Is abortion killing?

My goal, as I began this blog, was to present medical facts, news, and controversies as they relate to abortion from the perspective of the physician who performs them. I wanted to stay away, as much as possible, from the theology, morality, philosophy, and ethics that surround such a controversial subject and simply tell it straight -- as I see it -- from the doctor's mouth. I still intend to steer clear from the muckraking, name-calling, and foul language sometimes used by those on either side of the controversy. Not that I haven't personally been on the receiving end of such language; I've been called every f-word in existence, sundry varieties of other questionable speech, and, of course, baby-killer and murderer.

Not to split hairs, but I know I'm not a murderer since murder is a legal term invoked by judges and juries, not to be found in any textbook of medicine, and this blog is devoted to medical fact. But, is it killing? Many pro-choice advocates consider an embryo or early fetus to be a lifeless blob of cells. I may have thought that before the advent and widespread use of ultrasound, but these days, beginning at around six weeks, we can see the fetal heartbeat, and later, moving fetal structures. When I wrote my New York Times fictional bestseller, THE UNBORN, I included a quote that "the brain of the human fetus exhibits recordable electrical activity as early as the eighth week." During a book tour in England, this provoked many questions from listeners and viewers about fetuses and life. A century ago, a Supreme Court Justice, when asked about pornography, said, "I know it when I see it." The same thing applies to human life: once a child of any gestational age is born and breathes and has a beating heart, I know it's alive.

But what about the pre-born? A fetus at ten weeks has a definite heartbeat and all its parts, though it's not yet breathing and can't survive independently, outside the uterus. Yet, is it alive? Certainly, it has the potential for life -- but is that dodging the question? And I must admit, as rapidly pass through middle age, that it probably is living human tissue, although not exactly a living human being. That's how I see it. The question then becomes, is destroying living human tissue killing? I've already opined that it's not murder, but is it killing? And after many years of wrestling with this question, I concede that it probably is.

Yet to me, that opinion, in and of itself, does not automatically make it wrong. And those of you who may read this, please, spare me your high-handed concept of the Hippocratic Oath. You see, we, as individuals in a society, have said that certain types of killing are, under come circumstances, permissible: punishment by execution; killing in defense of one's country, or to uphold societal laws; variations on doctor-assisted suicide, etc. In other words, types of killing are allowed in societies where the majority of that society's citizens say it's allowed. To me, the same is true of abortion: yes, it may be a type of killing, but it has been sanctioned time and time again by the will of the majority of our society's citizens.

I love my country and respect its laws. So if the day ever comes that out society completely outlaws abortion, I'll be the first to stop performing the procedure.