Abortion, a review from beliefs, science, ethics and responsibility.

Photograph taken by the author: 7-8 week fetus from the embryology laboratory of the medical school.(Open shot next to a 50 cent coin -22 mm in diameter- and approach with magnifying lens).

- First at all I want to state that as a doctor I will always be defending life and since my point of view we can not legalize a procedure that attempts against it. I'm not talking about criminalizing women but never "legalizing" such procedure. -Primum non nocere- (First do not hurt) is the medicine’s principle and unless the fetus is unviable or already dead, the abortion can not be considered a therapeutic practice, since one of the patients dies. However, it is not a matter of beliefs (of any kind) but facts, for which I have tried to focus on those scientifically demonstrated. -

After the Argentina’s Senate rejection of a law that pretended to legalize abortion until 13 weeks of pregnancy, the protests of the pro-abortion groups came immediately and not only there, but also in other countries including ours. These groups defend their position under the premise of "the right of women to decide on their “own body".[1,2]

Unfortunately, "pro-abortion" groups present no more arguments versus that resolution, than saying that it is a conservative law promoted by "the religious groups". They are not willing to analyze any argument that goes against their unchangeable opinion and demand to abort freely. These groups hope that now, with a congress majority of a "liberal" political party in our country, abortion will be authorized.

In fact, it seems were the "beliefs" that moved the decision against abortion when the proven scientific facts should have been the ones that did it. The funny thing is that for an elementary ethical question, the result would have been the same.

Let me expose you kind reader (clarifying that I am not particularly religious and that my professional life has always been developed in the area of science), the following facts:

1.- To express an opinion on a topic, you must have a broad knowledge of it, but in our country, almost anyone believes that has the authority to do it simply because knows how to speak or write. There is nothing more dangerous than someone who talks a lot and knows too little. Considerate a very simple example, if you have a serious illness that threats your life, how would you prefer the decision of the treatment were taken? a) Through a public consultation with the population, or; b) That a group of physicians specialized in the subject analyze the case and present what seems to them the therapeutic practice with greater probabilities of success. It seems evident that the second option is the most sensible and reasonable, (although everything is pointing to the fact that the public policies of the next government will be defined by the first option in an excess of populism and lack of responsibility)[3]. In the same way, the promoters of abortion based on the " decision women’s right " hardly have taken a basic course in embryology, genetics or bioethics in order to be able to express an informed opinion with at least some basic scientific foundation regarding the being that develops in the woman's uterus.

2 .- It is scientifically proven that the zygote, embryo or fetus (the name changes according to gestational age but we refer the same) is NOT part of the woman’s body, and this is as simple as making an analysis and corroborate that has your own genetic code (DNA). Since conception, when the 23 chromosomes of the father and the 23 of the mother join together, a completely new cell with its 46 chromosomes is created. This genetic code is different from mother’s code (the new being may even have a different type of blood) and therefore it is not a woman’s body part that is going to be removed, but another organism [4,5]

3.- Based on the previous point and defending that it is really fair to say that "only the woman has the right to decide about her own body" we should remember that there is at least a 50% probabilities that this zygote, embryo or fetus is female, a woman *, so no one, including the mother, has the right to decide about the body of this woman to simply destroy it because, in addition, (unless it was the product of a rape) it did not arrive there against the will of the pregnant woman. And by the way, even if it was male, do not we also have the right to decide about our own body?

* -It is worth mentioning that the sex of the new being is determined by man because he has two types of sperm cells: the X and the Y. If the sperm that fertilizes the egg is an X, the result will be a female being, if it is a Y it will be a male. Although these sperm cells are in equal numbers, they have a curious difference: the Y are faster depleting their energy before and having their lifetime shorter than the sperm cells X, slower, and therefore living longer. This fact allows with strong probability of success to choose the sex of the baby to be procreated because if sex relation occurs just on the day of ovulation the sperm Y will quickly reach the ovum, if it occurs days before most of the Y cells will have died, and when the X will predominate, there is a greater possibility to have a female baby. The time window is wider for X sperm which explains the fact that there are more women than men in world, so we can even say that the possibility that the new being will be a woman is even greater than 50%.- [6, 7,8]

Fetus between 10 and 12 weeks agonizing still with movement after being aborted.

4.- Scientifically it is also demonstrated that in the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, a unique genetic sequence is created that defines, as a perfect instructive, the phenotype of the new being. That is, how the person will be, the color of the skin, eyes, probable height, IQ, maybe a privileged ear for music and even the chronic diseases that might have and many other factors. Therefore, by destroying it, we are destroying a unique being that can not be repeated, because it is practically impossible to have an identical genetic sequence to be repeated one day, and even if that were the case, it would be a physically identical being but actually, a completely different person. If you doubt, look at two identical twins, their phenotype is similar but they are two different individuals. For those interested in subatomic science, this fact may be the best proof of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. [9,10,11]

Having said that, I am convinced that a competent lawyer who adequately documents these scientifically proven facts could promote an appeal before the supreme court of justice of the nation on behalf of those citizens who intend to be eliminated. It could give them legal status and not only prevent the legalization of abortion across the country but cancelate the law that allows it in Mexico City. As we see it is not a "religion’s" or "moral” matter, nor is the" church’s" that defends the" conceived ". It is the impartial science which certifies the exposed facts and it should be mentioned that embryology and genetics research have been strongly condemned by the religious groups throughout history, since in the process they have required the loss or destruction of many human zygotes, embryos and fetuses.[12] Paradoxically, the results of those works support the religious position: the new individual is defined at the moment of conception. Saying the opposite is, in fact, a mistaken "belief", refuted by scientific evidence. (Consider that the law that allows abortion in USA was approved in 1973, before this evidence was available.)

It should not surprise anyone religious groups are against abortion, they were even before this scientific evidence existed and certainly they would be even if the evidence were not already available, the reason is simple: the maximum value is life. And it should not be only for adherents to some religion but for any civilized society. It is also no coincidence that most of the "pro-abortion" are people who do not have children and in many cases do not even intend to have them. My attention is drawn to a group of people whose incongruity I can not understand and that is why I must reflect on these lines. I see the same faces in pro-abortion protests that in the anti-bullfighting and in the defense of animals movements. Is a bull, a rooster or any animal more valuable for these people than an individual of their own specie? At least I would expect them to have both at the same level.

These incomprehensible incongruities also exist at the other extreme of radical thinking, we see “conservatives” condemning abortion but promoting the death penalty.

On the other hand we must recognize (and here we must recriminate the position of many religions) that we inhabit a planet with limited space and resources. The disproportionate growth of the population is facing us in danger of falling into a society like the one that presents that science fiction film of the 70s "Soylent green" in which we end up in cannibalism. [13] It is not fiction because it has already happened on this planet in remote islands when the species that inhabit it multiply without control. It is a fact that the world's cropland is limited and also it degradates, that is, its productivity is reduced year by year by a simple consequence of the energy transformation principle called "entropy", is inevitable. It is also a fact that the extension of croplands could not feed the current population of the planet if it were grown organically, we have already passed that limit long time ago. The same situation applies to the production of food of animal origin, the current population could not be provided with the existing pasture spaces without using hormones or providing more space for the animals that feed us, so that they have at least a decent existence.

There are more than 7,000 million human beings in the planet [14], currently inhabit the earth more people than those who have inhabited it. Today we are more people alive than all the dead together in history. Therefore, that statement of "the children that God sends" (whether they like to write it with a capital or lower case) is a mayor irresponsibility with the rest of the human species and even with the other species. Who or what created us, or the fortuitous events that led to our existence allowed us to develop the ability to think, reason and therefore prevent. They endowed us with the intelligence to understand that we must mediate our population with the available resources in order to have a sustainable civilization. Otherwise we will end up destroying ones to others when we face of scarce resources, whether they are food, health, economic, etc.[15]

This necessary change, will have repercussions in the medium term at an economic level. Inactive workers will be more than actives but when births are balanced with deaths there will have stability. It is time to act in favor of life, not only on an individual level, but globally.

Let's talk about ethics, so much mentioned in words and so much evaded in practice. Almost everyone knows what is the right thing to do, we point it out, but we are far from following it.

The "sayings" doubtlessly enclose the popular wisdom of generations based on experience, one of them says "there is no worse blind than the one who does not want to see". It seems to me that actually there is one worst, that one that besides systematically ignores the evidence when it does not coincide with its position, seeks that others can not see it or that tries that they take the same attitude as him. He is not interested in the truth but "his truth".

Comes to my head a case that my professor of physiology commented once about a doctor who was doing a research on cancer therapy (I searched the name unsuccessfully on the network). When the results didn’t match what he expected, he began to alter them in order to obtain prestige, funding and recognition for the "successful therapeutics" he was developing. In the end everything came to light but many patients lost the opportunity to receive effective treatments and their life expectancy was reduced or they died in the process.

Those who seek to legalize abortion, ignore systematically the scientific evidence that supports the being that develops inside the woman’s womb is a human, whose only difference with any of us is time; In the same way religious leaders systematically ignore the fact that we inhabit a finite space and that our population mustn’t grow without control. Many critics have pointed out, with solid arguments, to the Catholic Church as responsible for the uncontrolled growth of the population mainly in developing countries because of the opposition and condemnation of artificial contraceptive methods, even those "non-abortive" [16] (the IUD -intrauterine device- and the next-day pill are abortive since they do not prevent fertilization but the implantation of the embryo in the uterus, although that would be subject of another separate analysis). Life must be defended not only on an individual level, but global, a population that grows without control goes inevitably to extinction, we inhabit an island, our planet is just a little blue dot in the vastness of space. It is time to recognize errors, leave dogmatic positions and accept facts, the elementary ethics demands it.

In conclusion, why not promote education and contraceptive methods to avoid reaching those extremes? Require not only the government access to these but also ask parents to educate their children to prevent unexpected pregnancies. Raising awareness that we can not reproduce irresponsibly in a planet whose resources are limited and irremediably, as a consequence of the degradation principle of energy, will be reduced. Do not expect from government what you should do at home. There is a phrase "Knowledge is imparted in this school but children must come educated from home". That brings us to the next subject: responsibility.

There is an image on web that might seem "funny" that deals with education in the classroom today and 30 years ago. In the side which refers to old time there is a student being reprimanded by their parents and teachers with the legend "What kind of grades are those!". In the present time the teacher is being "reprimanded" by the student and his parents with the same legend. We are teaching to the new generations to become less and less responsible for their actions.

It is a reflection that the society we are creating, one where people do not have to take responsibility for their actions and expect others to assume it. In the case of abortion, it must be assumed by many people who would not have to do so:

• It will be assumed by the surgeon who becomes an executioner by performing the abortion, putting it at a level similar to that of the medical assistant who places the needle on those condemned to death by lethal injection or fires the bullet in executions. (Sadly I am convinced that many doctors forgetting ethical principles will see in the abortion a lucrative opportunity, others institutionalized either by indifference or fear of reprisals will perform the procedures; and the least, with great respect for the profession will refrain from participating on these assuming the consequences of their decision.)

• All we will have to assume it by covering with our taxes the costs of these procedures in the health sector.

• It will be assumed by patients who will be waiting for quirurgical procedures and whose waiting time is lengthened by the inclusion of abortions in hospital programming, and of course;

• By the being that is no longer allowed to develop and be born, to exist.

I have not wanted to delve into the cases of abortion after sexual assault because in most of the states this is already contemplated as an exception. Therefore, there must be a complaint that in theory (if our system were not dominated by impunity) would lead the aggressor to face justice. Legalizing abortion would allow the aggressor to coerce the victim to not denounce the rape and only go to perform an abortion for "voluntarily ". A large number of cases, the aggressor is a relative[17] (grandfather, stepfather, uncle, cousin, etc.) and in many of these cases the victim is convinced (often by the same women in her family) to keep in silence:

- "How Are you going to report your grandpa / uncle / stepfather? Consider he's already old, what's going to happen to him in jail?"-

Then the victim will ask for a legal abortion "voluntarily" and the aggressor will not only be held responsible for their actions, but will have an invitation to recidivism. Does legal abortion really liberate women?

Notice that so far it had not touched the possible psychological consequence of abortion in a woman, which is appealed to by many people who are against abortion. This for a simple reason, although I concede that many women can have consequences such as depression or guilt, I am also convinced that there are others who will feel anything (or they will deny it systematically). If now a days we see persons capable of undoing a human body in acid without hesitation, why should it surprise us that a woman takes a pill or undergo a surgical procedure to eliminate a being she has never seen? Precisely many of them are there promoting, rather demanding, their legalization...

In summary, legalization of abortion is an invitation for people to avoid responsibility for their actions. Here is an even more extreme example, coming from a "first world" country (which we want to look like so much?).

It turns out that in Sweden, the liberal party presented a proposal a couple of years ago so that men also have the "right to abort." No joking, in a few words the man would have until the 18th week of gestation (which is up to which abortion is allowed in that country) to "decide" if he will assume responsibility for his paternity or not. Thus, if "decided" not to be responsible, the woman would have the option of aborting or raising her baby alone because the "male abortion" would bring with it, in addition to the "exoneration" of the obligations, the loss of all rights included meet or treat the child. [18]

We must remember that we are in the “information age” where information is often more valuable than the devices in which it is stored. If you doubt, investigate and you will see that there are many people who have been criminally prosecuted, sentenced to pay large amounts or spend years in prison for altering, copying or destroying computer codes that in themselves are not properly tangible objects. At the end of the day, they are only "zeros" and "ones" that form programs that can be run on a variety of physical devices whose value is insignificant compared to the program itself.

Why do I mention this? Well, if the proposal of "male abortion" presented in Sweden seeks "equality" by giving the option of "not being a father" the most logical consequence would be that it also give the option of deciding "whether to be a father". That is, just as a man can not decide alone that a child should be aborted against the will of the woman, the woman should not be able to abort without the father's consent. True "equality" (I put it inside quotation marks because the most interested, which is the one that will be aborted, has no vote).

Surely the "feminists" will say that it is the body of the woman and she decides on it but that, as I mentioned at the beginning, is incorrect. Like it or not (although systematically ignore this proven fact) the embryo or fetus is not part of your body since it has a different genetic code and the "owner" of 50% of this "program" (because in the end that is the genetic code, a detailed instructive of a human being) is precisely the father and he could interpose a legal remedy in those terms to avoid the "destruction" of the child he fathered.

Let's say that in such a case the father would have to assume the expenses and care of the motherhood and once the baby was born, it would be delivered to him assuming the mother a similar role of the "male abortion" of the Swedes: the loss of obligations and rights.

We are probably going to reach a point where medical science would allow the embryo to be extracted from the mother´s body to finish his embryonic development either in a surrogate uterus or in some kind of device sophisticated that emulates the maternal womb.

Does it sound absurd? Not in the information age, and precisely in the famous scheme of "surrogate uterus" (that I just mentioned and that already works in certain places) the surrogate mother can not perform actions such as an abortion or keeping the baby without facing legal consequences given that the "product" is considered "property" of the biological parents (who contributed with 100% of the genetic load) .[19]

Almost to finish, I want to tell you that I have no doubt that "feminism” is as harmful and infamous as "machismo". Far from protecting women from the excesses of “macho” attitudes, it seems to seek that these attitudes can be emulated and equally tolerated on the female side. Instead of seeking to stop alcoholism, smoking, self-centeredness or promiscuity of the male gender seems to want to match the score and the evidence is that recent studies indicate that in the first two items women are already exceeding man.[20] It is not a surprise that the word "feminazi" has emerged, the last century millions of human beings were exterminated because according to Nazism "were not really people." Today we are looking to dehumanize the "unborn" to justify its destruction.

It is not "feminism" or "machismo" what our society needs, what it needs is "Humanism".

We need to raise "humanistic" people who know that the value of each person is independent of their gender, their sexual preference, their religion or beliefs, their aesthetics, their economical, intellectual or physical capacity and of his stage of development, be it zygote, embryo, fetus, child, young, adult or ancient. Independent even of its shortcomings. It is "humanism" not "feminism" that will liberate and dignify the existence of battered and belittled women, of the girl who is still treated like merchandise in so many places in our country, of the child used to ask for coins in the street, of the man exploited in a dangerous and strenuous job for a salary of misery, of the old man left to his fate and even of the animal whose suffering represents fun for many or that one abandoned in the streets.

Humanism, Knowledge and Ethical Principles will lead us to a more equitable, sustainable and fair society without grudges.

Finally we must remember that the science as a mirror of reality is not democratic, we could vote to reject in a majority way the law of gravity and the objects will continue to fall to the ground yet. In the same way we can approve a law that legalizes abortion and it will continue being a murder from the moment it "suppresses" a human being in formation at an early stage of development. After all, the only aspect that separates or differentiates us is "time" and are not we all beings at a certain stage of development? It will be a shame if science ends up serving what is "politically correct" of the particular historical moment and corrupts itself in its search for truth.

Today we have the opportunity to be an international example by shielding the right to live not from beliefs or dogmatic positions but from the solidity of scientific evidence and adherence to ethics, in the end, I remind you that most of we were born in a country where our right to existence was not questioned by any law. By minimal decency, do we not owe the same to those who will come?

Note: I mentioned at the beginning that unfortunately abound the "smarties" without real knowledge of the issues they talk about, to this we add that in our country when an issue bothers the first one to be attacked is the author, not their arguments, so I can imagine what will come for me and without a doubt the first thing will be to disqualify who writes these lines. In order to save time, I attach my curricular information:

• Mechanical Engineer – Orizaba’s Institute of Technology

• Master of Sciences in Energy Engineering - ITESM Campus Monterrey

• Diploma in Ethics - ITESM Campus Monterrey

• Medical Surgeon - UV / UCO

Basic recommended readings for those who, before taking a position and express an opinion, have the responsibility and decency to know at least a little the subject first:

• Embriología médica. Con orientación clínica. T. W. Sadler

• Genética en Medicina. Ed. Thompson & Thompson

• Tratado De Fisiología Médica GUYTON Y HALL.

• Bioética Y Aborto: Hacia Una Cultura De La Vida Autor: MARIA DE LA LUZ CASAS MARTINEZ Editorial: TRILLAS

• El Mundo Finito: Desarrollo Sustentable En El Siglo De Oro De La Humanidad Autor: CARLOS AMADOR Editorial: FONDO DE CULTURA ECONOMICA

• El Mundo Y Sus Demonios. La Ciencia Como Una Luz En La Oscuridad Autor: CARL SAGAN Editorial: CRITICA

References:

1. s/a. (2018). Senado en Argentina rechaza ley para legalizar ydespenalizar el aborto. 29/10/2018, de El Universal Sitio web: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/senado-en-argentina-rechaza-ley-para-legalizar-y-despenalizar-el-aborto

2. Roldán, Mariluz. (2018). Que sea ley, apoyan activistas desde México. 29/10/2018, de El Universal Sitio web: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/que-sea-ley-apoyan-activistas-desde-mexico

3. s/a. (2018). AMLO recurre a las consultas ciudadanas como una herramienta para su gobierno. 29/10/2018, de Adn Político Sitio web: https://adnpolitico.com/presidencia/2018/07/16/amlo-recurre-a-las-consultas-ciudadanas-como-una-herramienta-para-su-gobierno

4. T.W. Sadler. (8va Edición). Embriología médica con orientación clínica. España: Editorial Médica Panamericana. pp. 3, 7

5. Nussbaum, Mclnnes, WIllard. (7ma edicion). Genética en medicina. España: Elsevier Masson pp.6,7

6. T.W. Sadler. (8va Edición). Embriología médica con orientación clínica. España: Editorial Médica Panamericana. pp.3

7. Nussbaum, Mclnnes, WIllard. (7ma edicion). Genética en medicina. España: Elsevier Masson. pp. 19-22, 25-26

8. s/a. (s/a). Técnicas de diferenciación de espermatozoides. 29/10/2018, de Fertilab Sitio web: http://www.fertilab.net/ver_impresion.aspx?id_articulo=549

9. Nussbaum, Mclnnes, WIllard. (7ma edicion). Genética en medicina. España: Elsevier Masson pp. 25-26

10. T.W. Sadler. (8va Edición). Embriología médica con orientación clínica. España: Editorial Médica Panamericana. pp. 35, 39, 147-148

11. s/a. (1997). El principio de incertidumbre de Heisenberg. 29/10/2018, de UNAM Sitio web: https://www.nucleares.unam.mx/~vieyra/node20.html

12. Miró i Ardèvol, Josep . (S/A). La iglesia y los embriones. 29/10/2018, de FLUVIUM Sitio web: http://www.fluvium.org/textos/vidahumana/vid269.htm

13. s/a. (s/a). Cuando el destino nos alcance. 29/10/2018, de Filmaffinity Sitio web: https://www.filmaffinity.com/mx/film699914.html

14. s/a. (s/a). Población. 29/10/2018, de ONU Sitio web: http://www.un.org/es/sections/issues-depth/population/index.html

15. s/a. (s/a). Food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture. 29/10/2018, de ONU Sitio web: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/foodagriculture

16. Pullella, Philip . (2015). Papa dice prohibición de métodos anticonceptivos no significa reproducirse "como conejos". 29/10/2018, de REUTERS Sitio web: https://lta.reuters.com/article/topNews/idLTAKBN0KS1ZV20150119

17. Tapia Hernández, Rocío. (2014). De familiares, 60% del abuso sexual a niños. 29/10/2018, de El Universal Sitio web: http://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/de-familiares-60-del-abuso-sexual-a-ninios-1028027.html

18. Castro-Mendivil, Enrique. (2016). "Los hombres también tienen derecho": Suecia busca legalizar el 'aborto' para hombres . 29/10/2018, de Actualidad RT Sitio web: https://actualidad.rt.com/sociedad/201316-hombres-derecho-exigir-aborto-legal-suecia

19. Bautista, Élfego. (2018). Así es el derecho | Maternidad subrogada en México y derechos humanos. 29/10/2018, de El sol de México Sitio web: https://www.elsoldemexico.com.mx/analisis/asi-es-el-derecho-maternidad-subrogada-en-mexico-y-derechos-humanos-557967.html

20. Borasteros, Daniel. (2018). Las niñas ya beben y fuman más que sus compañeros. 29/10/2018, de El confidencial Sitio web: https://www.elconfidencial.com/alma-corazon-vida/2018-03-08/drogas-adolescentes-tabaco-alcohol-hachis_1532735/