Sep 30, 2022
JERUSALEM WEATHER
Share this article

A psychologist now recommends that women communicate with their babies in their wombs, requesting their consent to be aborted. Referred to as ‘conscious abortion’ its advocates say it is “respectful” to the baby and to the “divine love connection” that exists between the mother and her never-to-be-born child.

An article titled “Conscious Abortion: Engaging the Fetus in a Compassionate Dialogue” written by perinatal psychologist Claudette Nantel was published in the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health. This is actually a school of thought within the world of perinatal psychology and is referred to as “conscious abortion”, which she defines as “a process of deep personal connection and biological request [through which] a mother can end her pregnancy”. Proponents of this approach claim that engaging in a “compassionate mother-fetus dialogue” is “respectful of the fetus” has “positive consequences for the woman experiencing a conflicted pregnancy.”

The basis of the article would appear to conflict with several of the basic premises of the pro-abortion argument. Nantel describes the baby as a “conscious and feeling being developing inside [the mother]” and can be “actively relational”, which she states has been “an established fact for many years” among practitioners and researchers. Whereas the pro-abortion movement claims strongly that a fetus is not a conscious being and can therefore be terminated. 

Nantel also refers to the woman as the “mother”, albeit “conflicted”, though she adds a disclaimer:

“The author acknowledges that while this article’s scope of language is narrowed to the terms of “woman,” “mother,” and “motherhood,” a gestational parent may identify in many different ways and use various terms to describe themselves.”

In the article, Nantel suggests that engaging in dialogue before carrying out an abortion “is respectful of the fetus” and “also seems to have positive consequences for the woman experiencing a conflicted pregnancy”.

This conflict is encapsulated in Nantel’s delineation of the terms relating to the unborn baby. She defines ‘fetus’ as an “unborn baby in its mother’s womb, at any time from conception to birth”. Nantel differentiates this from a ‘prenate’ which she defines as “a fetus destined to be born and therefore seems to exclude a fetus destined to be aborted”.

It is interesting to note that her approach seems to come from the clinical evidence that many women who underwent abortions did experience negative mental aftereffects. She cited studies reported women who suffered from “a variety of symptoms including depressive states, anxiety, guilt, sudden crying spells, the emergence of suicidal thoughts, significant weight gain, behavioral alterations in personal relations, especially with a sexual partner, vaginismus, and pain during sexual intercourse”. Nantel labels these as “positive, though often difficult, growth-enhancing experiences”. The study stated that stated the “female patients had never associated these symptoms with their experience of abortion. These conditions generally healed once the women made the link to their abortions and expressed their true, repressed feelings.”

“Much more research needs to be done on these problematic outcomes in women,” Nantel wrote. “What we can safely assume is that no woman who requests an abortion is indifferent to her situation.” 

She describes the process of ‘conscious abortion’ in detail:

“…there are many parts, or voices, inside us and it is necessary to listen, connect to, and accept all of them. Internal peace exists when we fully accept all our parts. If the woman has fully connected with the part of her that wanted to conceive a baby, and she still does not want to pursue the pregnancy, she can also fully accept this other part of herself. She is then ready to communicate to the consciousness of the little being inside her….With deep love and concern, ask them to leave. Let yourself feel the divine love and connection with them, then tell them that it is not time for them to come in, or that you would like them to come back at a later time. You must tell them the deepest truth from your heart. This is a new and profound experience for most people.”

The process involved communicating with the fetus, even telepathically,  explaining “to the baby that it isn’t the right time for him or her to come and that it is necessary to separate.” The mother visualized the abortion and waited for a response. 

Not surprisingly, when the mother spoke to her unwanted and unborn baby, Nantel reported the mother usually heard a response from the baby agreeing to be aborted. 

Nantel notes an inherent difficulty in this active dialogue; the baby may object to having his life terminated. In one case, Nantel describes the mother responding to the baby’s objection with a rhetorical, “You don’t mean that?”

“[The client] continued the process of weeping and talking to the fetus at home until there was only silence in response. She concluded the fetus accepted her intended surgical intervention. She began the abortion visualization, but no miscarriage occurred. The surgical intervention was accomplished without complication, healing was rapid, and the client felt little or no remorse. She knew at all levels she had made the appropriate decision for herself.”

One woman utilized ‘conscious abortion’ for each of her three abortions. In each case, she did not hear the baby’s request to be born.

Ruth Tidhar is the Director of the Assistance Department of the EFRAT Organization. EFRAT works on the premise that legislation will not prevent abortions. Instead, EFRAT encourages women not to have abortions, offering them financial support and counseling as an alternative. EFRAT officially views abortion among Jews as a demographic threat to the Jewish people. Since its establishment in 1977, EFRAT has helped tens of thousands of women to choose life, saving over 75,000 children.

‘Tidhar acknowledged that, as the psychologist wrote, the bond between the mother and the baby is powerful and communicative.

“They are literally one,” Tidhar stated, noting that this was evidenced by thousands of interviews she has carried out with the women the organization helps.

“But this technique advocated by the psychologist is clearly for the sake of the mother,” Tidhar said. “It isn’t for the sake of the baby since its stated objective is to end its life.”

Tidhar emphasized that abortions do wreak emotional and spiritual damage to women. As part of the intake interview process, she asks the mother if she has had an abortion in the past.

“If I get an affirmative response, I ask how it was for them,” Tidhar said. “I get answers that are painful to listen to. One woman I spoke to recently didn’t sleep for months after the abortion. Many report depression. One of the more powerful reasons for them to come to us is that the abortion was so traumatic.”

“I have heard so many descriptions of the body remembering that it held a baby,” Tidhar said. “Our body is not a whiteboard that you can wipe clean as if nothing was ever written there.”

Though the subject is complicated, simply put, Halacha (Torah law) permits abortion in cases in which the mother’s well-being is endangered. Abortion violates the Noahide law which prohibits murder.