The abortion fight

As we observe the feast of the massacre of the Holy Innocents, our minds turn to the deplorable rate of abortions in South Africa, and the glee of the government when it reports an increase in the rate of “terminations of pregnancy”.

Women have abortions for diverse reasons. For some, it is a form of birth control, albeit an extreme one. For others, perhaps the majority, the decision to abort the life they are carrying surely is painful, borne out of dreadful desperation. Behind every abortion there is a human story, often of tragic proportions. Likewise, we must assume that most medical professionals who perform abortions are motivated to do so by a sense of compassion, mistaken though they may be.

It is therefore uncharitable to attach impetuous labels such as “babykillers” to those involved in abortions. Such terminology is, of course, at odds with the Christian dimension of mercy–one that calls us to “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. It is also unlikely to persuade those thus labelled to see the iniquity of their actions.

Emotionally charged name-calling and debates in the abortion debate are unhelpful in reaching out to those who are not yet convinced of the merits of the pro-life position. Indeed, the pro-life cause has been damaged by the fanaticism of some of its own supporters.

Last month we reported that an American pro-life activist, James Kopp, had confessed to the killing of a doctor who performed abortions. Violence, especially if potentially fatal, cannot in any way be reconciled with the pro-life ethic. With his actions, Kopp has placed himself firmly in the anti-life camp.

The harm Kopp has done to the pro-life movement, especially in the United States, is incalculable.

In South Africa, the abortion debate has reached a stalemate. The government has long legalised abortion on demand, and is unlikely to amend the Act in any significant way. egal abortion in South Africa is a reality, and it will not disappear, protests notwithstanding.

Pickets outside abortion clinics may make a public point. However, the question is whether they reach the right target–those who lean towards a “pro-choice” point of view but can be persuaded–or do they preach to the converted and, indeed, to the unconvertable? And, crucially, is the pro-life message presented in such a way as to persuade those open to persuasion?

The real challenge for the pro-life movement now is to discourage the incidence of abortions, rather than the availability of it. This requires well-designed campaigns, but also personal contact. Those who are against abortion, from pro-life activist to teacher and parent, need to reach out individually to women who are in desperate situations to which abortion seems to be their only answer, or who may find themselves in such a situation.

Of course, the notion of abortion as a safety net should other forms of birth control fail must be discouraged as well.

Crucially, the pro-life movement must be seen as addressing the abortion problem in a practical way.

To that end, there are many organisations and homes that are providing pregnant women with alternatives to abortion, such as Birthright and the Mater Vitae homes in KwaZulu-Natal. These excellent projects deserve the active and enthusiastic support from all those who oppose abortion.

Above all, projects such as these, and others, require sustained publicity, as a visible sign that pro-life activities extend beyond public protests and televised panel debates.