v , r a y . THE UPEI sum, Thursday. January" 31:. 1986;7pagex in

5‘

“ «Ale—9‘):

A Washington, D.C.

THE ABORTION DILEMMA

The Abortion Dilemma; by Jose M. J. Sanlei

Washington, .D.C., Jan.

22, 1973; The Supreme Court of the United States of America effectively legal- ized abortion in the U.S., following a decision in the case of Sarah Weddintcn and Marjorie Hames; the high court ruled that the right to a safe legal abortion cannot be denied any wanan who so chooses to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester. In the same year Catholics For a Free Choice, a pro—abortion rights group, was founded and the former National Association for Re- peal of Abortion Laws 7 (founded in 1969) became, in responce to the courts ruling, the National Abortion Rights Action League, in order that, as a citizens lobby, it may work to insure compliance with the

Jan. 22 decision.

1980 - As the seventh anniversary of the historic ' decision passed by last month, firm the Atlantic to the Pacific, in large urban centers and smell mral communities, it was a date which was anything but urmoticed. Rallies both for and against the 1973 ruling x; the largest occuring Just this past Jan. 22nd with an anti—abortion message and an estimated twenty thousand plus attendance) are alzhcjst montl'1ly occurances m of _the '50 States of the Union. The

' I <:ontre")z,rersy rages on the

floors of every ié-‘tate Lem leature and throughout the :omplex American judiCiai system. From church pulpits, political platforms, news-

. paper and media editorials.

medical journals, Vatican _7 and Salt Lake City pro-v nouncements, Citizens lobbies

\ (pro. and con e.g. Birthright, - Feminists For Life, NOW, ADA

etc? and a miriad of other

forums have come a torrent of rhetoric that has swamped the American con— ‘ . scienceness; each group proclaiming the best of

‘ humanist, biblical or

scientific foundations upon which their position stands. - - Yet the New York Times, in a Jan. let article on anti—abortion political activism, reported that according to a national poll, taken by Dresner and Tortorello Research of New York just this past month, more than 88% of the American people "supported abortion in all or some Circumstances" and that only 17% of the electorate felt that it was "very " that a candidate favor abortion rights, and less than half that number iapprox. 8%) believed it very important that a candidate be actively anti- abortion or "pro—life". The article-‘5 author, Leslie Bennetts, did not need to draw any con- clusions for her readers

< concerning these figures,

as the. conclusions are obvious. The majority of the American people demonstrate a notable lack of concern over the abortion dilemma . To ' the political left, right and center, activist minor— ities on the "good ‘ figh " as they see it with the rest of the populace uninvolved. The Boston Globe, a longtime ally of t—E—"pro—choice“ forces, celebrated the Jan. 22nd anniversary with an editorial calling for the right of poor women to gain medical funding for non—medically necessary , non-rape/ incest , abortions. Globe contended that those opposed to Medicaid funding of abortions "have insured that poor

waren bear the brunt of the belief that abortion is always morally wrong".

. (he of the most thorough studies of the multi- faceted aborticn dilemma is the work Of Dr. Harold Rosen, MD. Ph.D, whose book entitled Abortion in

America (Boston : Becon

Press, 1967) seeks to under- stand the true'nature and implications cf abortion upon individuals as well

as the society as a whole. Originally published in

1954 as Therapeutic Abortion

the updated 1967 edition examines abortion from medical, psychiatric, “legal (this area is arbit dated in lieu of the 73 rulings) anthropological and religious considerations. In summary in the con- cluding chapter of the study Dr. Rosen argues

that "mature women as mature human beings,

with all the respect and dignity to be accorded mature human beings;

should have the right to decide whether nor not

they wish to carry a . specific pregnancy to 7 term. The responsibility, 7 for the decision, right ' or wrong, is already ’ theirs. . . "

Charlottetown. P.E.|.

117 Kent

' Phone 894-3922

0N~ THE UNIVERSITY RIGHT

It must be noted that the above statement in dealing exclusively those ‘-

' waten Dr. calls.

"mature' ignores those who because of age, emotional instability or the “stifling nature Vof ourv‘sexist society (which denies many women the right to grow—up) cannot be called "mature"

A and yet choose abortion.

However, no law in history, no just law at any rate, was ever written so that adults may be prevented fran making rational decisions simply because they could not be expected for one flimsy reason 0; another to make the right choice. ‘

No special *interest group should be allowed to dictate the moral doctrines of ‘ their particular faith to the whole of American ‘ society — and'certainly not to wanen who we all must recognize as the intellectual and (thereby rational equal of males. Law makers in Canada will soOn face the same contro— versies as were here‘des- cribed'as occuring inthe [3.8.

r Canadians must begin now to

guarantee that the right to a choice becomes a reality throughout the - Canadian nation. ‘