Abortion and Its Connection to Child Abuse
ShareCHAPTER 41 — ABORTION AND ITS CONNECTION TO CHILD ABUSE
American Life League
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.
