Contents
There can be no legitimate reliance on murder to solve social problems, and accordingly, the Casey Court made a poor argument for legal abortion. Abortion is murder because, first of all, abortion kills human life. Furthermore, abortion is not justified, and hence is murder. Abortion is not analogous to other forms of justified killing, such as the death penalty or the defense of public necessity, because the element of culpability of the killed person is missing. The question of abortion as murder has even been conceded by some abortion defenders.{32}
The scientific evidence that abortion kills human life begins is overwhelming. The medical literature confirms that life begins at conception, the new life is human, and that gestation is merely the beginning of a continuum of human physical development that ends with death.
That life begins at conception is beyond scientific doubt. Drs. Greenhill and Friedman defined conception and it’s meaning for life in the post-Roe era: "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."{33} A text "The Atlas of the Body" provides that "[i]n fusing together, the male and female gametes produce a fertilized single cell, the zygote, which is the start of a new individual."{34} In 1995, Dr. Thomas A. Miller elaborated that "[c]onception is that moment when a women’s egg is fertilized by a man’s sperm. The single cell (i.e. zygote) resulting from fertilization contains all the ingredients necessary for growth, development, and differentiation into the organ system of a human adult."{35} Dr. Bradley M. Patten similarly stated in two medical textbooks that "[i]t is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."{36} {37} Drs. Greenhill and Friedman have also informed us that "[t]he zygote thus formed represents the beginning of new life."{38} Dr. Keith L. Moore, Professor and Chairman of the University. of Toronto Department of Anatomy in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, offered a similar statement on the zygote in a post-Roe medical textbook: "Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote."{39} In 1968, Dr. Louis Fridhandler wrote in a medical textbook that fertilization is "that wondrous moment that marks the beginning of life for a new individual."{40} Later, Dr. Ronan O’Rahily of the Carnegie Laboratory of Embryology and Dr. Fabiola Muller of the Departments of Human Anatomy and Neurology at the University of California at Davis, concurred in a 1987 medical textbook that "life commences with fertilization..."{41} without reservation. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarized the event of conception starting life: "A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg."{42}
Furthermore, the medical literature shows that human development begins at conception. "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."{43} (Emphasis added.) Dr. Thomas A. Miller has explained the characteristics of the zygote in the larger schema of human physical development:
"It is not potential life, but is actual human life. It’s destiny is to become an adult human being, for human life is what it is. It needs no more than a proper environment of oxygen and nutrients to develop its recognizable human parts. The zygote of each human being is distinctly different from every other human being.{44} (Emphasis added.)
Numerous additional medical experts have made similar statements on the humanity of the unborn offspring of humans, such as Dr. Bradley M. Patten: "Despite the small size (ca. 0.1 mm) and weight (ca. 0.004mg) of the organism at fertilization, the embryo is a beautiful individual human."{45} Dr. Keith L. Moore has written "[t]he (single) cell (zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being"{46} and "..A human being begins with fertilization, the process by which a sperm from the male and an ovum from the female unite to form a zygote. As soon as fertilization is complete, the zygote divides into two blastomeres and human development has begun."{47} Margaret Shea Gilbert has linked the humanity of the unborn to their individuality in Biography of the Unborn: "At the moment of fertilization there has been determined not only the existence of this new human being, but also his individuality."{48}
Other medical authors, such as Anthony and Thibodeau, have been similarly unequivocal on the humanity from conception when they wrote in their medical text that "...a new human being starts with the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum to form a single cell...[A] single microscopic cell is transformed into a complex human being,"{49} (Emphasis added.) Jan Langman announced a nearly identical sentiment when she wrote that "...a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."{50} Moreover, Dr. Keith L. Moore has agreed that "[h]uman development begins at fertilization (conception) when an oocyte (ovum) from a woman is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoon) from a man."{51}
Furthermore, experiments and studies on unborn humans have also been recognized as such by Dr. Jan E. Jirasek of the Institute of the Care of Mother and Child, Prague, Czech Republic and when he reported on the procedures: "Liberalization of abortion law in Czechoslovakia in 1958 enabled the collection of a reasonable number of normal human embryos that could be used for medical [experiments]."{52} (Emphasis added.) "Human embryology is concerned with the development of the human being."{53} "The first to study the human embryo systematically was Wilhelm His..." (Emphasis Added.){54} Drs. O’RAHILY and Muller have expressed their accord by writing in their medical text that "[a]t the beginning of [gestation], the unique genetic system of an individual is established by the union of the male and female germ cells. The prenatal period of human life comprises about 38 weeks from fertilization until delivery (emphasis added)."{55}
Not only does human life begin at conception, but gestation is merely the beginning of human physical development that continues after birth. Dr. Keith L. Moore wrote in a 1983 medical text that:
"Human development begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male. " "Most developmental changes occur during the embryonic and the fetal changes, but important changes also occur during the other periods of development: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood." "Development can be divided into prenatal and postnatal periods, but it is important to understand that development is a continuous process. Birth is a dramatic event during development, but important developmental changes occur after birth (e.g., in the teeth and the female breasts)."{56}
Dr. D.P. Davies, BSc, MB, DCH, DObst, FRCP, Professor of Paediatrics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong has added that:
"Birth -- the end of the intrauterine phase of existence -- is obviously a most important event... but the growth programme itself is little affected by it. Growth and development is a continuum from prenatal through to postnatal life and the stage in development at which birth occurs varies widely." "The human occupies an intermediate position (between rats and guinea pigs in regard to whether the brain is fully developed at birth or not) with the brain undergoing it's growth spurt in the period covering the last trimester or pregnancy and the first few years of postnatal life."{57}
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist, founder of N.A.R.A.L, and founder of an abortion facility that in the late 1960's and early 1970's was the largest such facility in the U.S. agrees that "[l]ife ... is a continuous spectrum that begins in the uterus and ends in death."{58} Geoffrey Hawthorn, Reader in Sociology and Politics at Cambridge University who has worked, among other projects, on the social aspects of fertility and on related policies both in Britain and in the Third World" has opined that "Abortion is against the normal course of [biologic] events..."{59}
The medical authorities that see intrauterine and post-partum development as indistinguishable also includes Dr. M. Craigmyle, a Senior Lecturer in Anatomy, University College, Cardiff, England, who wrote that "[d]evelopment does not terminate at birth but is a continuous process spanning the prenatal and postnatal periods."{60} in his medical text Embryology, Dr. Keith L. Moore added that "[d]evelopment...in some cases...continues long after birth, e.g. the brain,"{61} and that "[d]evelopment does not stop at birth or during infancy, but continues during childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood."{62} "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."{63} "The term ‘development’ being defied as the continuous modification of an individual’s total life processes which transpire between the (fertilization) and the adult form."{64} "[t]he embryo is always worthy of respect... and is never a simple biological tissue."{65}
Drs. O’Rahily and Muller summarized in their medical textbook, Human Embryology and Teratology, the scientific facts that human life begins at conception and that physical development is continuous after birth when they wrote:
"Human embryology is the study of the human embryo and fetus...." "Although early development, particularly that of the embryo, is the main focus, development continues after birth as well as before." "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed."{66}
U.S. Senate testimony by medical experts in 1981 by Dr. Bogionanni, Dr. Bowes, Dr. Lejeune, Prof. Gordon, Prof. Mathews-Roth indicates the same.
The scientific evidence that human life begins at conception and is continuous until well after birth is conclusive.
Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life: A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."{67} Former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton admits that the preborn are alive in her 1986 book:
"There are many sperm cells in the [seminal] fluid. If one of them meets an egg cell inside the mother, new life can begin to grow... If one of your friends is pregnant, ask her to let your child 'feel the baby move.' ... A baby grows in a special place inside the mother, called the uterus -- not in her stomach. In nine months it is born."{68}
Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "[a]bortion is the taking of a human life"{69} and Dr. Alan Guttmacher,{70} former president of Planned Parenthood and founder of the Guttmacher Institute, the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, has stated "[f]ertilization has then taken place; a baby has been conceived."{71} {72} While many abortion defenders readily concede that abortion kills human life, it is necessary to expound on this point because examining the nature of the unborn human being at the point of conception shows the inherent dignity that we all share from our biologic beginnings that are hidden from eyes of the world.
Not only have representatives from the nations largest abortion provider agreed that life begins at conception, but others who support abortion have agreed that abortion is murder. Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results{73} told a Chicago newspaper "There wasn’t an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say ‘this is murder.’"{74} Even Kate Michelman, President of N.AR.A.L. seems to be moving in the direction of agreeing that abortion is murder by her statement that "[a]bortion is a bad thing."{75} Others who have at one time been heavily involved with abortion have later agreed, such as "Jane Roe" Norma McCorvey, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, and Carol Everett.
In addition, everyone who uses the term "fetus" unwittingly acknowledges that the unborn human is an unborn child because fetus is Latin for "unborn child." Unfortunately for the unborn child, the term fetus has fallen into use as a way of dehumanizing the unborn child, as shown by the primary use of this term by people when they are arguing for abortion rights, in comparison to when they are discussing a baby that is wanted by the mother.
Abortion apologists have proposed that life begins sometime after conception. The suggested alternatives for when life begins is, at the time of the primitive streak, the beginning of neurological function, viability, and birth. Each of these proposals are discussed as follows.
The primitive streak (the precursor to the spinal column) occurs 14 days after conception. Until the primitive streak occurs, the human embryo may split, or twin into two embryos to become two individuals,{76} or two sibling embryos may combine into one.{77} Abortion defenders claim that in either case, until the primitive streak occurs, no one individual has been definitively and irrevocably determined. Until the primitive streak occurs, it is not clear which embryos will go on to exist as distinct individuals, and until nature has determined the individuals, it can not be said that there are individuals.{78} {79} However, abortion defenders are mistaken to say that when it is not clear as to which individuals will go on to complete gestation, that are no individuals that deserve to be protected. Before the primitive streaks occurs, and while nature is still in the process of determining the finality of the individuals, unique individuals do in fact exist. These individuals are equal to all other individuals, and the abortion defenders have not explained why individuals that may not go on to complete gestation are less than equal.
Abortion defenders have also suggested life does not begin until the onset of brain and neurological function, the formation of dendritic spikes in the brain cortex, that link the brain with the spinal column.{80} The functioning of the brain is the bright-line where life and death begin and end. The brain is necessary for mentality, especially consciousness, and thought and feelings. Using the existence of brain functioning to define the beginning of life is consistent with the demarcation of death with the cessation of brain activity.{81} The abortion defenders are mistaken in using this point of physical development as the beginning of life because using mentality, consciousness, and thought and feelings is very subjective. In order to protect humans equally, subjective standards must be rejected. Otherwise, we all are ultimately subject a tyranny that could label each of us as "nonhuman" because of some physical attribute that we lack. Scientific standards must be used in order to protect everyone equally. Accordingly, the subjective standard of neurological development can not be accepted as the standard for the beginning of life.
Viability is also suggested as another point at which life begins. Using viability has one big problem: Viability is limited by the standard of medical technology, not the actual human itself, thus viability is not measured by the qualities of the unborn child, and tells us nothing about the unborn child itself. The viability standard tells us only what the limits of technology are. Accordingly, viability is also a poor standard to use for the beginning of life. Roe{82} and Casey{83} used viability as the point before which the state has no interest in regulating abortion.
In general, using any point of physical development later than conception is incorrect because the consensus of the scientific medical literature is that life begins at conception, the life is human life, and physical development is continuous from the point of conception until maturity. Human life begins at conception.
The taking of human life at any point after conception is murder unless it is justified. The only form of justified homicide is where the human is blameworthy. An assumption of this principle is that all human life is of equal value, unless he/she has committed an egregious act that calls for death. Clearly, an unborn human has no culpability, and no defenders of legal abortion claim that an unborn human is blameworthy.
However, abortion defenders disagree with the idea the all human life is of equal value. Abortionist Curtis Boyd has opined:
"[f]etuses have value to the pregnant woman and society, but they are not of equal moral value with actual person--especially the pregnant woman. The abortion question focuses on the personhood of the woman, who considers the potential personhood of the fetus in terms of her psychological state, personal history, social situation, and the meanings and implications from the past and for the future."{84}
In this statement, we have a direct and honest statement from a practitioner of abortion that the justification for legal abortion rests on the less-than-equal moral value of unborn humans. This statement is not based on science, but rather is a personal moral judgement that flies in the face of one of the principles that the U.S. was founded on - -"all men are created equal."{85}
Furthermore, abandoning the principle of human equality could lead to eugenics because eugenics is founded on the same philosophy that some people are of lesser value than others. Eugenics is founded on the utilitarian philosophy of German philosopher Hegel. Utilitarianism, also known as pragmatism, holds that "the end justifies the means." If a means provides a solution to a practical problem, it is morally justifiable.{86}
The Holocaust, in which Nazi Germany saw a problem in the existence of Jews, Gypsies, and mentally and physically handicapped people, was founded on Hegel’s pragmatic philosophy.{87} C.G. Campbell,{88} President of the American Eugenics Society Inc. in 1931{89} has written:
"Adolf Hitler ... guided by the nation's anthropologists, eugenicists and social philosophers, has been able to construct a comprehensive racial policy of population development and improvement ... it sets a pattern ... these ideas have met stout opposition in the Rousseauian social philosophy ... which bases ... its whole social and political theory upon the patent fallacy of human equality ... racial consanguinity occurs only through endogamous mating or interbreeding within racial stock ... conditions under which racial groups of distinctly superior hereditary qualities ... have emerged." (Emphasis added).{90}
Mr. Campbell, a leader in the eugenics movement,{91} has clearly rejected the idea of human equality. This rejection helped pave the way toward intellectual acceptance of Nazi Germany’s "Final Solution." and has helped pave the way toward America’s final solution to problem pregnancy. "Nazi Germany used the findings of eugenicists as the basis for the killing of people of inferior genetic stock."{92}
Another leader in the eugenics movement, Madison Grant,{93} connected the purported inequality of the unborn to the goals of the eugenics movement.
"...Indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes often results in serious injury to the race ... Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community" (Emphasis added).{94}
As recently as six years ago, two medical ethicists, Kuhse and Singer, have argued that no human being has any right to life.{95} Using a utilitarian approach, they have concluded that "mentally defective" people, unborn people, and even children before their first birthday, have no right to life because these people are not in full possession of their faculties.{96} These utilitarian authors are fully consistent with other utilitarians in that they first reject the principle that are humans have equal moral status, then, using subjective criteria that appeals to themselves personally, they identify certain humans they find expendable. While Kuhse and Singer may be personally comfortable with their conclusions, this approach leaves all of us less than secure from being dehumanized. If newborn infants can be found to lack equal moral status, then surely there are other innocent and vulnerable member of society who can be similarly found to lack equal moral status. The Nazis left few people in Germany safe from the gas chambers, and any other society that uses utilitarianism in medical ethics also leaves great portions of society at risk of death at the convenience of society at large. Clearly, the equal moral status of all humans must be recognized by the law.
There is reason to believe that claiming abortion is in the best interests of the child is a cover for promoting eugenics. An article in a leading eugenics publication has suggested that eugenics be promoted as in the best interests of born children:
"The very word eugenics is in disrepute in some quarters ... We must ask ourselves, what have we done wrong? I think we have failed to take into account a trait which is almost universal and is very deep in human nature. People simply are not willing to accept the idea that the genetic base on which their character was formed is inferior and should not be repeated in the next generation. We have asked whole groups of people to accept this idea and we have asked individuals to accept it. They have constantly refused and we have all but killed the eugenic movement ... they won't accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation. ... it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let's stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let's base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted."{97} (Emphasis added.)
It was a scant seven years later that promotional material from Planned Parenthood suggested that every child be a wanted child. This is consistent with the efforts of Frederick Osborne, a leading figure in the U.S. eugenics movement.{98}
"Frederick Osborne ‘reformed’ eugenics by proposing that eugenicists conceal their true goal, which was, and is, to control human evolution by limiting marriage and parenthood to the superior stocks. He believed that less than ten percent of the population were worthy to have children. But he proposed that eugenicists never mention their conviction that most children should never have been born. Eugenicists were to assert instead a hypocritical concern for the welfare of the children of the inferior. This is the origin of Planned Parenthood's oft repeated slogan "Every child a wanted child."{99}
Not only is the promotional campaign that every child should be a wanted child completely ineffectual in promoting the welfare of born children, but, the entire notion of an "unwanted child" may be completely false. Ken Kesey, author of "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" and the father of an adopted baby, reflected on the struggles he and his wife underwent while waiting to adopt an child, which included spending a considerable amount of time in review by social agencies, and the interminable waiting for a child. Mr. Kesey’s experience has led him to conclude that there is no such thing as an unwanted child, just unwanting parents.{100}
Abortion apologists, most notably Planned Parenthood, suggest that legal abortion helps society to reach the goal that every child is a wanted child. While the implications of every child being a wanted child are not spelled out, it is understood that this goal is in the best interests of the child; that child abuse will be less prevalent, and children will generally thrive more in a society where abortion is legal.
The above discussion on how abortion can lead directly to abuse of born children clearly refutes the notion that legal abortion leads to less child abuse by allowing the elimination of "unwanted" children. Moreover, a study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine at the University of Southern California School of Medicine found that many of the circumstances that would indicate that a child is wanted by his or her parents show an increased likelihood of child abuse. Dr. Lenoski found that 91% of the parents of children that were abused by the parents expressed a desire for pregnancy, while only 63% of the parents of children that were not abused by their parents expressed a desire for pregnancy. Dr. Lenoski also found that the parents of 93% of parentally abused children were married at birth of the child, while only 60.0% of parents of the non-abused children were married at the time of the abused child’s birth. Moreover, Dr. Lenoski found that 24% of abused children were named after a parent, while only 4% of children that were not abused by a parent were named after a parent. It is clear from Dr. Lenoski’s research that aborting children that are unwanted by their parents will not reduce child-abuse.{101}
Furthermore, other studies have show that "wanted" children are no better off in general than "unwanted" children. A study by A.J. Ferriera found that there is a relationship between unplanned pregnancies and newborn deviant behavior, but contrary to the expectations of many abortion advocates. The study showed that there are more deviant babies of mothers who had planned their pregnancy than those who had not.{102} Furthermore, another study in which the authors "hoped" to show that unwanted pregnancies result in suffering children did not realize its goal.{103} "There is a contention that unwanted conceptions tend to have undesirable effects . . . the direct evidence for such a relationship is almost completely lacking, except for a few fragments of retrospective evidence. It was the hope of this article to find more convincing systematic research evidence and to give some idea of the amount of relationship between unwanted conception and undesired effect on children. This hope has been disappointed."{104} Not too surprisingly to those who oppose legal abortion, this study, with it’s admitted goal of finding a desirable effect of abortion, was published by a eugenics organization.
The myth that abortion is in the best interest’s of the child is a falsehood based on a utilitarian philosophy that is intended to ultimately devalue and dehumanize the unborn child, so that abortion can be justified. However, this myth fails. The unborn child has the same value as born people, leaving no justification for killing innocent unborn children.
Abortion defenders have criticized the conclusion that abortion is murder by implying that the issue of abortion as murder is more complicated than the opponents of legal abortion would have it: "The bald assertion that is it wrong to kill humans, without more, is ad hoc and question-begging."{105} That is not the assertion of pro-life advocates. The assertion is that it is wrong to kill innocent human life.
It is clear that abortion is murder because the scientific evidence shows human life development begins at conception and abortion is unjustified killing because unborn life is innocent and as equally valuable as born life. The U.S. Supreme Court has led the U.S. down a slippery pathway that allows society to rely on murder to solve social problems.
{32}For example, Alan Brownstein and Paul Dau, The Constitutional Morality of Abortion, 33 B.C. L. Rev. 689, 706.
{33}Drs. J.P. Greenhill and Emanuael A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics 7 (1974).
{34}Time Magazine and Rand McNally, Atlas of the Body, 139-140 (1980).
{35}Videotape of presentation "When Human Life Begins," held at the 1995 convention of the Presbyterians Church U.S.A. in Cincinnati, OH., (Presbyterians Pro-life) (on file with author).
{36}Human Embryology 43 (1968).
{37}Dr. Bradley M. Patten, Foundations of Embryology, McGraw-Hill, 1964.
{38}Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics 17 (1974).
{39}The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 12 (1977).
{40}Gametogenesis to Implantation, in Biology of Gestation 46 (N.S. Assau ed., 1968).
{41}Development Stages in Human Embryos 9 (1987).
{42}Pregnancy, in 14 The New Encyclopedia Britannica 968 (15th ed. 1974).
{43}Dr. Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryologies 13 (1988).
{44}Videotape of presentation "When Human Life Begins," held at the 1995 convention of the Presbyterians Church U.S.A. in Cincinnati, OH., (Presbyterians Pro-life) (on file with author).
{45}Foundations of Embryology (1964).
{46}The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology 1 (2d ed. 1977).
{47}Human Embryology 2 (1982).
{48}Medical Embryology: Human Development-Normal and Abnormal 5 (1939).
{49}Textbook of Anatomy & Physiology 754.
{50}Medical Embryology: Human Development-Normal and Abnormal 3 (1977).
{51}T.V.N. Persaud and Kohei Shiota, Color Atlas of Clinical Embryology 1 (1994).
{52}Atlas of Human Prenatal Morphogenesis IX (1983).
{53}R.G. Harrison, Clinical Embryology 1 (1978).
{54}O'Rahily and Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology 3 (1992).
{55}Development Stages in Human Embryos 3 (1987).
{56}Before We Are Born 2 (2d ed. 1983).
{57}Human Embryology 301 (2d ed. 1985).
{58}Editorial Deeper into Abortion,in New England Journal of Medicine (1974).
{59}Human Embryo Research: Yes or No? 155 (Gregory Bock and Maeve O’Conner eds., 1986).
{60}Dr. M. Craigmyle, Embryology 1 (2d ed. 1975).
{61}Human Embryology 2 (1982).
{62}Human Embryology 2 (1982).
{63}Drs. E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant vii (2d ed. 1975).
{64}R.G. Harrison, Clinical Embryology 1 (1978).
{65}J.-M. Thevoz, Entre Nos Main L'embryon (1990), quoted in O'Rahily and Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology 5 (1992).
{66}O'Rahily and Muller, Human Embryology and Teratology 5 (1992).
{67}Plan Your Children (Planned Parenthood, 1963). (On file with author.) (The pamphlet also informs the reader that "[abortion] is dangerous to your life and health. it may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it ... [in comparison] [b]irth control merely postpones the beginning of life.").
{68}Faye Wattleton, How to Talk with Your Child About Sexuality 95 (1986).
{69}Dr. Mary Calderone, Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem, 50 American Journal of Public Health 7, 951 (1960). ("..when a woman seeking abortion is given the chance of talking over her problem with a properly trained and oriented person, she will in the process very often resolve many of her qualms and will spontaneously decide to see her prenancy through... so I am not for abortion...")
{70}Katherine S. O'Keefe, Crypto-Eugenics: The Hidden Agenda of Planned Parenthood Appendix B (1991). Katharine S. O'Keefe, American Eugenics Society 1922-1994 (rev. Dec. 8, 1993, ver. 6.8). Director, American Eugenics Society, 1955; V.P. 1956-63; Director 1964-66 MD; d. Mar. 18, 1974; President, Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1962-1974; Mount Sinai New York 1952-66 (Director of Obstetrics 1952-62; Director Emeritus 1962-); Association for the Study of Abortion; C.m., Lanker Committee 1961; Founder, American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians 1963; International Planned Parenthood Federation (Management and Planning Committee (196263, 1964); Medical Committee, (1961-62, C.m..., 1964-68); Regional representative, Western Hemisphere (1962-63, 1964); Council 196162; consultant, IPPF medical publications and IPPF newsletter when Dorothy Brush was editor 1952-56; Western Hemisphere Regional Council 1955); in 1968 IPPF was assigned to assist the government of Botswana in developing family planning following visits by A. Guttmacher according to ARTW, Dec. 1968.
{71}Birth Control and Love: The Complete Guide to Contraception and Fertility 12 (1961) quoted in Stephen M. Krason, Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution : A Critical Study of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and a Basis for Change 445 (1984).
{72}Planning Your Family 16 (1964).
{73}In Necessity and Sorrow: Life and Death in an Abortion Hospital (1976).
{74}Daily News, Oct. 22, 1976.
{75}Philadelphia Enquirer, Dec. 11, 1993.
{76}Michael Lockwood, Human Identity and the Primitive Streak, in Hastings Center for Reproduction 45 (Jan.-Feb. 1995).
{77}Charles Gardner, Is an Embryo a Person?, in Nation 557 (Nov. 13, 1989).
{78}Michael Lockwood, Human Identity and the Primitive Streak, in Hastings Center for Reproduction 45 (Jan.-Feb. 1995).
{79}Charles Gardner, Is an Embryo a Person?, in Nation 557 (Nov. 13, 1989).
{80}Amicus Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians, including 11 Nobel Laureates, at 10-12, 14, William Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 4902 (1989).
{81}Michael Lockwood, Human Identity and the Primitive Streak, Hastings Center for Reproduction 45 (Jan.-Feb. 1995).
{82}410 U.S. 113,163, 93 S.Ct. 705, 732 (1973).
{83}505 U.S. 833, 834, 835, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2796, 2798 (1992)..
{84}Dr. Curtis Boyd, The Morality of Abortion: The Making of a Feminist Physician, 13 St. Louis U. Public L. Rev. 303, 313.
{85}The Declaration of Independence para. 1 (1776).
{86}John Powell, S.J., Abortion: The Silent Holocaust 26 (1981).
{87}Psychiatrist Dr. LeoAlexander, M.D., Medical Practice Under Dictatorship, 241 The New England Journal of Medicine 21, 39 (1949).
{88}O’Keefe, supra note 70. American Eugenics Society Inc., Pres. 1931; Member, Eugenics Research Association 1938; Personal: 1935 resigned Mar. 1931 when Society decided to move to New York; President Eugenics Research Association 1935.
{89}Id.
{90}The New York Times, Aug. 29, 1935.
{91}O’Keefe, supra note 70.
{92}Born Bad (CNN television broadcast, Nov. 4, 1996, hosted by Judy Woodruff).
{93}O’Keefe, supra note 70. Co-incorporator, American Eugenics Society Inc., 1926; Director 1929. Personal: Yale 1887; law degree Columbia 1890; one of founders of New York Zoological Society, the Bronx Zoo (Pres. after H. F. Osborn q.v., succeeded by H. F. Osborn Jr.), Save the Redwoods League; Treasurer: Second (1921) and Third (1932) Eugenics Congress; Pres: Eugenics Research Assn., Bronx Parkway Comm.; Immigration Restriction League; Charter Fellow, Galton Society; obit NY Times May 31 1937 Publications:1936 Eugenical News, Advisory Board; 1916 The Passing of the Great Race. (preface by H. F. Osborn q.v., ideas of Count Gobineau on Aryan supremacy); wrote preface to The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.; contributed to The Alien in Our Midst. or "Selling Our Birthright for a Mess of Pottage" 1930 w/ others, pub. by Galton Publishing Co. Inc. (see H. P. Fairchild q.v.).
{94}The Passing of the Great Race, quoted in Alan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism 171 (1977). (Malthus propounded the theory that population tends to increase faster than the food supply and that unlimited reproduction brings poverty and many other evils upon a nation, which has since been shown to be false, Julian Simon, Too Few People? To Many Trees?, in Crisis 22 (Feb., 1991) "Adding more people causes short-run problems, but people are also the means to solve these problems. The main fuel to speed the world’s’s progress is our stock of knowledge, and the brake is our lack of imagination. The ultimate resource is people--skilled, spirited, and hopeful people-who will exert their wills and imagination for their own benefit as well as in a spirit of faith and social concern, and so inevitably they will benefit not only themselves but the poor and the rest of us as well").
{95}H. Kuhse and P. Singer, Individuals, Humans and Persons: The Issue of Moral Status, in Embryro Experimentation 65-75 (P. Singer et al. eds., 1990).
{96}Id.
{97}Frederick Osborne, Galton and Mid Century Eugenics 48 Eugenics Review 1 (1956).
{98}O’Keefe, supra note 70. American Eugenics Society Inc. Director 1935; sec. 1936; Sec./Treas. 1936-45 (1940 Treas. only); Pres., 1946-52; Secretary 1954-59; Secretary/Treasurer 1960-68; Treasurer 1969-73; Director 1969-72; Member 1974. The most significant figure in the Society from 1938 until his death in 1973 was a secret racist; developed the "eugenic hypothesis" "voluntary unconscious selection" and "crypto eugenics" and "reform eugenics" which were the most significant post war policies of the Society; was President of the Pioneer Fund from 1947 to 1956; sympathized with idea of deporting the African Americans to Africa but did not consider it a practical possibility. Personal: b. 1889; nephew of H. F. Osborne Sr. q.v.; relative of Osborne of the railroads; connected through his family with many of the significant eugenic families such as the Dodges of Phelps Dodge; Princeton 1910; father was on the Board of Trustees of Princeton and helped found the Office of Population Research at Princeton; Trinity College, Cambridge, England 1911; chief of the domino warehouses during World War I, i.e., Red Cross Field Officer; worked in finance; financed Third Eugenical Congress (i.e., advanced seed money, paid debts at end; see Chase p. 326); 1937 helps found Pioneer Fund, a racist group; 1939 Citizens Committee for Planned Parenthood; 1940 Research Associate in anthropology, American Museum of Natural History which was founded by his uncle; 1940 took part in Birth Control Federation of America's symposium on "Race Building in a Democracy", where he spoke on eugenics; Chm.., Advisory Committee on Selective Service during World War II (see P.E. Vernon (ES), A.D. BuchananSmith (ES), D.W. LaRue q.v. and John Flanagan to form an idea of the extent of eugenic influence over officer and cook selection; Major General in Charge of Morale, World War II (this became Information and Education); Morale is propaganda on the home front, so it is here that he developed propaganda skills used in propaganda strategies, such as that set forth in "Galton and Mid Century Eugenics; Destroyed unit cohesion in the US Army by introducing system of individual rather than unit return; The American Soldier; US representative on Atomic Energy Commission (see W.J. Schull, H. Newcombe); Pioneer Fund (Pres. 1947-56); American Eugenics Society (Pres. 1946-52); "reformed" eugenics; co-founder with John D. Rockefeller III of the Population Council 1953 (Staff 1969-72); 'furthered the establishment of UN Demographic training centres" (Obit); Member, American Society of Human Genetics 1954; Population Assn. of America 1940-45; Eugenical News, Advisory Board 1936. Publications:1974 "History of the American Eugenics Society", Social Biology, v. 21, 2; 1968 The Future of Human Heredity: an Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society.; 1965 "Biological Aspects of Social Problems", Eugenics Review, v. 57, p. 182; 1963 "Excess and Unwanted Fertility", Eugenics Quarterly, v. 10, 2; 1963 "Eugenics and the Races of Man", Eugenics Quarterly, v. 10, p. 103 1960 "A return to the principles of natural selection", Eugenics Quarterly 10:103-09; 1956 "Galton and Mid Century Eugenics", (Galton Lecture, Eugenics Review; 1952 "The Eugenic Hypothesis: (I) "Positive Eugenics" Eugenics Review, Apr., p. 31 (ii) Negative Eugenics" Eugenics Review, 1952-53; 1951. Preface to Eugenics. (rev. ed 1951); 1937 "Implications of the new studies in population and psychology for the development of eugenic philosophy" Eugenical News, 22, 62-63; 1936 "Measures of Quality in the Study of Population", Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 188, 194-204; 1934 Dynamics of Population. w/ Frank Lorimer q.v. (based on data from Yerkes q.v. according to the bibliography in The Future of Human Heredity, Frederick Osborne 1968, p. 124); 1934 "Eugenics and Social Economic Goals for America", w/ M. A. Bigelow q.v. Eugenical News 19, 71-75; 1933 Heredity and Environment: studies in the genesis of psychological characteristics with G. Schwesinger q.v., MacMillan (also published as Studies in social eugenics, monograph no. 7 of the Eugenics Research Association); Editorial Committee, Eugenical News 1940-52.
{99}O’Keefe, supra note 70.
{100}Ken Kesey, The "Unwanted" Child, in Pro-life Feminism 193 (Gail Grenier Sweet ed., 1985).
{101}Edward Lenoski, M.D., A Research Study on Child Abuse, in Heartbeat 16-17 (Winter 1980).
{102}A. J. Ferriera, The Pregnant Woman's Emotional Attitude and Its Reflection in the Newborn, in 30 Amer. Jour. Orthopsychiatry 553 (1960).
{103}E. Pohlman, Unwanted Conception, Research on Undesirable Consequences 14 Eugenics Quarterly 143 (1967).
{104}Id.
{105}Alan Brownstein and Paul Dau, The Constitutional Morality of Abortion, 33 B.C. L. Rev. 689, 708.