Calls to legalise abortion are often made on the basis of supposed "facts". In some cases such claims are distortions of the truth; in others, they are simply false. Here we examine some of these false claims.

False claim 1:

"Illegal or ‘back-street’ abortion was widespread and life-threatening before abortion was widely legalised."

In reality:

Abortion campaigners have admitted that exaggerating the number of deaths in countries where abortion was illegal was deliberate to scare people into accepting abortion laws they did not really want. Dr Bernard Nathanson, who campaigned for abortion in the US, admits that the claims of 5,000-10,000 deaths a year from illegal abortion were false: "I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, Life Cycle Books, Toronto, 1979).

Before the abortion law in Britain was liberalised it was claimed that there were 100,000-250,000 illegal abortions every year. These figures were not based on fact. In 1962 there were approximately 14,600 illegal abortions reported in the NHS. Each year in England and Wales there were only about 50 fatal abortions with 60 per cent (30) of deaths resulting from illegal abortions. With the risk of back-street abortions being so high, the actual number of abortions must have been much less than claimed (Report by the Council of RCOG ‘Legalised Abortion’ British Medical Journal 2 April 1966.) These figures are backed by the fact that the number of deaths in women of childbearing age (15-44) actually rose in 1969, the first full year of the Abortion Act, when previously the numbers had been falling. In spite of the subsequent fall in these deaths it is clear that this was the overall trend rather than a result of the legalisation of abortion.

False claim 2:

"Legal abortion means safe abortion."

In reality:

RU486 is the most common type of abortion performed in Scotland on pregnancies up to 9 weeks. Despite being a medical abortion there are serious risks. A common side-effect is pelvic or genital-tract infections, found in up to 29.4 per cent of women where RU486 had to be followed up by a D&C to complete the abortion (Incomplete abortion after medical abortion occurs in between 0.1 and 1.5% of cases - RCOG Clinical Guidelines Sept 2004). Infection is particularly common in young women aborting their first pregnancy and can result in the failure to carry any subsequent pregnancy to full-term. Other side effects include bleeding (severe in up to 11% of cases) and pain requiring medication (57.1-79.1% of cases) (‘RU486: The Hidden Effects’, Lawrence F. Roberge M.S. 1989).

The most common type of surgical abortion is the suction or vacuum aspiration abortion. This carries risks of sepsis, haemorrhage and perforation of the uterus. There is also evidence that shows a link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.

1 in 10 women will suffer an infection after their abortion although the risk can be reduced by taking antibiotics. In all abortions there is a 1% risk of incomplete abortion requiring further treatment. (RCOG Clinical Guidelines September 2004).

False claim 3:

"Abortion has always gone on: it is better to legalise it so that it can be regulated".

In reality:

We know that abortion has been practiced for thousands of years from the fact that abortion is prohibited in the Hippocratic Oath, the foundation of medical ethics in the western world, which was drawn up around 450BC and is still of key importance in the teaching of medical ethics. However, it is only in recent decades, under pro-abortion laws, that we have reached the stage where some forty million babies are aborted every year, worldwide. Experience shows that legalisation of abortion does not "regulate" it in the sense of restricting it, but creates an "abortion culture", where abortion becomes society’s reaction to a "problem pregnancy".

False claim 4:

"The foetus is part of the mother’s body."

In reality:

The unborn baby is distinct from the mother right from the start – at conception. The zygote, or "fertilized egg", directs the pregnancy suppressing the mother’s menstrual periods, establishing a placenta (afterbirth) to draw nourishment from the mother, organising his or her own developing tissues and organs, and eventually deciding on the timing of birth (unless pre-empted by external factors). But the baby is not part of the mother, any more than the mother is part of the baby. In fact the procedure of in vitro fertilisation where life begins in the laboratory demonstrates that the embryo is not a part of the mother’s body.

False claim 5:

"The foetus cannot feel pain and is not conscious."

In reality:

While we cannot strictly "prove" that unborn children experience pain because they cannot actually tell us so, studies of the embryo show that it does respond to a stimulus, by moving away from it, as early as five weeks after conception. It is of course possible that the embryo may have sensations even earlier than this, before it is able to move.

In procedures such as amniocentesis, stimulus during the test results in an increased foetal heart rate and movement suggesting that the procedure is painful or at least uncomfortable for the baby. We can also measure the increased levels of stress hormones in the foetal blood when a syringe needle is inserted into the baby’s side (Giannakoulopoulos, Fisk et al, Lancet, July 9 1994, Vol 344, p 77).

Foetal pain has also been demonstrated by the reaction of an unborn baby during a suction abortion as its heart rate soared while trying to avoid the suction tube inserted through the cervix. ("The Silent Scream")

There is a lack of consensus among doctors and scientists about when the foetus begins to feel pain rather than about whether he/she can feel pain. For example:
“Functioning neurological structures necessary for pain sensation are in place as early as eight weeks, but certainly by 14 weeks. By 14 weeks, the entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in all parts of the body (except in the skin or the back of the head).”(V. Collins, S. Zielinski and T. Marzen, “Fetal Pain and Abortion: the Medical Evidence”, Studies in Law and Medicine, No 18, 1984. V. Collins is Professor of Anaesthesiology at the University of Illinois)
In 1999 the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology stated: "Given the anatomical evidence, it is possible that the foetus can feel pain from 20 weeks, and is caused distress by interventions from as early as 15 - 16 weeks."

False claim 6:

"Legalised abortion enhances the dignity, rights and status of women."

In reality:

Legalised abortion contributes to a culture of selfish disregard for the needs and vulnerability of others. Men have no rights regarding their unborn baby and therefore they do not have to take responsibility. Legalised abortion invites society and the medical profession to steer women towards abortion, especially when boyfriends, employers, parents, social workers, etc, are not supportive. The equal dignity and responsibility of women is not served by legalising the "choice" of abortion, but promotes the illusion that the mother is totally and solely responsible.

In the U.K., abortion has not led to any improvement in the status of women, and crimes reported against women such as rape and domestic violence have increased since abortion was legalised.

False claim 8:

"Doctors and nurses can exercise conscientious objection if they do not wish to be involved in abortions."

In reality:

Where abortion is legal there is pressure for the state to provide (or at least fund) abortion. Experience worldwide shows that pro-abortion health service managers will insist on this, even if legislation does not require it. This will mean that doctors, nurses and others will be under pressure to take part.

When the abortion act was being passed there was an amendment suggested which did not pass. The amendment stated that
" no person [shall be]…deprived of, or be disqualified from, any promotion or other advantages by reason of the fact that he has such conscientious objection." (Standing Committee F. 18 January 1967. NC2)

The Christian Medical Fellowship surveyed its members in 1996 and found that 9% of 372 doctors thought they had been discriminated against in obstetrics and gynaecology or anaesthetics because of their views about abortion. (Burton E, Fergusson A. Christian Medical Fellowship Members’ Attitudes to Abortion: a survey of reported views and practice. London: CMF, 1996:12)

In the British mainland it is now almost impossible for an obstetrician/gynecologist to pursue his/her career while refusing to perform abortions, in spite of the "conscience clause" in the 1967 Abortion Act.
" Obstetrics and Gynaecology has become a very difficult area for conscientious objectors. A career trainee in the field was refused an appointment because she would not perform abortions; she got another post, continued her training to the level of MRCOG and went into general practice... It is possible to require that consultant appointees will perform abortions. Such requirements merely have to be specified in the job description and the Department of Health notified". ("Abortion and the Catholic Doctor, Advice and ideas on how to follow the Church's teaching". Drs Adrian and Josephine Treloar, Dr Anne Marie Williams, Dr Peter Au-Yeung, Produced by the Catholics in Practice committee of the Guild of Catholic Doctors, May 1995)

The House of Commons Social Services Committee which considered the working of the "conscience clause" in 1990 found that discrimination does take place, but could not propose a straightforward remedy since, it found, the "problem is implicit in the [Abortion] Act" (Social Services Cttee, Tenth Report; Abortion Act 1967 ‘Conscience Clause’, para 44, 17 Oct 1990).

False claim 9:

"Clarifying the law would not necessarily lead to liberalising the law."

In reality:

In 1966 the report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on the proposed legalisation of abortion stated "Those who advocate major changes in the law governing induction of abortion do not always appreciate that current medical practice in the United Kingdom is not seriously hampered by the present legal position". The Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 and subsequent case law allowed gynaecologists to act in the "best interests of each individual patient", allowing them to perform abortions where they thought that continuing the pregnancy would be harmful to the physical or psychological welfare of the woman. (British Medical Journal 2 April 1966).

Clarification of the law was therefore not required. Instead, in the UK, Europe, North America and other places, ‘clarification’ of restrictive laws has meant introducing legalisation, which has led, sooner or later, to abortion ‘on demand’.

SPUC Scotland Paper 5
The Case Against Abortion
Revised June 2002

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. All Rights Reserved. Tel: 0141 221 2094. E-mail: Web Design & Development by CSS Web Design