The abortion battle

In South Africa, the odds are stacked against the unborn. The courts allow teenagers to procure abortions without parental consent; the government’s intention to widen access to abortion as a means of birth control is becoming increasingly evident; the health ministry introduces increasing figures in abortion rates as a national accomplishment, not as the accumulation of personal tragedies that it is; and much of the secular press makes no secret of its bias towards the pro-abortion cause.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the question of abortion has exercised Catholic communities in South Africa, and elsewhere, over the past weeks. This has been reflected in this newspaper–which naturally follows the Church teaching that opposes voluntary termination of pregnancy–in reports, opinion articles and letters to the editor.

It is clear that even within the pro-life camp there are shades of opinions and approaches in the exercise of that opposition.

One such area concerns the Church’s relationship with politicians whose policies are judged to be in conflict with Church teachings. This is a debate that particularly concerns the Church in the United States, where some bishops have indicated that politicians who support pro-abortion legislation may be denied Communion in their dioceses. This issue has wider ramifications, especially for the Church in younger democracies.

As we report this week, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation, has tacitly indicated that it may not be appropriate to use the Eucharist to coerce “dissenting” politicians.

Indeed, the act of voting for abortion laws does not incur canonical penalty, let alone automatic excommunication–though such legislators are called upon to examine their conscience. Whatever punitive measures one seeks to apply must be justifiable in canon law.

Within the South African Church, pro-life supporters continue to debate the question of “single issue voting”, whereby voters are called to support a party based on one policy issue only–in this case abortion. The bishops of Southern Africa decided not to encourage this model of voting (the bishops of Kenya have indicated that they will).

The debate is important, and generally has been conducted with civility and dignity. There is no single right answer, only an exchange of more or less equally valid perspectives.

The pro-life movement is broad, but this is not always evident. In part this may be explained by mutual suspicion between those who hold divergent philosophies within the context of protecting life, born or unborn. Thus some activists risk being called fanatics, while others who question supposedly conventional wisdoms stand to be accused of promoting a pro-choice agenda.

Where such debate assumes a nasty edge, it serves to negate our shared Christian values.

It is here that the pro-life movement has an image problem. Not one supporter of abortion is likely to be converted to a pro-life philosophy by belligerence, perceived or otherwise. Aggressive rhetoric is a turn-off, perhaps even to those sympathetic but not yet fully committed to pro-life positions.

It is imperative that pro-life supporters–hardline and moderate–discuss their differences, and accommodate one another, to find a new response that will persuade even pro-choice supporters that the ever widening access to abortion is the wrong way to go.