Church has a right to be heard on abortion debate

By Lemmy Nyongesa

The debate on abortion has polarised the nation and the entire constitutional making process like no other, but abortion on demand has no moral or constitutional justification. The debate has aroused such strong emotions and sentiments in the nationals for some see it as the right to privacy at stake while others insist that taking of human life is the real issue.

But it is essential in any civilised society to limit liberties and where necessary, to protect others, in this case, protection of a whole class of people, who, during abortion, are discriminated against and violated on the basis of their age, position and place of residence.

Abortion cheapens the value of human life and legitimises violence as a way of solving one’s problems at the expense of another.

Pro-choice advocates have argued that governments should sanction abortion on demand lest women resort to dangerous ‘back-alley’ solutions. They claim thousands of women die each year due to illegal abortions. Tragic as the death of any person is, it must be observed that women who obtain illegal abortions do so by choice and most women will choose to abide by the law. In contrast, pre-birth humans are destroyed without having a choice.

Some claim restrictions on abortion deny women equality and freedom, which men have. But men do not have the right to kill their children! Defenders of abortion have selectively masked the fact that abortion is not all about what a woman may do with her body, but that is also involves what she can do with the body of another human being since it involves the willful taking of an innocent life.

Baseless argument

All civilised moral codes limit liberty of individuals where exercise of such liberties would result in the taking of innocent human life and as such arguments that abortion is necessary to prevent subjugation of women is baseless.

Requiring, by law, that a father supports his offspring does not mean it is an attempt at subjugating him.

As we debate on abortion, we should be aware that a good constitution is one that: removes certain matters from simple majority rule by making them constitutional rights and retain other matters to be democratically controlled by our representatives in Parliament; distributes powers among the three branches of government, with each limited to its own sphere of power, and; establish a federal system in which power to regulate certain matters is granted to the national government and all remaining power is retained by federal governments or by the people themselves. These are the three cornerstones of a good constitution.

The rest are details that can be debated and amended during the post-referendum period after deeper soul-searching and research. All we need now is a constitution that empowers the people and makes it possible for future ratifications and amendments to reflect an improved people’s will.

A recent article by Tony Mochama in The Standard countered the Church’s position and participation in the debate on abortion, saying the Church should not comment on and participate in matters of governance and other political processes, but should limit itself to matters of ‘heaven’.

"Interference" in governance and political processes is one of the things the Church has done for ages to bring and enforce moral order in society, and it has been the case even before the times of Emperor Constantine I.

Dignity of man

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on such matters as this. It says, "Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man" and that "‘Participation’ is the voluntary and generous engagement of a person in social interchange. It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person".

There is no decency and dignity in taking another person’s life especially when they are defenseless by virtue of age, position and area of residence. Mochama’s views were erroneous and uniformed.

—The writer is an archbishop.