Dear Editor,
Your issue of October 28, 2014 reports the demand for legalised abortions by the head of the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) Dr Sandra Knight. The first rationale provided is that "it is happening anyway". This justification is logically flawed.
Murder,child sex abuse, and corruption are examples of behaviours all rampant in Jamaica. Prevalence, therefore, would not justify legalisation.
The second rationale is the well-used "botched abortion" coat hanger argument. This argument must be balanced by first acknowledging what an elective abortion is. It is, in fact, the deliberate killing of a unique human being.
The experience of other countries has shown that legalisation will not necessarily eradicate illegal procedures. In fact, illegal abortions often flourish in the more permissive ethos that exists. "Underground" operators do not cease, they often simply come above ground. The Kermit Gosnell debacle is but one example of this.
Another rationale was the inference that legalised abortion would improve maternal health. The Lancet in 2010 published figures for maternal mortality by region and country (Vol 375 Issue 97 pp 1609-1623). In this report, there was significant decrease in maternal mortality for several countries which had introduced very restrictive laws against abortions. Notable among them were Chile and El Salvador, in which mortality rates fell after abortion was made illegal.
The head of the NFPB asserted that "religion and politics cannot be taken into account when making public health decisions". I contend that the push for legalising abortion is primarily on philosophical grounds, and that biology, philosophy and the health of the society are valid factors to be considered.
Dr D Brady-West
drbradywest@gmail.com
Botched rationale for abortions
-->
Your issue of October 28, 2014 reports the demand for legalised abortions by the head of the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) Dr Sandra Knight. The first rationale provided is that "it is happening anyway". This justification is logically flawed.
Murder,child sex abuse, and corruption are examples of behaviours all rampant in Jamaica. Prevalence, therefore, would not justify legalisation.
The second rationale is the well-used "botched abortion" coat hanger argument. This argument must be balanced by first acknowledging what an elective abortion is. It is, in fact, the deliberate killing of a unique human being.
The experience of other countries has shown that legalisation will not necessarily eradicate illegal procedures. In fact, illegal abortions often flourish in the more permissive ethos that exists. "Underground" operators do not cease, they often simply come above ground. The Kermit Gosnell debacle is but one example of this.
Another rationale was the inference that legalised abortion would improve maternal health. The Lancet in 2010 published figures for maternal mortality by region and country (Vol 375 Issue 97 pp 1609-1623). In this report, there was significant decrease in maternal mortality for several countries which had introduced very restrictive laws against abortions. Notable among them were Chile and El Salvador, in which mortality rates fell after abortion was made illegal.
The head of the NFPB asserted that "religion and politics cannot be taken into account when making public health decisions". I contend that the push for legalising abortion is primarily on philosophical grounds, and that biology, philosophy and the health of the society are valid factors to be considered.
Dr D Brady-West
drbradywest@gmail.com
Botched rationale for abortions
-->