The semantics of abortion

This week the Senate will begin to debate whether to repeal ministerial responsibility for the approval of the abortion drug RU486 and hand it to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The parliamentary debate follows a Private Members Bill, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial responsibility for approval of RU486) Bill 2005, which was introduced by Senators Nash, Troeth, Allison and Moore last year.

The health problems this drug poses on women have been well documented: eight women have died following use of RU486 (five in America), and the US Government’s FDA has revealed 64 life-threatening events and 224 serious events, such as haemorrhaging and ectopic pregnancy. More than 10 per cent of women need surgery to complete the abortion. Further, RU486 causes malformation in 23 per cent of continuing pregnancies (where the drug fails to kill the child).

The RU486 issue has offered an interesting study in the art of semantics.

First, the blatantly misleading nature of the proposed Bill, which seeks to shift responsibility for RU486 onto the shoulders of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). According to the TGA, “therapeutic goods” are those used in or in connection with the following:

1. preventing, diagnosing, curing or alleviating a disease, ailment, defect or injury;
2. influencing inhibiting or modifying a physiological process;
3. testing the susceptibility of persons to a disease or ailment;
4. influencing, controlling or preventing conception;
5. testing for pregnancy; and
6. replacement or modification of parts of the anatomy.

Yet measured against these criteria, RU486 is clearly not “therapeutic” because:

1. an unborn child is not a disease, defect, ailment or injury;
2. pregnancy is more than a mere “physiological process” occurring in the mother. From conception a new human person exists, therefore there is also a “physiological process” occurring in the baby which must be considered;
3. as with 1), an unborn baby is not a disease or ailment;
4. RU486 is an abortifacient, not a contraceptive;
5. RU486 doesn’t test for a pregnancy, it seeks to end it, therefore ending a life; and
6. an unborn baby is a genetically unique member of the human race from the moment of conception, as any reputable medical textbook confirms. It is not just another “part” of the woman’s anatomy that she can dispose of at will. Rather, he or she is an individual who relies on the mother for shelter and nourishment for approximately nine months. After birth the baby continues to rely on mother and others for shelter and nourishment until a time that he or she is able to look after him or herself.

It is readily acknowledged that RU486 has other uses, including inducing women into labour who are very overdue, and treating breast cancer and some diseases of the womb. However, the use of the drug for these purposes is not in question: the Bill was introduced in the hope of allowing widespread access to RU486 as an abortifacient.

When used to kill a human being, RU486 is not therapeutic. It does not meet the above criteria and therefore has nothing to do with the TGA.

A second problem with language is the misuse of the term “choice”. It can be said that there are two camps in relation to abortion (and hence RU486): “pro-life” and “pro-choice”.

“Pro-life” is self-explanatory because it refers to those people who believe there is an innate dignity accorded to the human person from the moment of conception to the human person at the embryonic stage, the human person at the foetal stage, the human person at infancy, the human person at the childhood stage, the human person at the adolescent stage, the human person at the adult stage, and the human person at old age.

This is a particular belief of Christians, who hold that the human person is accorded a special dignity because they are made imago Dei (in the image of God). However, the belief in the dignity of humanity is not limited to Christianity - in every human society throughout history the killing of innocent people (murder) has been universally condemned.

Yet in contemporary Western society - despite science and medical technology showing beyond doubt the humanity of the tiny person within the womb - the dignity of that life is far too often trumped by an appeal to “choice”.

“Pro-choice” groups use the argument that a woman’s choice to have or not to have a baby (“my body, my choice”, and so on) is sacrosanct, therefore even though some may admit the humanity of the unborn baby, that humanity is made redundant by the woman’s choice to have and to hold - or not.

If choice is what is really important, why don’t we let the baby decide whether he or she should be killed?

In the womb, the human person is defenceless and relies totally on his or her mother for nourishment and shelter. The baby cannot defend him or herself - so killing via a suction catheter, the “morning after pill”, or RU486 isn’t actually offering real choice.

Once a baby is born, it takes a few years before he or she can communicate with language and fully understand his or her surroundings. If choice is what really, really matters, a seriously “pro-choice” society would advocate for a mother to have the baby, wait until she can have a rational discussion with her son or daughter, and see then whether the child wants to be killed.

My guess is that once the baby is born all desire on behalf of the mother for such “choice” to be exercised will immediately disappear, making any need for that “do you want to be killed?” discussion redundant.

The fact is, the fundamental question that senators debating the Bill must ask and answer is: when does human life begin?

The value and dignity we accord to human life is the crux of the RU486 (and hence the abortion) issue. Despite the fact that every medical textbook worth its name states that human life begins at conception, there is a notable reluctance on behalf of the medical fraternity and politicians to acknowledge this reality.

The problem this raises is that when issues such as RU486 come up, arguments from both sides begin from different premises and so resolution is inevitably reached via “mob rule” rather than honest discussion, debate and concern for the life, health and wellbeing of child and mother.

If there is to be honest debate on the Senate floor, this question must be addressed. It should then lead to questions regarding the value and dignity of human life, and whether we ought to end an innocent human life.

Australia’s most famous election slogan was Whitlam’s “It’s Time” campaign. Perhaps “it’s time” we cut with emotive jargon, vague definitions and nebulous appeals to choice, and addressed the basic question that too many people are reluctant to tackle: when does human life begin?