Abortion and the Destruction of Unwanted Children

In Roman times, abortion and the destruction of unwanted children was permissible, but as out civilization has aged, it seems that such acts were no longer acceptable by rational human beings, so that in 1948, Canada along with most other nations in the world signed a declaration of the United Nations promising every human being the right to life. The World Medical Association meeting in Geneve at the same time, stated that the utmost respect for human life was to be from the moment of conception. This declaration was re-affirmed when the World Medical Association met in Oslo in 1970. Should we go backwards in our concern for the life of an individual human being?

      The unborn human is still a human life and not all the wishful thinking of those advocating repeal of abortion laws, can alter this. Those of us who would seek to protect the human who is still to small to cry aloud for it's own protection, have been accused of having a 19th Century approach to life in the last third of the 20th Century. But who in reality is using arguments of a bygone Century? It is an incontrovertible fact of biological science - Make no Mistake - that from the moment of conception, a new human life has been created. 

      Only those who allow their emotional passion to overide their knowledge, can deny it: only those who are irrational or ignorant of science, doubt that when a human sperm fertilizes a human ovum a new human being is created. A new human being who carries genes in its cells that make that human being uniquely different from any and other human being and yet, undeniably a member, as we all are, of the great human family. All the fetus needs to grow into a babe, a child, an old man, is time, nutrition and a suitable environment. It is determined at that very moment of conception whether the baby will be a boy or a girl; which of his parents he will look like; what blood type he will have. His whole heritage is forever fixed. Look at a human being 8 weeks after conception and you, yes every person here who can tell the difference between a man and a women, will be able to look at the fetus and tell me whether it is a baby boy or a girl.

      No, a fetus is not just another part of a women's body like an appendix or appendage. These appendages, these perfectly formed tiny feel belong to a 10 week developed baby, not to his or her mother.

      The fetus is distinct and different and has it's own heart beat. Do you know that the fetus' heart started beating just 18 days after a new life was created, beating before the mother even knew she was pregnant? By 3 months of pregnancy the developing baby is just small enough to be help in the palm of a man's hand but look closely at this 3 month old fetus. All his organs are formed and all his systems working. He swims, he grasps a pointer, he moves freely, he excretes urine. If you inject a sweet solution into the water around him, he will swallaw because he likes the taste. Inject a bitter solution and he will quit swallowing because he does not like the taste. By 16 weeks it is obvious to all, except those who have eyes but deliberately do not see, that this is a young human being.

      Who chooses life or death for this little one because abortion is the taking of a human life? This fact is undeniable; however much of the members of the Women's Liberation Movement, the new Feminists, Dr. Henry Morgentaler or the Canadian Medical Association President feel about it, does not alter the fact of the matter. An incontrovertible fact that cannot change as feelings change.

      If abortion is undeniably the taking of human life and yet sincere misguided people feel that it should be just a personal matter between a women and the doctor, there seems to be 2 choices open to them. (1) That they would believe that other acts of destruction of human beings such as infanticide and homicide should be of no concern of society and therefore, eliminate them from the criminal code. This I cannot believe is the thinking of the majority, although the tendency for doctors to respect the selfish desire of parents and not treat the newborn defective with a necessary lifesaving measure, is becoming increasingly more common. (2) But for the most part the only conclusion available to us is that those pressing for repeal of the abortion laws believe that there are different sorts of human beings and that by some arbitrary standard, they can place different values on the lives of there human beings. Of course, different human beings have different values to each of us as individuals: my mother means more to me than she does to you. But the right to life of all human beings is undeniable. I do not think this is negotiable. It is easy to be concerned with the welfare of those we know and love, while regarding everybody else as less important and somehow, less real. Most people would rather have heard of the death of thousands in the Honduras flooding disaster than of a serious accident involving a close friends or favourite relatives. That is why some are less disturbed by the slaughter of thousands of unborn children than by the personal problems of a pregnant women across the street. To rationalize this double standard, they pretend to themselves that the unborn child is a less valuable human life because it has no active social relationships and can therefore, be disposed of by others who have an arbitrary standard of their own for the value of a human life.

      I agree that the fetus has not developed it's full potential as a human being: but neither have any of us. Nor will any of us have reached that point: that point of perfect humaness, when we die. Because some of us may be less far along the path than others, does not give them the right to kill us. But those in favour of abortion, assume that they have that right, the standard being arbitrary. To say that a 10 week fetus has less value that a baby, means also that one must consider a baby of less value than a child, a young adult of less value than an old man. Surely one cannot believe this and still be civilized and human. A society that does not protect its individual members is on the lowest scale of civilized society. One of the measures of a more highly civilized society, is its attitude towards its weaker members. If the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill, the helpless are not protected, the society is not as advanced as in a society where they are protected. The more mature the society is, the more there is respect for the dignity and rights of all human beings. The function of the laws of the society, is to protect and provide for all members so that no individual or group of individuals can be victimized by another individual group. Every member of Canadian society has a vital stake in what value system is adopted towards its weak, aged, cripple, it's helpless intra-uterine members; a vital stake in who chooses life or death.

      As some of you may know, in 1969, the abortion laws were changed in Canada, so that it became legal for a doctor to perform an abortion if a committee of 3 other doctors in an eccredited hospital deemed that continuation of the pregnancy constituted a severe threat to the life and health, mental or physical of the women. Threat to health was not defined and so it is variously interpreted to mean very real medical disease to anything that interferes with even social or economic well being, so that any unwanted or unplanned pregnancy thus qualifies. What really is the truth about the lasting effect of an unwanted pregnancy on the psyche of a womem? Of course there is a difference of opinion among psychiatrists, but if unbiased, prospective studies are examined certain facts become obvious. (1) The health of women who are mentally ill before they become pregnant, is not improved by an abortion. In fact in 1970 an official statement of the World Health Organization said, "Serious mental disorders arise more often in women previous mental problems. Thus the very women for whom legal abortion is considered justified on psychiatric grounds, are the ones who have the highest risk of post-abortion psychiatric disorders. (2) Most women who are mentally healthy before unwanted pregnancy, despite a temporary emotional upset during the early weeks for the pregnancy, are mentally healthy after the pregnancy whether they were aborted or carried through to term.

      Do we accept killing a human being because of a temporary, emotional upset? All obstetricians and gynaecologists know of many cases where the mother, be her single or married, has spoken of abortion early in the pregnancy and later on, has confessed her gratitude to those who have not performed the abortion. On the other hand, we have all seen women what have been troubled, consumed with guilt and development significant psychiatric problems following and because of abortion. I quote Ft. John L. Grady, Medical Examiner for Florida State Attorney's Office, "I believe it can be stated with certainty that abortion causes more deep-seated guilt, depression and mental illness than it ever cures".

      We used to hear a lot about the risk of suicide among those who threatened such action if their request for abortion was refused. How real is that risk - it is not - in fact, the suicide rate among pregnant women be they happy of unhappy about the pregnancy, is 1/4 of the rate among non-pregnant women in child-bearing years. An accurate 10 year study was done in England on unwed mothers who requested abortions and were refused. It was found that the suicide rate of this group was less than that average population. In Minnesota in a 15 year period, there were only 14 maternal suicides. 11 occurred after delivery. None were illegitimately pregnant. All were psychotic. In contrast, among the first 8 deaths of women aborted under the liberal law in the United Kingdon, 2 were from suicide directly following the abortion.

      Are there any medical indications for abortion?? Is it valid for a doctor to co-operate in the choice for abortion? The late Dr. Guttmacher, one of the world leaders of the pro-abortion movement, has stated: "Almost any women can be brought through pregnancy alive unless she suffers from cancer or leukemia, in which case abortion is unlikely to prolong her life much less save it."

A Woman's Identity

Women lose their identity as soon as they get married and

begin a family.  Every little girl dreams of getting married and

raising a family, because this is what women are taught to seek

at an early age.  When a woman achieves this goal, she loses her

identity due to the many roles that she is now forced to play.

Once married, a woman is expected to be a mother, nurturer,

housekeeper, teacher, doctor, cook, chauffeur, and more

increasingly, a career woman.  Women are forced to carry out

these roles because of society's traditional view of the role

women should play, and young women are pressured to follow in

their mother's footsteps.  Because a woman's life revolves around

her children and husband, her responsibilities are never far from

thought.  Consequently, women lose their identity because they

are so caught up in being a wife and mother that they no longer

have time to pursue their own desires and goals. 

      Women are increasingly becoming career women, while raising

a family at the same time.  Despite the fact that women have the

job of raising their family, many women also have full time

careers because the extra income is often needed in the family.

Some men criticize women for trying to act too much like men, but

women are being forced by society to move between the traditional

definitions of male and female roles, because of the many

different tasks they have to carry out from day to day.  For

example, in order for women to enter the "male" world of work,

they have to obtain "masculine" traits and leave their "feminine"

traits at home.    

      Bearing children is expected in today's society, because

nurturing and child care are viewed as feminine traits.  Women

are conditioned at a young age to believe that once they are

adults they will become mothers.  If a middle aged, married woman

doesn't have any children, people often assume that there is a

biological reason for her lack of children.  Motherhood is

expected by society, but contrary to popular belief, many

psychologists believe that it is not instinct, but a learned

desire.  In Betty Rollin's essay, "Motherhood: Who Needs It," one

psychiatrist explains that, "women don't need to be mothers any

more than they need spaghetti."  Once a woman has children her

life becomes an extension of her children's life.  She has to

provide for and take care of her children and she can no longer

put herself first, because she is expected to always have her

family's best interests in mind.  

      Most women, if posed with the question, "Are you happy?"

will say that they are, but after some soul searching it is

evident that on the surface they appear to be, while on the

inside they are unhappy and often feel suffocated.  It isn't

until things in life are going poorly, that women let themselves

realize that they have feelings.  Women have lost touch with who

they are and are many times running away from their feelings,

because they have been busy masking themselves in order to

maintain their family.  

      Women are imprisoned by the many roles they have to play,

but it is essentially self-imposed.  Although, this imprisonment

wouldn't be self-imposed, if it weren't for society's pressure on

women to fit into the traditional female mold.  Due to these

expectations that are placed on women, eventually a woman who is

married and has children, will become only a empty and hollow

image of a mother and wife, instead of a living and breathing

person with feelings and a mind of her own.

A time of prosperous change

In the early nineteen hundreds when women used to be treated as objects who were only good for cooking and cleaning. These women were expected to stay home and do nothing but take care of the children. Authors were rarely women .Now in the present day a women is thought of as having a mind of her own. She is thought of as a independent, an individual who has a peace of mind of her own who is allowed to work and make a living as she pleases. Even we don't think of Weldon every time someone mentions a popular contemporary author we know she deserves to be mentioned. Both in  the Critical Survey of Long Fiction  and in  Love and Marriage in the Novels of Anita Brookner and Fay Weldon  Weldon  is mentioned with great honor and respect. Anna Ericson uses more past situations in Fay Weldon's own life while contrasting her to Anita Brookner while in contrast the Critical Survey of Long Fiction  criticizes the works without much comparison to others. Both the Magill  and Anna Ericson have strong points on a women's individualism but Anna Ericson proves Weldon's choice of personality for the main character was one reflecting Weldon's  own thoughts and morals.

In the The Life and Loves of a She Devil Ruth is a character who is well developed who one can feel one with because of the fact that  the author creates great depth to her as a character. In the  Critical Survey of Long Fiction the author states that "In her fiction,

                                               

Fay Weldon explores women's lives with wit and humor. She is caustic in her implicit condemnation of injustice but avoids preaching by characters say and what they do"(Magill 3474). On the other hand Ericson has more of a formula to Weldon's novels unlike the Critical Survey of Long Fiction. "The Weldon narrator is usually omniscient; she is wise, sad and cynical"(Ericson 1). which shows that  the characters must be well developed to have such a personified personality. Magill  rarely states how Ruth's personality had come about  in  The Life and Loves of a She Devil.

Love was not an issue to Weldon when writing this novel this may be due to the lack of love in her very own life. Love was never thought of importance in  the Critical Survey of Long Fiction. On  the other hand in Love and Marriage in the Novels of Anita Brookner and Fay Weldon   Ericson uses the subject of lack of love as the focus of his theories and that Weldon was a unwed mother  who had to deal with the pressures of having a child instead of receiving love from his father. Even though Weldon wed eventually she later learned of what love was which gave her the experience to right about such a unloved character. Magill on the other hand focuses on their married relationship rather that the lack of love from Ruth and Bobo's relationship " The plot tells the story of a middle-class, suburban housewife, Ruth......."(Magill 3474).

Weldon always makes the heroine hidden or makes her in hiding so the reader has to figure out for themselves which is being done. Ericson states "The general Weldon heroine is not so easily described"(Ericson 2).  In The Life and Loves of a She Devil 

Weldon uses great technique to make her main character Ruth go in hiding she makes her hide not only her motives and desires but herself.

                                               

The author uses great technique in making the reader choose for themselves if the main character is the antagonist of protagonist. In The Life and Loves of a She Devil Weldon makes Ruth out to be a helpless women who firsts depends on her husband Bobbo for everything but in a underhanded manner she steals her husbands money and gets him to be charged with embezzlement "But all the time he was planning his great flight, the new life, with someone altogether different, and on his client's money, too."(Weldon 226).

The author goes to great distances to make Ruth's personality change in drastic manners. Ruth went from one extreme to another she was once dependent, and unsatisfied  and later became dependent and satisfied by her husband's lack of composure. Ruth changed just as if times were changing from the early 1900's to the later 1900's. Weldon writes that:

      "It seemed to Ruth that at last the times had come to return to the High Tower. She could walk with ease, even run a little. She could life a two-pound weight in either hand. Her circulatory problems were under control. She no longer needed the Hermione Clinic. She no longer needed anyone. She danced with Mr.Ghengis in the dew of the morning, as the sun rose red and round over the escarpment, and with every step it was as if she trod on knives; but she thanked him for giving her life and told him she was going."(239).

In both Criticisms the authors use reasoning to justify the use a almost happy ending to the novel. Ericson states "Strangely enough, I have yet to read a Fay Weldon novel without an almost unbelievably happy ending. Still , the happy ending is usually based on coincidence, fate or supernatural occurrences,. And practically never on the

                                               

 actions of the characters" (Ericson 3474). But on the other hand in The Life and Loves of a She Devil the author makes the main character achieve whatever is achieved by herself.

Also in the Critical Survey of Long Fiction the author sums up the ending as so "Ruth is in command, while Bobbo has been humiliated and accepts his fate like owntrodden wife"(Ericson 3476).

      Both criticisms are unique in a way of their own. But I feel as if Ericson does a better point of proving how Weldon's life plays a major role in the development in her characters. Even though the author of  Critical Survey of Long Fiction doesn't establish this he still has done a very concise job of stating his views. The Life and Loves of a She Devil is a very good novel showing the dramatic change of time contrasting with the life of Ruth the main character in The Life and Loves of a She Devil .

           

Work Cited

Ericson, Anna. Love and Marriage in the Novels of Anita Brookner and Fay Weldon.    

      World Wide Web, The Internet. January 14 1997

Magill, N. Frank, ed. Critical Survey of Long Fiction. Pasedena: UP of California, 1991.

      Vol. 8 of English Language Series 8 vols. 1969-1994

Weldon, Fay. The Life and Loves of a She Devil. London: Coronet, 1983.

A Comparison of the Status of Women in Classical Athens and Early Christianity

Since the beginning of time the treatment of women has improved dramatically.  In the earliest of times women were mere slaves to men.  Today women are near equals in almost all fields.  In 411 B.C., when Lysistrata was written, men had many stunning advantages to that of their female counterparts.  Although women's rights between 30 and 100 A.D., the time of the New Testament, were still not what they are today, the treatment of women was far better. Overall, the equality of women in the New Testament exceeds that of the women in Lysistrata in three major ways:  physical mobility, society's view of women's nature, and women's public legal rights.

      Albeit in Lysistrata the women were shown as revolutionaries rising up against the men, women in classical Greece were never like that.  Aristophanes created the play as a comedy, showing how the world might be in the times of the Peloponesian war if women tried to do something.  It was the women's job to stay home and tend to the house, and never leave, unlike they did in the play, the women were shown as revolutionaries rising up against the men, women in classical Greece were never like that.

      The activities of women in Classical Athens were confined to "bearing children, spinning and weaving, and maybe managing the domestic arrangements. No wandering in the beautiful streets for them."   The suppression of women went so far as to divide the house into separate areas for males and females.  While the women stayed home, the men were usually out fighting, and when they weren't fighting, they were entertaining their friends and having sexual favors performed by courtesans.  

      The rights of women in early Christianity were a far cry from today, although they were much better off than their Athenian counterparts.  In the Christian church, women were treated as equals.  The first evidence of this is when the woman with hemorrhages touches Jesus' clothing and he says that her faith has made her well (Mark 5:34).  This shows that both sexes are treated equally in that eyes of god even though at this time the hemorrhages that the woman was having was a symbol of uncleanness, and that good things can happen to both if they have enough "faith." 

      The rights of women are also extended in the New Testament when the rights of husband and wife are shown as equals.  It is stated that each should show affection to their partner, and that each partner controls their mate's body (I Corinthians 7:3-4).  This shows that each person should be equal in the marriage, unlike in Lysistrata where the man did whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted while the woman slaved at home .

      Women were also considered to be more "enpowered" in the times of the New Testament.  This is displayed when the women nearly monopolize the practice of speaking in tongues, or even speaking at all (I Corinthians 14:36).  Speaking in tongues was thought to be much like talking from the angels, which was considered to special talent.

      Overall the women of early Christianity had a better quality of life than those in classical Athens.  They were not only allowed to leave the house more, but they were also treated more as equals in society's view of women, and their public rights.

12 Angry Men

A persons surroundings can influence him. In "12 Angry Men" by Reginald Rose a young mans

life is held by twelve men with contrasing views. Eight a caring man, who wishes to talk about why the

other jurors think that the boy is guilty, clashes with Three, a sadistic man who would pull the swith

himselfto end the boys life. Accroding to Rose, several elements can infulence a jury's verdict, such as the

emotional make-up of individual jurors.

      Many elements can change a jurors decision. Juror Three, who is convincd that the boy is guilty,

is allied with Four who is eventually convicedEights showing of how the two testimonies given by the old

woman and old man are lies, votes guilty. Three outraged by this exclames "A guilty man's gonna be

walking the streets... he's got to die! Stay with me." (23) But Four sees the truth that Eight has brought

into th light and still votes guilty. Eight tries to convince Three how the boy is not guilty beyond

reasonable doubt but Three does not listen adn would rather see the boy die. "For this kid, you bet I'd pull

the switch."(17) This shows how emotionally unstable Three is. He is a grown man living in a civilized

community and would like to see a boy who he does not even know die by his own hands Eight does not

think highly of Three for what he says about killing the boy and shouts "your a sadist."(17) which is the

absolute truth about Three.

      The emotional make-up of a juror can change his desicision on wther or not to let a man live or

die. When someone is asked judge someone else, shoud not you look at al the facts to be sure beyond a

shoadow of a doubt that the man who cimmitted the crime is guilty? Yes, a juror should look at all the

facts but some do not, they just judge the person on how that person feels.