Charles Villa-Vicencio, a theologian, takes issue with=20 the pro-life lobby and pleads for a more realistic and=20 humane abortion law
Right-wing Christians who once spent their energy=20 condemning religious groups for their stand against=20 apartheid, are now regrouping around the abortion=20
Some well-meaning Christians will no doubt feel=20 compelled to join their campaign. Most Christians=20 probably do not, however, see abortion as a clear-cut=20 issue. Religious sensitivities leave many Christians=20 opposed to the enshrinement of the unqualified right to=20 abortion in the Constitution as an inalienable right.=20 They also do not want to forbid it under any=20
Bluntly stated, we can do without the kind of=20 ideological warfare that abortion has engendered in the=20 United States and elsewhere. Slogans that scream=20 ”Abortion is Murder”, ”Baby Killers”, and ”Women=20 Haters” militate against one side hearing what the=20 other is saying. They confirm the zealots on both sides=20 in their entrenched positions. They make little=20 contribution to solving a complex problem.
There is, ironically, common ground between the so- called pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion=20 debate. Both show concern for human life.
Progressive Christians in South Africa have long=20 affirmed the need to side with the weak — protecting=20 life where it is vulnerable. Those opposed to abortion=20 argue that life in the womb is the most vulnerable of=20 all. Pope John Paul II gives credence to this position=20 by stating that contraception, embryonic research,=20 abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia are all=20 part of a single ”culture of death”. For him, something=20 new begins at the moment of conception. ”It would never=20 be made human (later) if it were not human already.”
Many things are human: Our genetic structure, the cells=20 of our bodies and those bits of tissue that live on=20 after we are formally pronounced dead. Yet it takes=20 more than any of these to constitute a complete human=20 being. Scholastic writers (yes, they were all males and=20 supposedly celibate), postulated about the emergence=20 and existence of the soul. That debate, in one form or=20 another, continues.
It is a question perhaps furthest from the mind of a=20 woman who is pregnant because she has been violated,=20 raped and abused. It is probably also not a priority=20 for any woman facing the prospect of bearing an=20 unwanted child.
The problem is that theologians, no less than medical=20 scientists, do not agree as to when human life begins.=20 Heated debate continues concerning the admissibility of=20 abortion prior to fourteen weeks of pregnancy, and the=20 point of foetal viability and related matters. It is=20 his awareness that different stages require different=20 approaches that makes Dr John Habgood, the Archbishop=20 of York, say that his argument is not with the Pope’s=20 theology but with his biology. There are too many=20 ambiguities in life for preachers to beat the pulpit or=20 popes to pontificate about too dogmatically.
The need for the protection of life pertains, of=20 course, not only to the life of the embryonic child,=20 but also to that of the mother. Currently, a woman=20 wanting an abortion, under the strict conditions of the=20 Abortion and Sterilisation Act (1975), has to make=20 written application, find a doctor willing to take the=20 case, get corroboration and certification by two other=20 physicians and the written authority of the physician=20 in charge of the hospital.
These bureaucratic obstacles deter many privileged=20 women from going this route. Underprivileged women,=20 most of them black, are even more severely handicapped=20 by these requirements. The legislation is the=20 antithesis of a system that provides equal access and=20 safeguards to the physical and mental health of women.
This racial bias results in a conservative estimate of=20 300 000 South African women resorting to illegal=20 abortions every year, often with disastrous results. A=20 recent study in Denmark, which liberalised its abortion=20 laws several years back, shows that the number of=20 abortions are beginning to decline. This is attributed=20 to the fear of Aids, the free availability of condoms=20 and a vigorous programme on sex education in schools=20 that, inter alia, emphasises the dangers of employing=20 abortion as a means of contraception.
There are people on both sides of the abortion debate=20 who are eagerly seeking to limit abortion. In different=20 ways they are also both pro-life. Evangelical Christian=20 and feminist Shelley Douglas sees the protection of=20 life as a near-ethical absolute. She argues that=20 abortion is ”almost always a moral wrong”. The problem=20 is we do not live in an ideal world. This, she insists,=20 makes ”workable compromises” a necessity. The Anglican=20 Church has indicated that ”abortion may sometimes be=20 the correct moral decision, but it is always to be=20
The ”solution” of the modern secular state to questions=20 of religious and ethical sensitivity is to leave them=20 to the discretion of the person concerned. Add to this=20 the right to privacy and we are left with an argument=20 in favour of the abortion issue being left to the=20 private decision-making of each individual woman=20
Two rejoinders are, however, not out of place:=20 Excessive claims of personal autonomy, whether by men=20 or women, have had disastrous socio-economic and=20 ethical consequences in society. It is this that makes=20 the notion of unconditional ”abortion on demand”=20 questionable. The African concept of community teaches=20 that each individual is a person only through other=20 persons. It has a biblical ring about it. It suggests=20 that no woman should be left alone and unsupported to=20 make a decision about abortion.=20
That they are, is very much a consequence of 20 years=20 of restrictive legislation that criminalises most=20 abortions. Perhaps it is too much to ask a violated=20 person, a frightened teenager, or an enraged woman to=20 consult with others in her hour of anger and despair.=20 Decisions made impulsively, out of fear or in=20 ignorance, can, at the same time, have the most=20 disastrous effects. I am arguing for the availability=20 of pre and post-abortion counselling as an essential=20 part of any new abortion legislation.
Secondly, men ought to be forced to face the=20 consequences of their actions. In the first instance,=20 this involves the male directly responsible for the=20 pregnancy. All men, however, need to take=20 responsibility for correcting a society within which,=20 quite literally, women are left ”holding the baby”.
Issues as sensitive as abortion need to be dealt with=20 not with harsh moral rectitude, but with empathy and=20 compassion. It is this that constitutes the high-water=20 mark of New Testament ethics. This same ethic compels=20 Christians not to give up on the need to create a world=20 where there is justice for women and children, where=20 there is sexual responsibility and where men share=20 responsibility for the children they father.
At the heart of this position is a desire to build a=20 world in which women and men are equal and children are=20 cared for — a world, as others have put it, in which=20 abortion is unthinkable. The problem is that we are not=20 yet there. It is this that requires the nation to=20 change the existing abortion legislation — to reflect=20 compassion and realism.
Villa-Vicencio is professor of religious studies at the=20 University of Cape Town