In search of a quick and easy solution to the ugly reality of child
abuse, a great many people have come up with glib answers. Abortion is
the favorite theme of the moment. It is unfair, uninformed and, I
believe, dangerous.
Vincent J. Fontana, M.D.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
A policy that makes contraception and abortion freely available
will greatly reduce the number of unwanted children, and thereby curb
the tragic rise of child abuse in our country ... Legal abortion will
decrease the number of unwanted children, battered children, child
abuse cases, and possibly subsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and
a host of social ills believed to be associated with neglectful
parenthood.
National Abortion Rights Action League.[2]
Types of Child Abuse.
According to the National Committee for the Prevention of Child
Abuse, more than 1,000 children are being killed by abusive adults each
year. Dr. Richard Krugman of Denver's Kempe National Center for the
Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, sets the figure much higher at
from 2,000 to 5,000 deaths per year.
Most of these deaths are therefore apparently 'covered up' by
attributing them to other causes.
The four major types of child abuse and their percentages are;
• neglect (deprivation of necessities), 55 percent;
• physical injury, 17 percent;
• sexual maltreatment, 12 percent; and
• emotional and other maltreatment, 16 percent.[3]
Man-hating Neofeminists like to trot out their standard stereotype of
a brutal male abusing helpless women and children, but the plain fact is
that women commit most of the serious cases of child abuse (58%),
in part because they spend much more time with their children than their
fathers do.
51 percent of the victims of child abuse are girl children, and the
average age of the victimized child is seven.[3]
In cases of fatal child abuse, the average age of the victim is three
years old, the victim is male in 54 percent of the cases, the
perpetrator is a parent in 76 percent of the cases and female in 56
percent of the cases.[3]
The Child Abuse-Abortion
Connection.
Lousy Predictors.
Pro-abortionists are perhaps even worse forecasters of social trends
than the well-known mediums who grace the covers of those sensational
supermarket tabloids.
This is because the pro-aborts have a vested interest in painting a
rosy picture of the future for public consumption. Their predictions are
not based upon any studies or facts, but are instead pure unsupported
propaganda that is intended to prop up their position.
Abortion As Child Abuse.
The irony in pro-abortionists claiming that abortion will decrease
child abuse is glaringly obvious. After all, abortion itself is
the greatest child abuse. Every day in this country, we burn, cut to
pieces, and decapitate a living preborn child every five seconds
during working hours.
The pro-aborts, of course, do not really put the abuse of born
children very high on their agenda. Their phony hand-wringing and
histrionics have one purpose and one purpose only to keep their
precious abortion 'right' freely and easily available.
Pro-aborts insist that abortion is a Good Thing For Society, because
it will simply eliminate any children that might, at some point in the
future, suffer at the hands of abusive adults. The increasing numbers of
tiny broken and battered bodies in this country are mute and powerful
evidence to the contrary.
Abortion and Child Abuse First Cousins.
The impact of the abortion revolution may be too vast to assess
immediately. It should usher in an era when every child will be
wanted, loved, and properly cared for; when the incidence of
infanticides and battered children should be sharply reduced.
Abortion propagandist Larry Lader.[4]
Introduction.
Nowhere is the contrast of pro-life and anti-life philosophies more
vivid as in the debate over child abuse. People with an anti-life
mindset will neuter themselves, perforate their uteri with twisted
pieces of metal, and employ all manner of 'rubber goods,' foams, jams
and jellies in their desperate attempts to avoid the most natural
consequence of sex pregnancy. When anti-life women do get
pregnant, the child is not looked upon as a gift from God or as a unique
miracle, but instead as a mere 'contraceptive failure.' Pregnancy is not
viewed with healthy joy, but with loathing and dread.
Naturally, the anti-life philosophy dictates that such 'failures'
must logically end in abortion. The appalling slaughter in the abortion
mills, combined with society's relentless emphasis on the 'good life'
(always sans children), naturally leads to a contempt for the
most helpless humans of all born and unborn children. And so, the
little ones continue to die in their thousands and millions.
The direct connection between the abuse of unborn children and born
children could not be clearer. Children are now viewed as
'acquisitions,' not miracles; as things, not intrinsically valuable
fellow human beings. The widespread parental abuse and institutionalized
infanticide of born children naturally follows the wholesale
abuse of unborn children as inevitably as the night follows the
day.
The Mechanisms of Child Abuse.
Abortion leads directly to child abuse by one or more of several very
clear psychological mechanisms, as outlined by psychiatrist Dr. Philip
G. Ney at a symposium on the psychological effects of abortion. These
mechanisms are listed in Figure 41-1.[5]
FIGURE 41-1
PSYCHOLOGICAL MECHANISMS BY WHICH ABORTION LEADS TO CHILD ABUSE
MECHANISM #1:
"Abortion decreases an individual's instinctual
restraint against the occasional rage felt toward those dependent on
his or her care." An aborting woman, having brutally repressed
her maternal instinct already, may have difficulty in restraining
herself as she deals with a 'difficult' child.
MECHANISM #2:
"Permissive abortion diminishes the taboo against aggressing
[against] the defenseless." What is the significant psychological
difference between chopping up a child before it is born and 'knocking
it around' after it is born? After all, it is not the child that has
intrinsic worth: as the hideous pro-abortion slogan asserts,
"It's a choice, not a child."
MECHANISM #3:
"Abortion increases the hostility between the
generations." Children of mothers who have aborted their own
brothers and/or sisters may feel guilt and anger as abortion
'survivors,' and therefore display resentful, aggressive, or surly
behavior towards parents, which in turn can trigger the adult's
abusive behavior.
MECHANISM #4:
"Abortion has devalued children, thus diminishing the value
of caring for children." Fifty years ago, parents were willing to
(and very often did) undergo great deprivation for their children.
Sometimes, parents would even willingly give their very lives to save
their children. Now, children are seen as deprivation. Our
society, by its laws and attitudes, has given the green light to child
abuse. Society is now beginning to hold that defective newborns are
unworthy of life. As society does, individuals do; they are deciding
that their children are somehow 'defective,' and therefore less worthy
of life.
MECHANISM #5:
"Abortion increases guilt and self-hatred, which the parent
takes out on the child." Guilt is an extremely common cause of
child battering and abuse. Many women have been shown to harbor strong
guilt feelings over their abortions. In fact, guilt is the primary
motivator of the entire anti-life philosophy, as described in detail
in Chapter 2 of Volume I, "The Anti-Life Mentality."
MECHANISM #6:
"Abortion increases hostile frustration, intensifying the
battle of the sexes, for which children are scapegoated." Many
men directly or indirectly pressure women to have abortions, causing
resentment and anger in the women. Many women abort against their
husband's or boyfriends's wishes, thereby causing guilt and anger in them.
This 'battle of the sexes' is many times directed towards the most
helpless of bystanders their other children. These findings have been
buttressed by Schoenfeld's and Barker's separate studies, which show
that women who have aborted have much higher incidences of child
abuse.
MECHANISM #7:
"Abortion truncates the developing mother-infant bond,
thereby diminishing her future mothering capability." If a woman
holds a 'pro-choice' philosophy, she has already artificially
distanced herself from her child before birth even if the child is
'wanted.' When the mother/preborn infant bond is stunted in this
manner, it is unreasonable to expect some kind of instant healing at
birth. The 'pro-choice' attitude is destructive well beyond the
prenatal period.
References: (1) Philip G. Ney, M.D.
"Abortion and Child Abuse: Which is Cause, Which is Effect?"
David Mall and Walter F. Watts, M.D. (Editors). Proceedings of the
conference "Psychological Aspects of Abortion." Sponsored on
October 31 and November 1, 1978, by the Stritch School of Medicine,
Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois. Published by University
Publications of America. (2) Philip G. Ney, M.D. "Clinician's View:
Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse." Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, July 1979, pages 610 to 620.
Fundamental Flaws in the
'Wanted Child' Slogan.
Overview.
Pro-abortionists will frequently translate their allegations
regarding child abuse into a handy slogan: "Every child a wanted
child!" To a thinking person, however, the "wanted child"
argument is fundamentally flawed in four ways, as described in the
following paragraphs.
(1) It Lowers the Dignity of Children.
The mere act of asserting that there are such persons as 'unwanted
children' is supremely arrogant, and detracts from the innate and
intrinsic good of all children. A person who thinks like these
terms lowers the inborn dignity of the child. No human being should have
to attribute his or her 'goodness' or 'wantedness' to the mere selfish
whim of another human being. This, in essence, makes the child an object
the mere property of the adult. There is absolutely no difference
between this attitude and that of the American slavers of the early
1800s.
Pro-life debaters often make presentations before high school or
grade school audiences, and the "unwanted child" slogan seems
to be a favorite among young pro-aborts who are products of a virulently
anti-life school system.
One way to highlight the despicable nature of the "wanted
child" slogan is to ask the members of the school audience to raise
their hands if their parents describe themselves as
"pro-choice." All of the kids who want to seem 'politically
correct' (i.e., the vast majority) will raise their hands, even if they
have no idea of where their parents stand on the abortion issue.
The pro-lifer might then point out that all of the kids in the
audience whose parents describe themselves as "pro-choice" are
literally abortion survivors. The only reason they are
alive today is because their parents merely wanted them when they were
preborn children not because they had any intrinsic worth whatsoever,
but because someone else decided that they were worthy. The
pro-lifer could elaborate by saying that this is truly the heart of all
oppression. By contrast, he could state that the kids whose parents are
pro-life treasured them before they were born and would have loved them
unconditionally, even if they had been handicapped.
In other words, "pro-choice" parents say to their kids
"I will love you, but only if you are physically and
mentally perfect and only if you are convenient." In other
words, the crippled and strained 'love' that pro-aborts offer their
children is riddled with conditions.
He might continue by noting that the kids with their hands up have
only one sibling (or none), and he might ask them to think about how
many brothers and sisters they do not have because they were
aborted.
He could conclude by telling them to be thankful that they did not
happen to come along when it was inconvenient, or the very system that
their parents support would have chewed them into bloody hamburger just
as it has done to so many tens of millions of their generation.
By the time the pro-life debater has finished leading the kids
through this psychological minefield, there are generally very few hands
remaining in the air.
(2) There Are No Accurate Predictors.
No human being has (or will ever have) the Godlike ability to
predict which children will be abused and which will not be abused.
Similarly, nobody can predict which children will grow up to be geniuses
or criminals. Figure 41-2 conclusively proves this point. The only
way we could eliminate child abuse through abortion is by aborting all
children!
FIGURE 41-2
COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTS OF ABUSED AND NON-ABUSED CHILDREN
[A medium text size on your computer's 'view'
setting is recommended, otherwise, the tables may be discombobulated.]
Demographic
Parameter Abused
Children Non-Abused Children
Parental Parameters
and Demography
Average age of abusing
father
30.2
years
31.6 years
Average age of abusing
mother 26.8
years
28.6 years
Parents high school
graduates
30%
22%
Parents college
graduates
9%
7%
Parents' marital
status
96.7%
married
54.2% married
Parents expressed religious
preference
80.1%
61.5%
Parents exposed to pets as
children
3.7%
86.1%
Parents exposed to domestic
violence as
children
65.0%
43.4%
Children's Prenatal and Birthing
Parameters
Parents expressed desire for pregnancy
(i.e., child was
"wanted").[A]
91.0%
63.3%
Parents married at birth of
child[A]
93.0%
60.0%
Mean date mother began wearing
maternity clothes[A]
114
days
171 days
Baby born prematurely[B]
22.0%
10.0%
Complications at delivery[B]
9.0%
4.2%
Delivery by Cesarean section[B]
30.0%
3.2%
Child named after parent[A]
24.0%
4.0%
Notes.
[A] Factors suggesting that "wanted" children are not at
reduced risk of abuse.
[B] Factors suggesting that "bonding" problems at birth,
in addition to the abortion mentality, may be a root cause of child
abuse.
Reference. Edward Lenoski, M.D., Professor
of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at the University of Southern
California School of Medicine. "A Research Study on Child
Abuse." Heartbeat, Winter 1980, pages 16-17. The total
number of children studied were 674 for the abuse cases and 500
'controls' selected by random from the Pediatric Emergency Room
population at the University of Southern California Medical Center.
Even if there were some reliable method by which we could accurately
predict the problems that preborn children would have after birth, there
is no way that anyone but the most crass utilitarian could justify
exterminating any children with specific problems. After all, once we
kill those who will have a certain class of problems, what is to prevent
us from going after all of the others?
Believe it or not, the government is sponsoring (to the tune of $2 billion),
the Genome Project, by which scientists hope to map every gene in the
human chromosome. The results of this project will eventually allow
parents to take a simple prenatal test that will accurately predict all
of their preborn child's characteristics including future health and
psychological trends!
It is frightening indeed that the Genome Project is directed by Nobel
Prize winner Dr. James Watson, who has stated candidly that no child
should be declared human until three days after birth, so that those
newborns who fail an intensive battery of physical and psychological
tests may be killed before the deadline.
(3) Abortion = No Chance At All!
Even if a child is unwanted and battered and lives a miserable
life, at least he or she has a chance to improve his or her life after
leaving home. Anyone who asserts that the battered child would rather
die than be abused is supremely arrogant. After all, everyone knows the
stories of people who have overcome the most extreme adversity to find
happiness. Those who believe that children would rather be aborted than
abused have obviously never spoken to adults who were abused as
children.
This can be a good point for a pro-life debater to make before an
audience. The pro-lifer might ask those people in the audience who were
abused to raise their hands, and then ask those who would rather have
died at the hands of an abortionist to stand up and explain why.
There never seem to be any takers for this offer.
If a child's life is snuffed out before birth, he or she has no
chance at all. Is this not the essence of hope the opportunity to
improve one's lot in life?
(4) Abortion Leads to Infanticide.
Since our society now holds that there is such a thing as an
'unwanted child' in the womb, this attitude has inevitably spread to born
children. Witness the 2,000 cases of infanticide committed every year in
our country, with the full approval of the State. And, now that parents
have been infected with the 'unwanted child' attitude, it is absolutely
inevitable that child abuse will continue to escalate out of
control.
For more detailed information on infanticide and how it is invariably
preceded by societal acceptance of abortion, see Chapter 110 in Volume
III.
Child Abuse: Accelerating Out of Control.
Figures 41-3 and 41-4 show both the annual number of children killed
by abuse and the annual number of reported cases of child abuse in this
country. These cases are increasing dramatically each year, and this
trend shows no indication of slowing down. This data is conclusive
proof that freely available abortion has not cut down on the rate of
child abuse at all; the effect has been precisely the opposite.
FIGURE 41-3
THE INCREASE OF CHILD ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1972-1990
Reported
Reported Abuse
Cases Rate Increase
Deaths Due
Cases
Per
1,000
Over Previous
Year to
Abuse of
Abuse
Population
Year
1972
356
427,100
2.05
1973
386
452,800
2.16
5%
1974
401
480,100
2.26
5%
1975
448
509,000
2.38
5%
1976
485
537,700
2.48
4%
1977
496
572,100
2.61
5%
1978
595
606,600
2.73
5%
1979
579
707,400
3.16
16%
1980
622
785,100
3.46
9%
1981
677
846,200
3.70
7%
1982
714
924,100
4.01
8%
1983
807
1,001,400
4.31
7%
1984
820
1,255,600
5.43
26%
1985
899
1,499,400
6.50
20%
1986
1,181
1,673,400
7.28
12%
1987
1,163
2,025,200
8.43
16%
1988
1,225
2,298,100
9.62
14%
1989
1,332
2,607,800
10.42
8%
1990
1,448
2,959,100
11.59
11%
Conclusions.
(1) The rate of reported child abuse in the United States,
adjusted for population, has increased by an average of 10 percent
each year since 1972 six times faster than population growth.
(2) The child abuse rate in the United States is now almost six
times higher than it was in 1972, the year before the Supreme
Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
(3) More than four times as many children die of child abuse
annually now in this country than did in 1972, the year before Roe
v. Wade.
Reference. United States Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to
Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington,
DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition).
Table 296, "Reported Child Neglect and Abuse Cases, By Division:
1980 to 1987." Table 297, "Child Maltreatment Cases Reported
Summary: 1976 to 1988."
FIGURE 41-4
THE INCREASE OF CHILD ABUSE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1972-1990
ANNUAL MILLIONS OF ABUSED CHILDREN
[GRAPH NOT AVAILABLE]
Reference. United States Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to
Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington,
DC: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 (110th Edition).
Table 296, "Reported Child Neglect and Abuse Cases, By Division:
1980 to 1987." Table 297, "Child Maltreatment Cases Reported
Summary: 1976 to 1988."
These figures show that there is a delay of several years from the
time abortion was legalized in 1973 to the time that the rate of child
abuse really began to rise steeply in the year 1979.
There are two reasons for this time lag: (1) It took a few years for
the "abortion mentality" to be accepted and internalized by
the public at large, and (2) the ages of most abused children are in 5-
to 10-year old range. Beginning in 1979, many parents obviously
recognized that they could have aborted their children when they were
preborn, and were taking their frustrations out on kids that society had
implicitly deemed 'expendable' at one time (see Mechanisms #2 and #4 in
Figure 41-1).
Three primary conclusions may be drawn from Figures 41-3 and 41-4;
(1) The rate of actual child abuse in the United States,
adjusted for population, has increased by an average of 11 percent
each year since 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.
(2) The child abuse rate in the United States is now almost five
times higher than it was in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.
(3) More than four times as many children die now in this
country at the hands of abusive adults than did in 1972, the year
before Roe v. Wade.
It is important to note that not all of reported cases of child abuse
are substantiated with proof or confirmed with followup investigations.
The American Association for Protecting Children estimates that about 40
percent of all reported cases of nonfatal child abuse are substantiated.
60 percent cannot be substantiated due to inadequate information,
movement of the family, or peculiarities in local or state law. However,
many of the unsubstantiated cases do involved child abuse.[3]
The important point to remember is this: That the ratio of
substantiated cases of child abuse has held steady at about 40 percent
for more than ten years. Therefore, the actual cases of nonfatal
child abuse have risen steadily at the same rates as the reported
cases, as noted above. Additionally, we must remember that all cases of fatal
child abuse are substantiated and proven with autopsy or further
investigation, and, in fact, the prevalence of fatal child abuse is
probably grossly underestimated in this country.
The pervasive relationships between abortion and child abuse are not
restricted to this country. For example, the Canadian provinces with the
highest rates of abortion also have the highest rates of child abuse
(British Columbia and Ontario). The provinces with the lowest abortion
rates also have the lowest rates of child abuse (Newfoundland, New
Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island).[6]
Rising Child Abuse:
Merely a Product of
Increasing Population?
Better Reporting?
When faced with the data shown in Figures 41-3 and 41-4,
pro-abortionists will invariably insist that child abuse rates are not
increasing that it is merely the reporting that is progressively
becoming more complete and comprehensive.
This is obviously not the case. The diagnosis of severe physical or
sexual abuse cannot be mistaken; a child who has been burned with
cigarettes, whipped till his skin is tattered, or half-drowned has
always been identified as abused by trauma personnel and emergency-room
physicians.
David Liederman is executive director of the Child Welfare League of
America, an organization representing 380 child and family service
agencies and 1,200 affiliates in the United States and Canada. Mr.
Liederman has shown that the documented cases of child abuse have held
steady ratios at about 46% for simple (physical) abuse and 54% for
sexual abuse for more than thirty years. This finding refutes the flawed
claim that only the number of reported cases of child abuse is
going up, because it would otherwise be expected that these ratios of
reported child abuse would change significantly immediately after a
change in reporting procedures.
Severe and fatal instances of child abuse have been documented,
reported and analyzed according to law for more than twenty years. And
medical guidebooks featuring startlingly realistic drawings of examples
of physical and sexual child abuse have been available to emergency room
and family practice physicians for many years.
Larger Population?
Our country's population has grown steadily, and the rates of
child abuse (cases per thousand population) have risen steadily as well
but at a much greater rate.
In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, the child abuse rate was
2.01 per 1,000 total population. In 1988, the child abuse rate was 9.80
per 1,000 total population an increase of 388 percent, or 11 percent per
year! This incredibly large and sustained increase could only be caused
by the progressive cheapening of children's lives in the eyes of society
in general.
There are many possible causes of this phenomenon, but three stand
out as the most probable: (1) the vast numbers of mothers entering the
work force and placing their children in full-time day care, thereby
reducing bonding; (2) the maturing of the first generation of children
brought up on a diet of extremely violent video games, television, and
movies, who are now becoming parents themselves; and (3) the sudden
legalization of abortion followed by a widespread desensitization of
people to mass prenatal killing.
State Correlation.
Pro-abortionists will naturally argue that abortion is not a root
cause of child abuse. But the most damning evidence of all comes from
states that legalized abortion before the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe
v. Wade decision.
As each state legalized abortion, its child abuse rate accelerated
tremendously, while the rate in neighboring states and in the rest of
the country remained stable or climbed gradually, consonant with trends
that had been established for decades.
New York State was the first state to experience this phenomenon when
it legalized abortion in 1968. Its child abuse caseload immediately
rocketed from fewer than 8,000 in 1967 to more than 100,000 in 1974, a
phenomenal rise of 44 percent per year, while reporting procedures
remained unchanged.[7]
The State of Washington legalized abortion in 1970. In a period of
just 28 months, the incidents of child abuse in Seattle, the state's
largest city, rose 379 percent.[8] This is a rise of 177 percent per
year! It is significant that the child abuse rate in Seattle is still
much higher than in the rest of the state and that Seattle is one of 14
United States cities with the dubious distinction of aborting more
children than it delivers.
This linkage between permissive abortion and child abuse is not
restricted to this country: It is a worldwide phenomenon. John Linklater,
Medical Correspondent of the British journal Spectator, notes
that the number of battered children increased tenfold from 1964 to 1974
in Great Britain, paralleling a tenfold increase in the abortion rate.
He stated that "The increase in the incidence of battering babies
closely parallels the rising abortion rate."[9]
Denied Abortion: The Final
Proof.
Introduction.
The very foundation of the "wanted child" and "child
abuse" slogans rests on two false assumptions: (1) That if a woman
does not want a child, she will inevitably abuse it after it is born,
and (2) that any child that is 'unwanted' is better off dead.
Some States have judicial bypass provisions that allow adolescent
girls to petition a judge for an abortion in lieu of getting their
parents' permission. Although these are now merely "rubber
stamp" procedures, with disapprovals almost unheard of, there were
many disapprovals registered before 1973.
Additionally, many European countries have medical boards that
examine each case of abortion and allow or deny the procedure based upon
various criteria.
These judicial and medical processes have yielded data on the outcome
of pregnancies to women who were denied abortion. As detailed in the
following paragraphs, denied abortion does not lead to an
increase in child abuse. These findings decisively undercut the
pro-abortion "wanted child" and "child abuse"
slogans.
Results of the Medical Studies.
The results of six major medical studies regarding the impacts of
denied abortion on mothers and babies have been published in the medical
literature over the last 30 years.
A combination of the results of the six studies showed that 71
percent of the 6,298 American, Swedish, and New Zealand women who had
been denied abortions completed their pregnancies, and only 13 percent
felt desperate enough about their situation to journey elsewhere to have
a legal or illegal abortion. The remaining 14 percent of the women could
not be traced and were therefore not accounted for.
The only truly comprehensive study on the effects of denied abortion
on resulting children followed 249 children of Swedish women denied
abortion for 7 to 10 years. The study found that 73% of these women were
satisfied with the way everything had turned out (exactly the same
percentage as women who had never even considered abortion), and
12% had given their children up for adoption.
The study also found no difference between the number of new
pregnancies among those women who had been denied an abortion and those
who had not.[10]
Unwanted Pregnancy = Unwanted Child?
In summary, pro-abortionists play heavily upon the theme of the
"unwanted child" in their propaganda. Pro-lifers must ask the
question: How can preborn children be simultaneously a "worthless
blob of tissue" and a "child?"
Preborn cannot be both, of course. The pro-aborts would have use
believe that an unwanted pregnancy will automatically translate into an
unwanted newborn child.
This strange belief has been repeatedly debunked in medical studies
as described above, and the rationale behind the studies and the hard
data has been explained by a number of prominent psychologists.
In a Canadian study, Dr. Carlos Del Campos generally summarized the
outcomes of most unwanted pregnancies; "Thus, the literature shows
a generally comparable outcome of pregnancy, delivery and puerperium
[period immediately following childbirth] between women who were denied
abortion and controls; no evidence that a continued unwanted pregnancy
will endanger the mother's mental health; good acceptance of the infant
by the mother, especially if she has the father's support; and minimal
to moderate psychosocial disadvantages for the child."[11]
Dr. Joseph Lidz of Planned Parenthood said nearly four decades ago
that "There are a great many originally unwanted children in this
world who have become very deeply wanted after birth, and I don't think
this is simply reaction formation. There are women who do not realize
how gratifying it can be to mother a baby until they actually have it in
their arms, and maternal feelings are aroused by the tangible
situation."[12]
Finally, Charles and Leslie Westoff explain the individual thinking
that allows an "unwanted pregnancy" to develop into a child
that is loved and wanted; "Many if not most of them [unwanted
children] are no doubt rationalized and adjusted to by the time the
woman's nine-month pregnancy term has ended ... There is, fortunately, a
progression of attitude for many couples by which an unplanned pregnancy
becomes a wanted and loved child. It is just as false to infer that an
unwanted birth remains an unwanted child as it is to assume that all
unplanned pregnancies result in unwanted births.
There are not many women who can turn their backs on and close
their hearts to their own newborn babies even though a new child may
alter their plans and change their lives. Most of the unwanted
children are probably loved and happily raised.[13]
References: Child Abuse/Abortion Connection.
[1] Vincent J. Fontana, M.D., Medical Director of New York's
Foundling Hospital. The Long Island Press, May 13, 1974.
[2] National Abortion Rights Action League. A Speaker's and
Debater's Notebook, June 1978, pages 7 and 8.
[3] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the
United States. 1990 (110th Edition). Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office. Table 297, "Child Maltreatment Cases
Reported Summary: 1976 to 1988." Also see "Fact Sheet: Child
Abuse and Neglect Data." American Association for Protecting
Children, American Humane Association, Englewood, Colorado, 1992.
[4] Larry Lader. "The Abortion Revolution." The Humanist,
May/June 1973, page 4.
[5] Philip G. Ney, M.D., Head of the Department of Psychiatry at
Royal Jubilee Hospital. "Abortion and Child Abuse: Which is Cause,
Which is Effect?" Paper presented at a conference entitled
"Psychological Aspects of Abortion." sponsored on October 31
and November 1, 1978, by the Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola
University, Chicago, Illinois. Also see Philip G. Ney, M.D. "Is
Elective Abortion a Cause of Child Abuse?" Sexual Medicine Today,
June 1980. Reprinted in the Fall 1980 Human Life Review, pages
115 to 117.
[6] National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, the
National Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, the
American Humane Society, and the New York City Human Resources
Administration.
[7] Eli H. Newburger, M.D., Chief of the Harvard Medical School's
Family Development Study, in a New York Times editorial dated
March 3, 1976.
[8] Seattle Times, November 24, 1974.
[9] Medical correspondent John Linklater. The Spectator (Great
Britain), August 10, 1974.
[10] Hook, K. "Refused Abortion: A Follow-Up Study of 249 Women
Whose Applications Were Refused By the National Board of Health in
Sweden." Acta Psychiatrica Scandanavica [Supplement] 1963;
suppl 168:3-156.
[11] Carlos Del Campos, M.D. "Abortion Denied Outcome of Mothers
and Babies." Canadian Medical Association Journal, February
15, 1984, pages 361 and 362.
[12] Joseph Lidz, M.D., quoted by Mary Calderone, M.D., Medical
Director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (editor). Abortion
in the United States (proceedings of Planned Parenthood's 1955
conference on induced abortion). New York: Paul B. Hoeber, Inc., 1956.
Page 127.
[13] Charles and Leslie Westoff. From Now to Zero. Boston:
Little, Brown & Company, 1971, pages 294 and 295.
Further Reading: Child Abuse/Abortion Connection.
Shirley J. O'Brien. Why They Did It: Stories of Eight Convicted
Child Molesters.
Order from Charles C. Thomas, 2600 South First Street, Springfield,
Illinois 62794-9265. The detailed stories of the origins of child abuse
in eight molesters, how the perversion evolved in them, how they
entrapped children, and how they were caught. These men give extremely
valuable advice on how children can avoid being molested or being
trapped in dangerous situations with molesters.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.
|