Abortion
Content
What is successful abortion with Misoprostol (Cytotec) pills.
Every woman considering medication abortion by pills have to understand what is complete and successful abortion. The only one way to see if your abortion is complete and successful is to take a ultrasound. You have to have a ultrasound 10 days after you use pills. Around it, you should not have strong pain, heavy bleeding, fever or diarrhea. Some not heavy bleeding may still continue up to 3 weeks. Usually woman just know was abortion successful or not. But woman cannot be absolutely certain that the her abortion was successful unless she take an ultrasound and will be examined by doctor. You have to wait 10 days until you take an ultrasound because 80% abortions are complete after 5 days only. You may also take a pregnancy test after two weeks. In case you are still pregnancy (this is possible because medication abortion is not 100% method) you may repeat the procedure. This is reason why is recommended to order and buy extra Misoprostol (Cytotec) pills. Keep in minds, you have to continue taking abortion tablets until you will have a miscarriage, but not more than it described in abortion guideline. If your abortion was successful, you will feel less cramps and less pain than after the first time you take Misoprostol (Cytotec) pills. (http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/cytotec/TPV3L8LL8MI8VG8UV)
Abortion
Abortion (from the Latin word aboriri, "to perish") may be briefly defined as "the loss of a fetal life." In it the fetus dies while yet within the generative organs of the mother, or it is ejected or extracted from them before it is viable; that is, before it is sufficiently developed to continue its life by itself. The term abortion is also applied, though less properly, to cases in which the child is become viable, but does not survive the delivery. In this article we shall take the word in its widest meaning, and treat of abortion as occurring at any time between conception and safe delivery. The wordmiscarriage is taken in the same wide sense. Yet medical writers often use these words in special meanings, restricting abortion to the time when the embryo has not yet assumed specific features, that is, in the human embryo, before the third month of gestation; miscarriage occurs later, but before viability; while the birth of a viable child before the completed term of nine months is styled premature birth. Viability may exist in the seventh month of gestation, but it cannot safely be presumed before the eighth month. If the child survives its premature birth, there is no abortion — for this word always denotes the loss of fetal life. It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the humanembryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates manabove all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the
contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life. In the normal course of nature the living embryo carries on its work of, self-evolution within the maternal womb, deriving its nourishment from the placenta through the vital cord, till, on reaching maturity, it is by the contraction of the uterus issued to lead its separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional. Accidental causes may be of many different kinds. Sometimes the embryo, instead of developing in the uterus, remains in one of the ovaries, or gets lodged in one of the Fallopian tubes, or is precipitated into the abdomen, resulting, in any of these cases, in an ectopic, or extra-uterine gestation. This almost invariably brings on the death of the fetus, and is besides often fraught with serious danger to the mother. Even if an ectopic child should live to maturity, it cannot be born by the natural channel — but, once it has become viable, it may be saved by a surgical operation. Most commonly the embryo develops in the uterus; but there, too, it is exposed to a great variety of dangers, especially during the first months of its existence. There may be remote predispositions in the mother to contract diseases fatal to her offspring. Heredity, malformation, syphilis, advanced age, excessive weakness, effects of former sicknesses, etc. may be causes of danger; even the climate may exercise an unfavorable influence. More immediate causes of abortion may be found in cruel treatment of the mother by her husband or in starvation, or any kind of hardship. Her own indiscretion is often to blame; as when she undertakes excessive labours or uses intoxicating drinks too freely. Anything in fact that causes a severe shock to the bodily frame or the nervous system of the mother may be fatal to the child in her womb. On the part of the father, syphilis, alcoholism, old age, and physical weakness may act unfavourably on the offspring at any time of itsexistence. The frequency of accidental abortions is no doubt very great; it must differ considerably according to the circumstances, so that the proportion between successful and unsuccessful conceptions is beyond the calculation of the learned. Intentional abortions are distinguished by medical writers into two classes. When they are brought about for social reasons, they are called criminal abortions; and they are rightly condemned under any circumstances whatsoever. "Often, very often," said Dr. Hodge, of the University of Pennsylvania, "must all the eloquence and all the authority of the practitioner be employed; often he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient, and let her know, in language not to be misunderstood, that she is responsible to the Creator for the life of the being within her" (Wharton and Stille's Med. Jurispr., Vol. on Abortion, 11). The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is evermorally lawful we shall consider below.
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parentshave put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life. The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moralquestions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience causeabortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons todoubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: "Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic
embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?" The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires. However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother'slife, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely: That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; That the immediate effect be good in itself; That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed; That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian. History contains no mention of criminal abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of theGreeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices; for Ovid wrote concerning the upper classes of his countrymen: Nunc uterum vitiat quae vult formosa videri, Raraque, in hoc aevo, est quae velit esse parens. Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were, if nobles, sent to certain islands, if plebeians, condemned to work in the metal mines. Still the Romans in their legislation appear to have aimed at punishing the wrong done by abortion to the father or the mother, rather than the wrong done to the unborn child. The earlyChristians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder ofhuman beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix(Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Churchunanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. TheSixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Churchthat he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. Except at times and in places influenced by Catholic principles, whatmedical writers call "obstetric"
abortion, as distinct from "criminal" (though both are indefensible on moral grounds), has always been a common practice. It was usually performed by means of craniotomy, or the crushing of the child's head to save the mother's life. Hippocrates, Celsus, Avicenna, and the Arabian school generally invented a number of vulnerating instruments to enter and crush the child's cranium. In more recent times, with the advance of the obsteric science, more conservative measures have gradually prevailed. By use of the forceps, by skill acquired in version, by procuring premature labour, and especially by asepticism in the Caesarean section and other equivalent operations, medical science has found much improved means of saving both the child and its mother. Of late years such progress has been made in this matter, that craniotomy on the living child has passed out of reputable practice. But abortion proper, before the fetus is viable, is still often employed, especially in ectopic gestation; and there are many men andwomen who may be called professional abortionists. In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe amongChristian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. For England, Blackstone stated the law as follows: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in everyindividual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in its mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb, or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law does not look upon this offence in so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanour. In the United States, legislation in this matter is neither strict nor uniform, nor are convictions of frequent occurrence. In some of the States any medical practitioner is allowed to procure abortion whenever he judges it necessary to save the mother's life. The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX"Apostolicae Sedis". It decrees excommunication — that is, deprivation of theSacraments and of the Prayers of the Church in the case of any of her members, and other privations besides in the case of clergymen — against all who seek to procure abortion, if their action produces the effect. Penalties must always be strictly interpreted. Therefore, while anyone who voluntarily aids in procuring abortion, in any way whatever, does morally wrong, only those incur theexcommunication who themselves actually and efficaciously procure the abortion. And the abortion here meant is that which is strictly so called, namely, that performed before the child is viable. For no one but the lawgiver has the right to extend the law beyond the terms in which it is expressed. On the other hand, no one can restrict its meaning by private authority, so as to make it less than the received terms of Church language really signify. Now Gregory XIV had enacted thepenalty of excommunication for abortion of a "quickened" child but the present lawmakes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood. That distinction, however, applies to another effect which may result from the procuring of abortion; namely, he who does so for a child after quickening incurs anirregularity, or hindrance to his receiving or exercising Orders in the Church. But he would not incur such irregularity if the embryo were not yet quickened. The terms "quickened" and "animation" in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can perceive its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established theirregularity here referred to the "animation" of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility. If ever reasons should arise, which is most improbable, to change these pronouncements those reasons would receive due consideration.
Is abortion the answer?
Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception ...(emphasis ours)"
The issue of the right to life or abortion covers many aspects: human rights, moral beliefs, medical basis, social implications.
Advocates of the right to life are concerned that abortion, regarded as destruction of the innocent, is becoming an accepted and institutionalized fact of life.
They are concerned that this will be sanctioned and inevitably legalized.
Advocates of abortion point to the primary of "freedom" of "personal privacy," the right to have or make a choice. In the Philippines, advocates also point to the pressures of poverty and ensuring that all children are "wanted" and can be assured of adequate care.
We will present facts about abortion and the issues it raises. We hope that this will help you take an informed stand-and committed action-on this issue.
1. What is abortion? Abortion is defined as "the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb, which results in the death of the fetus (carrara). Is it really appropriate to speak of abortion as "killing"? To answer this question, you must understand the procedures used in surgical abortion. Dilation and Curettage (D & C) The cervix, or mouth of the womb, is first stretched open. A curette or sharp, loop-shaped knife is then inserted, cuts the fetus into small pieces. His head is crushed with the forceps in order to remove the baby. The womb is then scraped out completely. Suction-Curretage Abortion A tube is inserted into the uterus; the suction breaks and crushes the body parts of the fetus, drawing them out into a jar. With both of these methods, the resulting tissue is clearly identifiable as small pieces of a baby. The actual cause of death is the physical dismemberment of the body. Saline Injection This method is used when the child is too large for D & C Suction-Curettage. A long needle is injected through the mother's abdomen to extract a certain amount of the amniotic fluid. This portion of the fluids is replaced with a toxic salt (strong salt poisoning solution), which burns the outer layers of the child's skin. An increase in movement is noted as the baby inhales and swallows the solution. The baby often convulses, goes into a coma, and dies an hour or two later. Labor begins 24 to 28 hours later. In all these cases, the unborn child dies from mutilation or poisoning before it can be removed from the womb. Hormone Drug Injection Prostaglandin drug is injected into the amniotic sac. This hormone drug produces labor and premature birth. The baby, in most cases, is born alive with a heartbeat, then put aside to die.
Hysterectomy It is generally used only when saline injection is impractical. The baby is delivered as it would be in a Caesarian Section. Almost all babies delivered by hysterectomy are born alive. Many cry and kick. Within a few minutes, however, most die of exposure or willful neglect. In the Philippines, studies indicate that the methods most frequently used in hospitals include: dilation and curettage (D & C); prophylactic or oxytoxics and antibiotics; vacuum aspiration and hysterectomy. Outside the hospitals, the most common method in inducing abortion is by insertion of a catheter, followed by deep abdominal massage, then by use of drugs, herbs and medicinal concoctions. Whether you refer to this as "killing" or "induced death", the effect on the child is the same. 2. How prevalent is abortion in the Philippines? Note: No reliable statistics on abortion in the Philippines is available because abortion is illegal. No woman, doctor on hospital will ever admit to having committed the crime for fear of legal sanctions. It is estimated, however that one (1) out of four (4) pregnancies end up in abortions. Seventeen percent of pregnant women in Metro Manila undergo an induced abortion due to unwanted pregnancy, the results of a recent research showed.
The research showed that women resort to various abortion methods ranging from taking certain drugs or herbal preparations to approaching a "hilot" or traditional midwife to consulting a health practitioner like midwife, doctor or nurse. One of the respondents in a study among abortees in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, even had a hilot insert a barbecue stick in her sex organ to induce abortion.
In Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, and Tuguegarao, where the abortion studies were made, abortion, though illegal, is widely practiced.
In Metro Manila study made by Josefina Cabigon of the University of the Philippines Population Institute, 17 percent of the 1,169 women surveyed admitted having had an abortion.
Every year, as many as 750,000 women undergo induced abortion in illegal "clinics" all over the Philippines.
Many of these women eventually die from infection, hemorrhage and other complications
Statistics compiled by the Department of Health Hospital Development Plan for 1988 to 1992 reveal that in 1986 alone abortion was third in the top 10 causes of hospitalization. A large percentage of this is believed to be induced abortion.
In a thesis published in 1982 in Studies in Family Planning, 86 percent of 286 women respondents from Metro Manila, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao said that poverty was the main reason for their undergoing abortion
The women's responses were corroborated by 106 practitioners interviewed in the same areas.
The study concluded that for every 100 pregnancies, there were about 33 abortions.
3. Who does the abortion? Abortion is done by hilots, midwives, doctors, or the woman herself.
The 1982 hospital-based study by Dra. Valenzuela found that among the women hospitalized as a result of induced abortion, most (46%) had gone to the hilot for abortion. Some 15% of these induced cases were done by the midwives, and another 15% were done by the patients themselves. The rest were done by doctors or nurses. A significant 15% would not reveal who had done the abortion.
It is difficult to say whether the above figures provide a representative and accurate picture of the abortion situation (actual percentage of abortion practitioners among doctors, midwives, hilots , etc.)
4. What reasons do women give for inducing an abortion? First, it might be good to give a profile of the women who have an induced abortion, based on Dra. Valenzuela's study. Half of them are married, but a significant proportion are unmarried and nulliparous (have not had a baby yet). Most of them (78%) are gainfully employed. Most cases of induced abortion are centered on the 20 to 29 age group. Why do they have an abortion ? For those who are married: to space pregnancies; too many children; added financial burden. For the unmarried: unwanted pregnancies. Many have an abortion because the latter "interferes with occupation, studies, or employment." The men do play a role in childbearing. Some reasons given by women had to do with their menfolk: some women are now separated from their husbands, others had a quarrel with the husband; husband has no job; husband is irresponsible; common-law husband has other family. Poor health was also cited (although there were no medical indications). Over half of the women who had induced abortion are married, showing that abortion is used to regulate or limit the number of children.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)
Every woman considering medication abortion by pills have to understand what is complete and successful abortion. The only one way to see if your abortion is complete and successful is to take a ultrasound. You have to have a ultrasound 10 days after you use pills. Around it, you should not have strong pain, heavy bleeding, fever or diarrhea. Some not heavy bleeding may still continue up to 3 weeks. Usually woman just know was abortion successful or not. But woman cannot be absolutely certain that the her abortion was successful unless she take an ultrasound and will be examined by doctor. You have to wait 10 days until you take an ultrasound because 80% abortions are complete after 5 days only. You may also take a pregnancy test after two weeks. In case you are still pregnancy (this is possible because medication abortion is not 100% method) you may repeat the procedure. This is reason why is recommended to order and buy extra Misoprostol (Cytotec) pills. Keep in minds, you have to continue taking abortion tablets until you will have a miscarriage, but not more than it described in abortion guideline. If your abortion was successful, you will feel less cramps and less pain than after the first time you take Misoprostol (Cytotec) pills. (http://www.topix.com/forum/drug/cytotec/TPV3L8LL8MI8VG8UV)
Abortion
Abortion (from the Latin word aboriri, "to perish") may be briefly defined as "the loss of a fetal life." In it the fetus dies while yet within the generative organs of the mother, or it is ejected or extracted from them before it is viable; that is, before it is sufficiently developed to continue its life by itself. The term abortion is also applied, though less properly, to cases in which the child is become viable, but does not survive the delivery. In this article we shall take the word in its widest meaning, and treat of abortion as occurring at any time between conception and safe delivery. The wordmiscarriage is taken in the same wide sense. Yet medical writers often use these words in special meanings, restricting abortion to the time when the embryo has not yet assumed specific features, that is, in the human embryo, before the third month of gestation; miscarriage occurs later, but before viability; while the birth of a viable child before the completed term of nine months is styled premature birth. Viability may exist in the seventh month of gestation, but it cannot safely be presumed before the eighth month. If the child survives its premature birth, there is no abortion — for this word always denotes the loss of fetal life. It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the humanembryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates manabove all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the
contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life. In the normal course of nature the living embryo carries on its work of, self-evolution within the maternal womb, deriving its nourishment from the placenta through the vital cord, till, on reaching maturity, it is by the contraction of the uterus issued to lead its separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional. Accidental causes may be of many different kinds. Sometimes the embryo, instead of developing in the uterus, remains in one of the ovaries, or gets lodged in one of the Fallopian tubes, or is precipitated into the abdomen, resulting, in any of these cases, in an ectopic, or extra-uterine gestation. This almost invariably brings on the death of the fetus, and is besides often fraught with serious danger to the mother. Even if an ectopic child should live to maturity, it cannot be born by the natural channel — but, once it has become viable, it may be saved by a surgical operation. Most commonly the embryo develops in the uterus; but there, too, it is exposed to a great variety of dangers, especially during the first months of its existence. There may be remote predispositions in the mother to contract diseases fatal to her offspring. Heredity, malformation, syphilis, advanced age, excessive weakness, effects of former sicknesses, etc. may be causes of danger; even the climate may exercise an unfavorable influence. More immediate causes of abortion may be found in cruel treatment of the mother by her husband or in starvation, or any kind of hardship. Her own indiscretion is often to blame; as when she undertakes excessive labours or uses intoxicating drinks too freely. Anything in fact that causes a severe shock to the bodily frame or the nervous system of the mother may be fatal to the child in her womb. On the part of the father, syphilis, alcoholism, old age, and physical weakness may act unfavourably on the offspring at any time of itsexistence. The frequency of accidental abortions is no doubt very great; it must differ considerably according to the circumstances, so that the proportion between successful and unsuccessful conceptions is beyond the calculation of the learned. Intentional abortions are distinguished by medical writers into two classes. When they are brought about for social reasons, they are called criminal abortions; and they are rightly condemned under any circumstances whatsoever. "Often, very often," said Dr. Hodge, of the University of Pennsylvania, "must all the eloquence and all the authority of the practitioner be employed; often he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient, and let her know, in language not to be misunderstood, that she is responsible to the Creator for the life of the being within her" (Wharton and Stille's Med. Jurispr., Vol. on Abortion, 11). The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is evermorally lawful we shall consider below.
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, "Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parentshave put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life. The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moralquestions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience causeabortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons todoubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: "Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic
embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?" The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: "No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for". Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires. However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother'slife, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely: That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; That the immediate effect be good in itself; That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed; That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian. History contains no mention of criminal abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of theGreeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices; for Ovid wrote concerning the upper classes of his countrymen: Nunc uterum vitiat quae vult formosa videri, Raraque, in hoc aevo, est quae velit esse parens. Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were, if nobles, sent to certain islands, if plebeians, condemned to work in the metal mines. Still the Romans in their legislation appear to have aimed at punishing the wrong done by abortion to the father or the mother, rather than the wrong done to the unborn child. The earlyChristians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder ofhuman beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix(Eschbach, "Disp. Phys.", Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Churchunanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. TheSixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Churchthat he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. Except at times and in places influenced by Catholic principles, whatmedical writers call "obstetric"
abortion, as distinct from "criminal" (though both are indefensible on moral grounds), has always been a common practice. It was usually performed by means of craniotomy, or the crushing of the child's head to save the mother's life. Hippocrates, Celsus, Avicenna, and the Arabian school generally invented a number of vulnerating instruments to enter and crush the child's cranium. In more recent times, with the advance of the obsteric science, more conservative measures have gradually prevailed. By use of the forceps, by skill acquired in version, by procuring premature labour, and especially by asepticism in the Caesarean section and other equivalent operations, medical science has found much improved means of saving both the child and its mother. Of late years such progress has been made in this matter, that craniotomy on the living child has passed out of reputable practice. But abortion proper, before the fetus is viable, is still often employed, especially in ectopic gestation; and there are many men andwomen who may be called professional abortionists. In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe amongChristian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. For England, Blackstone stated the law as follows: Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in everyindividual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in its mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb, or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law does not look upon this offence in so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanour. In the United States, legislation in this matter is neither strict nor uniform, nor are convictions of frequent occurrence. In some of the States any medical practitioner is allowed to procure abortion whenever he judges it necessary to save the mother's life. The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX"Apostolicae Sedis". It decrees excommunication — that is, deprivation of theSacraments and of the Prayers of the Church in the case of any of her members, and other privations besides in the case of clergymen — against all who seek to procure abortion, if their action produces the effect. Penalties must always be strictly interpreted. Therefore, while anyone who voluntarily aids in procuring abortion, in any way whatever, does morally wrong, only those incur theexcommunication who themselves actually and efficaciously procure the abortion. And the abortion here meant is that which is strictly so called, namely, that performed before the child is viable. For no one but the lawgiver has the right to extend the law beyond the terms in which it is expressed. On the other hand, no one can restrict its meaning by private authority, so as to make it less than the received terms of Church language really signify. Now Gregory XIV had enacted thepenalty of excommunication for abortion of a "quickened" child but the present lawmakes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood. That distinction, however, applies to another effect which may result from the procuring of abortion; namely, he who does so for a child after quickening incurs anirregularity, or hindrance to his receiving or exercising Orders in the Church. But he would not incur such irregularity if the embryo were not yet quickened. The terms "quickened" and "animation" in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can perceive its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established theirregularity here referred to the "animation" of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility. If ever reasons should arise, which is most improbable, to change these pronouncements those reasons would receive due consideration.
Is abortion the answer?
Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states: "The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception ...(emphasis ours)"
The issue of the right to life or abortion covers many aspects: human rights, moral beliefs, medical basis, social implications.
Advocates of the right to life are concerned that abortion, regarded as destruction of the innocent, is becoming an accepted and institutionalized fact of life.
They are concerned that this will be sanctioned and inevitably legalized.
Advocates of abortion point to the primary of "freedom" of "personal privacy," the right to have or make a choice. In the Philippines, advocates also point to the pressures of poverty and ensuring that all children are "wanted" and can be assured of adequate care.
We will present facts about abortion and the issues it raises. We hope that this will help you take an informed stand-and committed action-on this issue.
1. What is abortion? Abortion is defined as "the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb, which results in the death of the fetus (carrara). Is it really appropriate to speak of abortion as "killing"? To answer this question, you must understand the procedures used in surgical abortion. Dilation and Curettage (D & C) The cervix, or mouth of the womb, is first stretched open. A curette or sharp, loop-shaped knife is then inserted, cuts the fetus into small pieces. His head is crushed with the forceps in order to remove the baby. The womb is then scraped out completely. Suction-Curretage Abortion A tube is inserted into the uterus; the suction breaks and crushes the body parts of the fetus, drawing them out into a jar. With both of these methods, the resulting tissue is clearly identifiable as small pieces of a baby. The actual cause of death is the physical dismemberment of the body. Saline Injection This method is used when the child is too large for D & C Suction-Curettage. A long needle is injected through the mother's abdomen to extract a certain amount of the amniotic fluid. This portion of the fluids is replaced with a toxic salt (strong salt poisoning solution), which burns the outer layers of the child's skin. An increase in movement is noted as the baby inhales and swallows the solution. The baby often convulses, goes into a coma, and dies an hour or two later. Labor begins 24 to 28 hours later. In all these cases, the unborn child dies from mutilation or poisoning before it can be removed from the womb. Hormone Drug Injection Prostaglandin drug is injected into the amniotic sac. This hormone drug produces labor and premature birth. The baby, in most cases, is born alive with a heartbeat, then put aside to die.
Hysterectomy It is generally used only when saline injection is impractical. The baby is delivered as it would be in a Caesarian Section. Almost all babies delivered by hysterectomy are born alive. Many cry and kick. Within a few minutes, however, most die of exposure or willful neglect. In the Philippines, studies indicate that the methods most frequently used in hospitals include: dilation and curettage (D & C); prophylactic or oxytoxics and antibiotics; vacuum aspiration and hysterectomy. Outside the hospitals, the most common method in inducing abortion is by insertion of a catheter, followed by deep abdominal massage, then by use of drugs, herbs and medicinal concoctions. Whether you refer to this as "killing" or "induced death", the effect on the child is the same. 2. How prevalent is abortion in the Philippines? Note: No reliable statistics on abortion in the Philippines is available because abortion is illegal. No woman, doctor on hospital will ever admit to having committed the crime for fear of legal sanctions. It is estimated, however that one (1) out of four (4) pregnancies end up in abortions. Seventeen percent of pregnant women in Metro Manila undergo an induced abortion due to unwanted pregnancy, the results of a recent research showed.
The research showed that women resort to various abortion methods ranging from taking certain drugs or herbal preparations to approaching a "hilot" or traditional midwife to consulting a health practitioner like midwife, doctor or nurse. One of the respondents in a study among abortees in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, even had a hilot insert a barbecue stick in her sex organ to induce abortion.
In Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, and Tuguegarao, where the abortion studies were made, abortion, though illegal, is widely practiced.
In Metro Manila study made by Josefina Cabigon of the University of the Philippines Population Institute, 17 percent of the 1,169 women surveyed admitted having had an abortion.
Every year, as many as 750,000 women undergo induced abortion in illegal "clinics" all over the Philippines.
Many of these women eventually die from infection, hemorrhage and other complications
Statistics compiled by the Department of Health Hospital Development Plan for 1988 to 1992 reveal that in 1986 alone abortion was third in the top 10 causes of hospitalization. A large percentage of this is believed to be induced abortion.
In a thesis published in 1982 in Studies in Family Planning, 86 percent of 286 women respondents from Metro Manila, Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao said that poverty was the main reason for their undergoing abortion
The women's responses were corroborated by 106 practitioners interviewed in the same areas.
The study concluded that for every 100 pregnancies, there were about 33 abortions.
3. Who does the abortion? Abortion is done by hilots, midwives, doctors, or the woman herself.
The 1982 hospital-based study by Dra. Valenzuela found that among the women hospitalized as a result of induced abortion, most (46%) had gone to the hilot for abortion. Some 15% of these induced cases were done by the midwives, and another 15% were done by the patients themselves. The rest were done by doctors or nurses. A significant 15% would not reveal who had done the abortion.
It is difficult to say whether the above figures provide a representative and accurate picture of the abortion situation (actual percentage of abortion practitioners among doctors, midwives, hilots , etc.)
4. What reasons do women give for inducing an abortion? First, it might be good to give a profile of the women who have an induced abortion, based on Dra. Valenzuela's study. Half of them are married, but a significant proportion are unmarried and nulliparous (have not had a baby yet). Most of them (78%) are gainfully employed. Most cases of induced abortion are centered on the 20 to 29 age group. Why do they have an abortion ? For those who are married: to space pregnancies; too many children; added financial burden. For the unmarried: unwanted pregnancies. Many have an abortion because the latter "interferes with occupation, studies, or employment." The men do play a role in childbearing. Some reasons given by women had to do with their menfolk: some women are now separated from their husbands, others had a quarrel with the husband; husband has no job; husband is irresponsible; common-law husband has other family. Poor health was also cited (although there were no medical indications). Over half of the women who had induced abortion are married, showing that abortion is used to regulate or limit the number of children.
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm)
