Abortion and “medically necessary”

01 May 2014 Abortion and “medically necessary”

Much of the current discussion surrounding the imminent closure of the Morgentaler Clinic in Fredericton, New Brunswick is focussed on the two words “medically necessary”.

Faye Sonier, in a recent blog post on our website asks,

If abortion is truly a personal choice, how on earth can it also be medically necessary?

It’s a good question for abortion rights activists to grapple with. Well today I came across this piece where a university professor attempts to define “medically necessary” by saying,

We should recognize and respect that when a woman wants an abortion, it is a medically necessary procedure.

Seriously? This is the kind of dribble we get from academia?

What’s next? Maybe if a two-year old is causing a woman undue psychological trauma she should be allowed to have him or her dispensed as well – because it’s medically necessary.

The trouble with this argument from abortion proponents is that it completely ignores science and logic. Using this understanding of what you can or can’t do would justify almost any behaviour. In fact, history shows that many things were justified by calling them necessary. Consider William Wilberforce. His campaign to abolish slavery was constantly opposed by those who argued that slaves were necessary for the economic wellbeing of Britain.

No matter what side of the abortion conversation you are on, it is fundamental that you remain intellectually honest. In an abortion procedure there are two human beings involved. There is no way a truthful understanding of human rights would allow for the termination of the more vulnerable of the two simply because the stronger one deemed it “medically necessary.”