The French pro-life news gathering site Généthique reports that the November issue of the French journal Obstétrique has an article dedicated to abortion. Below is a loose translation of the Généthique webpage, which is in itself a summary of the article.
The authors regret that there is a conscience clause in the French abortion law, as this law was democratically voted to deal with a "public health problem". In effect, they are saying that doctors should not be able to avoid dealing with first-trimester abortions. (In French, there are different terms for different kinds of abortions).
Regarding "medical abortion", i.e. abortions for "medical issues" past the 12th week, the authors call them a form of "triage for unborn children" and "one of the eugenic practices that follows from a policy that does not deem it as such, and pretends to be a response to the demand of couples." In 2005, there were 6441 "medical" abortions in France, up 7.5% from 2004. (France has a whole agency dedicated to bioethical information/operations like this and keeps excellent statistics on abortion. If only we could have that in Canada!)
The authors are especially concerned about cases of Trisomy 21 aka Down Syndrome. In about 90% of the cases, the babies are aborted. They write that medical abortion for Trisomy 21 has become a eugenic practice agreed to by a large part of the population in the absence of a democratic debate on the topic.
Cleft lips and cleft palates are a major reason for "medical abortions" in France. They each respectively represent 8.3% and 7.8% of those abortions [in various regions of France, including Paris]. The authors write "we are far from a from an problem of a particuliar gravity recognized as incurable at the time of diagnosis" which is what French law requires to have recourse to a medical abortion. They continue that this practice alludes to the arguments of Charles Richet, the "principal theoretician and promoter of eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century: why allow these children unworthy and incapable of living if we can avoid the crime of giving them birth? Science will one day be impartial and at peace; Science is like Nature, oblivious to all false pity."
The authors then speak out against terminology which they say is not the product of chance: "Quality of gametes", "quality of life", "quality child" (in French l'enfant de qualité). These terms leads consciences to adopt a "consumerist ideology that is applied to human beings". They conclude that if the the ability to choose this eugenic practice is an individual decision, it is public institutions that have made possible this mechanism.
In their opinion, [and get ready to choke] the decision taken by public authorities-- the reduction of assistance to handicapped people, the obligation of doctors to reveal the existence of a test for trisomy 21, etc-- are the fruit of...neo-liberalism, aka (in American-speak) neo-conservatism! Yes, neo-conservatism is to blame for the high rate of medical abortions [oh brother!] In plain English, the authors consider neo-liberalism to be defined as "everyone for himself" and that all human relations must be managed with a kind of "strategic rationality"-- where risks are evaluated and actions are taken to eliminate them. The most important feature of this ideology is to individualize and "psychologize" everything, especially those things that fall within the domain of values.
And because of this, the issue of the value of human life is not treated in its collective, even universal sense, but is left to each individual to appraise, according to his personal interests but only in the "psychoaffective dimension" (i.e. what he "feels"). "This confusion between the individual/collective plane and the interest/values plane can only create a perversion of meaning," which "in turn creates a misidentified suffering for both the couple and the caregivers." In other words, the people who are involved in the abortion project their suffering onto the baby because of their perverted values.[Somebody has been drinking the socialist Kool-Aid!]
For the doctor, the act of feticide creates a veritable act of suffering. "How can it be otherwise when we cause the death of a human being?" More and more, women are also speaking out about the suffering they endured because of abortions, both first-trimester ones and "medical" ones.
The authors denounce the trivialization of abortion, and the fact that these questions have slipped out of the hands of the medical field, and are the concerns of a category of abortion professionals.
...
It's interesting how they are so adamant in treating first trimester abortions as a response to an "authentic public health concern", but just rake second- and third- trimester abortion over the coals.
There's a bit of a disjuncture-- to say that only second- and third- trimester abortions are the product of a "consumerist" ideology, not first trimester abortions.
Still, a very eye-opening and useful article.
