Reproductive health: Abortion a right or evil?
Feb 18, 2007
The African Protocol on the Rights of Women was adopted on July 11, 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique. It is an extension of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted in 1981. Essentially it seeks to improve on the status of African women by bringing about gender equality and eliminating d
By Dr. Angelina Kakooza-Mwesige
The African Protocol on the Rights of Women was adopted on July 11, 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique. It is an extension of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted in 1981. Essentially it seeks to improve on the status of African women by bringing about gender equality and eliminating discrimination. At least 15 member countries must ratify the Maputo protocol for it to enter into force. The Parliament of Uganda is yet to ratify the protocol.
Under Article 14(2)(c) on Health and Reproductive Rights, the protocol protects the reproductive rights of women including access to abortion in certain circumstances. These include sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the foetus. The protocol mentions abortion as a right. It is a great pity that the highest forum of our continent, the African Union, has for the first time in the history of humanity, attributed the value and definition of a right to the objective evil of abortion.
Article 14 of the protocol has indeed opened the door to abortion under the guise of providing a health service and apparently “liberating a woman†from a pregnancy that resulted from sexual assault, rape, incest or is endangering her health or that of her child. This raises a series of questions. How will an incident of sexual assault, rape or incest be verified? Won’t we run into the risk of any woman who feels she should abort using this pretext? In any case, will carrying out an abortion in these circumstances solve the problem?
Rape is one of the worst indignities a person can suffer. But does procuring an abortion solve the problem or aggravate it. Is there a way of undoing rape or becoming “un-raped� Can justice be obtained for the rape victim by punishing the unborn baby resulting from the rape? Do two wrongs make a right? The burdening of the mother with the guilt of a murder on top of the indignity of rape is unacceptable.
The argument that “where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetusâ€, portrays the foetus as an ‘unjust aggressor' the mother has to eliminate in legitimate self-defence. Is this true? It is important to know that once the mother’s egg has been fertilised the result is already a person who can no longer be considered a part of the mother’s organism, from which it might be separated for ‘therapeutic reasons’. What about the foetus’ right to life?
To this fundamental right corresponds a grave duty on the part of the mother to satisfy the right protecting this newly created life with responsibility and adequate care. A new person in his/her own right has as such begun to exist. Thanks to advances in medicine, the assumption of therapeutic abortion is practically non-existent. It is possible to save the life of the mother without proceeding against that of the child.
In commencing practice as a doctor, we solemnly promise to follow the International Code of Medical Ethics. In it we have the principles of the Declaration of Geneva approved by the World Medical Association. One of the statements reads, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.†Hence, a doctor must try to save both the life of the mother and the child using adequate licit methods. He or she is under no obligation to do what is illicit, no matter how efficacious the action taken might be. This is the elementary postulate of any professional ethics and by directly provoking the death of the mother or the child by abortion, definitely commits homicide.
As a precept in the service of the inviolable dignity of the human person, the solemn injunction “Do not kill†is always binding. It admits no exceptions and it is the first and most exigent of the doctor’s duties. If all possible avenues have been exhausted to try to save either the life of the mother or the child and any one of them dies, the doctor will have no reason to blame him or herself since everything licitly possible would have been done.
So far the right to life even of the weakest and most defenceless, the human embryo, has been protected by the fundamental law of the country: the Constitution. This shows the deeply rooted conviction of Ugandans and the fundamental value of our culture: that all human life is sacred and good in itself from its very beginnings and that consequently abortion is a fundamental evil. The greatness of the human person derives from the spiritual reality of his soul, his divine filiation, his eternal destiny, all of which he has received from God. This places him above the whole of created nature.
Legalising abortion so as to protect the reproductive rights of women and provide so-called ‘safe sterile abortions’ as opposed to those carried out by back-street abortionists does not make it morally right or curb its abuse. Many times it promotes it. This has been seen in several countries that have legalised it but have still failed to curb its numbers.
Although laws may not be the only way of protecting human life they play an important role in shaping the thought processes and behaviour of an individual. Changing a law can help change the general attitude toward an activity, as the abolition of slavery has shown. Laws in themselves cannot force people to be good, but enforcing good laws can help restrain people from doing evil. A law which violates a person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law.
To legalise abortion in Uganda will be a flagrant abuse of authority. This will be a total disregard of the dignity of the human person and undermine the very fabric of society. Many health workers will be faced with the dilemma of choosing to do what their conscience tells them not to do or fulfil the desires of a woman demanding that the law provides that she can go ahead and procure an abortion. Health workers may find themselves forced by the law to perpetrate acts their conscience detests, or to face the rigor of the law.
Surveys of women who have had abortions show that abortion is not a question of giving a woman a “choiceâ€. It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have no choice. They feel that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy. Her central, perhaps subconscious, question is: “How can I preserve my own life?†It is important that we address her side of the equation and do so in a compassionate, friendly manner that affirms her inner convictions.
Without stigmatising, the woman must be helped to re-evaluate what she perceives to be the possible solutions to her situation. She should be supported and encouraged to realise that abortion is actually not in her interest.
The African Protocol on the Rights of Women was adopted on July 11, 2003 in Maputo, Mozambique. It is an extension of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted in 1981. Essentially it seeks to improve on the status of African women by bringing about gender equality and eliminating discrimination. At least 15 member countries must ratify the Maputo protocol for it to enter into force. The Parliament of Uganda is yet to ratify the protocol.
Under Article 14(2)(c) on Health and Reproductive Rights, the protocol protects the reproductive rights of women including access to abortion in certain circumstances. These include sexual assault, rape, incest, and where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the foetus. The protocol mentions abortion as a right. It is a great pity that the highest forum of our continent, the African Union, has for the first time in the history of humanity, attributed the value and definition of a right to the objective evil of abortion.
Article 14 of the protocol has indeed opened the door to abortion under the guise of providing a health service and apparently “liberating a woman†from a pregnancy that resulted from sexual assault, rape, incest or is endangering her health or that of her child. This raises a series of questions. How will an incident of sexual assault, rape or incest be verified? Won’t we run into the risk of any woman who feels she should abort using this pretext? In any case, will carrying out an abortion in these circumstances solve the problem?
Rape is one of the worst indignities a person can suffer. But does procuring an abortion solve the problem or aggravate it. Is there a way of undoing rape or becoming “un-raped� Can justice be obtained for the rape victim by punishing the unborn baby resulting from the rape? Do two wrongs make a right? The burdening of the mother with the guilt of a murder on top of the indignity of rape is unacceptable.
The argument that “where the continued pregnancy endangers the mental and physical health of the mother or the life of the mother or the foetusâ€, portrays the foetus as an ‘unjust aggressor' the mother has to eliminate in legitimate self-defence. Is this true? It is important to know that once the mother’s egg has been fertilised the result is already a person who can no longer be considered a part of the mother’s organism, from which it might be separated for ‘therapeutic reasons’. What about the foetus’ right to life?
To this fundamental right corresponds a grave duty on the part of the mother to satisfy the right protecting this newly created life with responsibility and adequate care. A new person in his/her own right has as such begun to exist. Thanks to advances in medicine, the assumption of therapeutic abortion is practically non-existent. It is possible to save the life of the mother without proceeding against that of the child.
In commencing practice as a doctor, we solemnly promise to follow the International Code of Medical Ethics. In it we have the principles of the Declaration of Geneva approved by the World Medical Association. One of the statements reads, “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its beginning even under threat and I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.†Hence, a doctor must try to save both the life of the mother and the child using adequate licit methods. He or she is under no obligation to do what is illicit, no matter how efficacious the action taken might be. This is the elementary postulate of any professional ethics and by directly provoking the death of the mother or the child by abortion, definitely commits homicide.
As a precept in the service of the inviolable dignity of the human person, the solemn injunction “Do not kill†is always binding. It admits no exceptions and it is the first and most exigent of the doctor’s duties. If all possible avenues have been exhausted to try to save either the life of the mother or the child and any one of them dies, the doctor will have no reason to blame him or herself since everything licitly possible would have been done.
So far the right to life even of the weakest and most defenceless, the human embryo, has been protected by the fundamental law of the country: the Constitution. This shows the deeply rooted conviction of Ugandans and the fundamental value of our culture: that all human life is sacred and good in itself from its very beginnings and that consequently abortion is a fundamental evil. The greatness of the human person derives from the spiritual reality of his soul, his divine filiation, his eternal destiny, all of which he has received from God. This places him above the whole of created nature.
Legalising abortion so as to protect the reproductive rights of women and provide so-called ‘safe sterile abortions’ as opposed to those carried out by back-street abortionists does not make it morally right or curb its abuse. Many times it promotes it. This has been seen in several countries that have legalised it but have still failed to curb its numbers.
Although laws may not be the only way of protecting human life they play an important role in shaping the thought processes and behaviour of an individual. Changing a law can help change the general attitude toward an activity, as the abolition of slavery has shown. Laws in themselves cannot force people to be good, but enforcing good laws can help restrain people from doing evil. A law which violates a person’s natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law.
To legalise abortion in Uganda will be a flagrant abuse of authority. This will be a total disregard of the dignity of the human person and undermine the very fabric of society. Many health workers will be faced with the dilemma of choosing to do what their conscience tells them not to do or fulfil the desires of a woman demanding that the law provides that she can go ahead and procure an abortion. Health workers may find themselves forced by the law to perpetrate acts their conscience detests, or to face the rigor of the law.
Surveys of women who have had abortions show that abortion is not a question of giving a woman a “choiceâ€. It is, tragically, a situation of women feeling they have no choice. They feel that nobody cares enough about them and their child to give them any alternative besides going to the abortionist. The woman feels rejected, confused, afraid, alone, unable to handle the pregnancy. Her central, perhaps subconscious, question is: “How can I preserve my own life?†It is important that we address her side of the equation and do so in a compassionate, friendly manner that affirms her inner convictions.
Without stigmatising, the woman must be helped to re-evaluate what she perceives to be the possible solutions to her situation. She should be supported and encouraged to realise that abortion is actually not in her interest.