Colin Steer, Associate Editor - Opinion

Throughout history, wherever religious zealotry is combined with legalism, you end up with a Pharisaic outlook where the letter of the law supersedes the spirit of law. The shrillness of recent discussions over proposed amendments to existing abortion laws once again threatens to pull us in that direction.

It may well be that the media have, in general, done the public a disservice in their reporting on the position of Christian groups who are up in arms over proposals to amend current legislation relating to circumstances under which abortions may take place, as well as the position of the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group.

To date, nothing I have read or heard suggests that the principal spokespersons for the anti-abortion league make allowances for any circumstance under which such surgery may take place. Simply, there is to be none whatsoever. There is an absolutist position anchored in a moral imperative - any termination is murder.

Similarly, I have yet to get a full picture of all the recommendations of the advisory group. What has been presented is what people have selectively decided to highlight to make the case for their opposition to the proposed changes in the law.

Recommendations

Several of the persons who spoke at last Thursday's press conference, for example, were quoted as saying they would object strenuously to the legalisation of "abortion-on-demand".

I doubt very much that the advisory group is calling for any such thing. In fact, a summary of the recommendations of the advisory group distributed by the Christian groups at their press conference has not shown this definitively to be the case.

Apart from the proposal to repeal the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Persons Act, substituting it with a Termination of Pregnancy Act stating the conditions under which the medical termination of pregnancy would be lawful, the group also made other recommendations that seemingly are being ignored.

The advisory group is reported to have recommended that "pre- and post-abortion counselling, including available options to termination and the use of effective contraception, is highly recommended; special provisions are recommended for the mentally disabled and minors under 18 and the right to conscientious objection is recognised; termination of pregnancies over 22 weeks is not recommended". That does not sound like a blanket call for the implementation of "abortion-on-demand legislation" to me.

In the summary provided, the advisory group seems to have been guided by concerns about maternal mortality and what they termed the pursuit of safe motherhood. Are the two positions mutual exclusive? Is it possible to care about the safety of a mother and the foetus? How is this to be achieved?

Public policy advisers

The point is, that there are several aspects to the question of when and how an abortion should be done, if any at all. But it cannot simply be reduced to the simplistic argument that public policy advisers are simply wanting to allow for abortion as just another easy way to deal with the inconvenience of an unplanned pregnancy.

All the available literature and anecdotal evidence from across the world indicate that for the vast majority of women who opt for abortions, it is a traumatic, emotional experience. But should a teenage victim of a brutal rape, for example, be saddled with the added condemnation from self-righteous zealots that she has committed a murder because she does not care to carry to full term the result of her unsolicited ordeal?

We do not, as of now, have any breakdown of data to demonstrate how many of the thousands of abortions that reportedly take place in Jamaica yearly, result simply from indiscriminate sexual practice, incest, rape or other circumstances.

By all means let us do as much as we can, as a society, to reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancies, but we are not going to help the process in the least by shrill denunciations that are once again anchored in selective morality.