion and further careful investigation. Until there is substantial evidence that abortion is both safe and effective treatment, no physician should perform abortions and no government fund them.