The abortion debate

The teaching of the Catholic Church on abortion is unequivocal: life begins at the point of conception, and the right to life is inalienable from that point onwards. Procuring an abortion, the Church teaches, is a denial of that right and therefore morally not licit.

There are shades of opinion in Catholic moral theology as to how this teaching is to be applied pastorally, for the circumstances which drive women to have abortions are not uniform. The moral conflict of a mother having an abortion to save her own life, for example, is not resolved simply by insisting on her embryo’s right to life.

There are also differences in views as to how the Church should express its opposition to abortion. The thorny question of withholding the sacraments from politicians who support abortion rights is one such issue.

Where some Catholics see abortion as the single most important life issue, others regard it as one of several important life issues.

However, there is unanimity in the Church that the termination of unborn life is contrary to the right to life. The Church’s default position, therefore, is to oppose in principle any policy that makes access to abortion legal.

The flip side to the Catholic Church’s absolute opposition to abortion was expounded by the South African Council of Churches’ parliamentary office in its submission to hearings on the Choice for Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Bill. Put succinctly, the SACC’s office tolerates the abortion law, saying that legal and safer access to abortion is preferable to illegal abortions. In effect, their submission invoked the theology of the lesser evil.

This position is irreconcilable with the teachings of the Catholic Church, which is a member of the SACC. The Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC) was right to establish that the submission made on behalf of the SACC did not reflect the position of the Catholic Church.

The SACBC in a statement acknowledged that the abortion law “is not likely to be repealed”, but argued that the harmful effects of legalised abortion must be limited.

This is a prudent approach. Stating the case against abortion is not going to change the policy of a government that seems to regard increases in the number of abortions as an accomplishment, not as the social failure such figures represent. Yet, it is important to continue raising public awareness as to the moral and practical consequences of abortion, and to do so persuasively.

In the formulation of the amendment Bill, there are many issues that do not receive adequate attention.

The question of pre- and post-abortion counselling is chief among these. While the state seeks to extend the provision of abortion facilities (which itself raises concerns about the availability of sufficiently qualified medical staff to perform these procedures safely), little is being said about the psychological welfare of women who are considering abortions, and those who have undergone what for many is a profoundly traumatic experience.

Indeed, instead of increasing abortion statistics, the state should seek to reduce these by creating relevant social services and structures, which in turn would give proper meaning to the term “choice” in the Act’s title.

It is in the domain of social services that the Catholic Church is offering practical back-up to its opposition to abortion. The Mater Dei homes in the archdiocese of Durban (and now also in Cape Town) and non-denominational organisations such as Birthright offer a model of providing alternatives to abortion which might see Church and government cooperating, perhaps even by the allocation of unqualified state subsidies to such initiatives.

And herein resides one option for the government to acknowledge the Christian resistance to abortion: by giving support to alternatives to the killing of unborn life.