The debate on abortion
by
Aisake Casimira
Some years back, there was a movie titled “If These Walls Could Talk”. Cher and Sissy Spacek
were among the cast. The movie depicted three developments on the debate regarding abortion
and provided a good backdrop to discussing the issue. The first, was centred on the reality of
abortion – high-risk abortions were happening in the backyard. The second, focussed on family
discussions about abortion, but more generally on sex education of young people. The third stage
was the legalisation of abortion and the anti-abortionist protests. In the third stage, Cher was a
doctor who ran her own abortion clinic but was having internal conflicts over the abortion stance
she took.
The recent tragic death of a young lady, as a result of an abortion gone wrong is indeed very sad.
Yet, as the women’s organisations pointed out, this was one of many that was done privately and
secretly with many risks involved. Hence, it is quite understandable that they and a relative of the
deceased young woman called for the legalisation of the practice.
Women who have undergone abortion, have tragic stories to tell; stories of perhaps lost
opportunities, a chance to care and share love and warmth with another human being and the joy
of seeing a child grow to be the person she or he is meant to be. Moreover, there are also stories
of cold rejection by families, communities and society, and stories of perpetual living in shame
under the unforgiving eye of family and society. In short, these are stories of shattered hopes and
dreams of what could have been or could be for the mother, the unborn child and society.
But such decisions are never easy for a woman to make, in light of the social consequences and
the options available for the mother and the unborn child. It is always a dramatic and profound
experience that leaves a deep wound on a woman, which continues to bleed for the rest of her life.
Those who receive support from their families and/or partners have the opportunity to re-build
confidence in life and in their own abilities to face the world again. Women who find themselves
in situations of poverty would ask whether it is worth living in a social environment that is often
cold and un-loving. “Is it right to subject my child to poverty and a cruel existence which she or
he does not deserve? Where is the dignity in that? Would it be better for me to spare the unborn
child such cruelty? Could I love and care for this child or will I hate it since my pregnancy is
unplanned or a result of rape, molestation?” Hence, an abortion is not always a matter of
expediency in order to promote a professional career, although there may be some cases where
such is the motive. For many women, it is always a heart wrenching decision that they have to
make.
The point that was consistently argued by the women’s organisations is that women have the right
to free choice as much as men do – the right to vote, to participate in politics, to equal
opportunities to education and employment, to marry and have family, and to have sex or not.
This claim can no longer be contested, except perhaps from some extreme religious elements that
would prefer to limit women’s potential to housekeeping, rearing children and being subservient
to men. This is a result of much hard work by women’s organisations the world over which saw
the birth of the UN Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women or
1
CEDAW. The document legally recognises women as equal partners in development and in
building a more compassionate and just world. Such recognition gives women the social space to
help shape a society that is safe and free of violence, and a society that recognises their potential
and in making a unique contribution to its development. It also affords them the political and
legal space to advocate against all forms of discrimination and violence. Yet the struggle still
goes on in many countries for full recognition.
The other argument, which is an extension of the right to free choice, concerns the claim that
women have the right over their bodies. A parallel example of this extension is the “right” to take
one’s life as in the case of euthanasia. However, in this case, the claim that women have the right
to their own bodies is made in the context that women are always the victims of sexual and/or
physical abuse in a relationship or in the case of rape. The claim further gives them the
opportunity to celebrate their femininity and their humanity, and help to dispel the myths about
themselves, myths that are conditioned by a dominant male society. This claim is also extended to
pregnancy where they claim the right over the body of the unborn child because it is the woman
who carries the child in her body and on whom the survival of the child is dependent.
Moreover, as pointed out by the women’s organisations, there is also the economic factor. They
argued that for many poor women, poverty is a major contributing factor to them choosing to
have high health risk abortions. It is assumed that by legalising it and making it available to all
women at an affordable price, many would not have to resort to unsafe and high-risk abortions. It
would seem that the objective is to provide a practice that is safe and poses less health risks for
the woman. The women’s stance on the legalisation of abortion acknowledges that unsafe
abortions are happening in our midst and will continue to happen and in this respect, women need
to be provided with a safe and risk service irrespective of whether one condones the practice or
not. This is a reality that all concerned with abortion need to acknowledge.
On the other hand, there are many who believe that abortion is wrong, because it takes away a
human life, which according to their cultural and religious teachings, is immoral. They would
argue that irrespective of how one describes an unborn child, it is still a human being and as such
has the right to protection and a safe environment to develop and grow. They would further argue
that since the unborn child bears the image of God, no person or state has the right to determine
whether the unborn child lives or dies.
One would also argue that a distinction between the right to free choice and whether or not that
right affords one to put one’s life and that of another human person in grave danger, needs to be
made. But often times the two issues are considered as closely linked in the abortion debate that
the right to free choice also means the “right” to abortion, although this may not be so. But the
fact that there is no clear distinction leaves society and/or groups to interpret and apply to suit
whatever the agenda may be. Moreover, while one would concede to the view that women may
have the “right” over their bodies, it is a “fictitious right” meaning that it is a “right” that can not
be legally enforced or extended to claim the right over the body of an unborn child. At best when
applied to justify abortion the relationship the woman has with her unborn child becomes an
abusive and violent one; one that is similar to a man who abuses the relationship he has with his
children and/or wife. The point of inconsistency lies in the fact that if women condemn (and
rightly so) the abusive treatment of women (which at times result in tragic deaths), what about the
2
abusive treatment of an unborn child in the case of abortion? One needs to recognise the
anomalies even when one concedes to or supports the argument that women have the “right” over
their bodies. Therefore, one would argue that during times of pregnancy, a woman’s right over
her body may be seen as subsidiary because there are now two bodies and two lives to consider or
more in the case of twins or triplets of which the woman has no right of claim over.
The argument that abortion should be legalised because it would provide a safe and less-risk
service to women, is less convincing. One of the unfortunate realities is that society often values
and grades human life according to its economic worth and productivity. In most societies, it is
normally those at the top of the economic ladder who are often looked upon as models of success
and achievement. In this case, if a rich woman could afford a safe and risk free abortion, it is
almost expected that women at the lower end of the economic ladder should be able to aspire to
such services. However, in reality many poor women cannot afford the service even if it is
legalised which raises the question on who really benefits from the service. Moreover, such an
argument plays into the hands of those who uphold the view that human beings are seen purely as
objects of economics – the purpose of the human person is to maximise profits. A good example
of this is the cloning of the human person and the potential million-dollar industry it could create.
Society is built on the hopes and dreams of people, people who aspire to be the persons they
ought to be and in return leave a legacy on which future generations could build their hopes and
dreams. Pragmatism is good only insofar as there are hopes and dreams to guide and give it
meaning. In the case of abortion, a woman’s shatter dream and the unfulfilled hopes of an unborn
child leave society poorer and the wound deeper.
Society has an inherent dignity because it consists of human beings who, according to Christian
teaching, bear the imprint of God. A society’s dignity refers to the care a society has for all its
citizens and in seeing that its resources are shared and used for the betterment of all. It is a value
in itself and the work for the promotion of that dignity should result in greater compassion, unity,
justice and inclusivity. Perhaps then, the question for society, Churches, women and all those
concerned with abortion is whether the dignity of women and society is promoted or demeaned.
Whether abortion is right or wrong, it leaves a gaping wound in society in as much as it leaves a
lasting wound in the life of the woman. The wound for society is how could it allow and/or
condone conditions where many women are left with very little options but to take away a life. It
is a wound of not being compassionate and understanding when needed to be and not being there
for those who needed its comfort and assurance that such tragic choices need not made. In this
respect, society has much to be forgiven, as to forgive because this is a gift. This may be a
common ground for mutual sharing among all those who are concerned with abortion. Perhaps, in
coming together to share the experience of being deeply wounded, society, the Churches and
women may become deeply aware of their own human inadequacies. And perhaps become more
“wounded healers” rather than “wounded aggressors” that would strike back with threats of fire
and brimstone or forever live in shame and condemnation of one another.
*Aisake Casimira is the Director of the Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education and Advocacy
(ECREA)
3
Article first appeared in The Fiji Times, 4 April 2003
4