Sunday May 11, 2014, being mother’s day, I can imagine the
amount of events that were kept and mother’s wishes in acknowledging and
appreciating our mothers for their hard work and dedication. We also reflect on
the fact that it is a child that gives women the status of a mother, whether by
conception or adoption. However, we also consider the fact that MP Dr. Dayton
Campbell in his contribution to the sectoral debate stated that the abortion
debate needs to be revived and also repealed.
According to Dr. Campbell, “he was not proposing abortion as
a means of contraception, nor that mere poverty should be a reason for it. He
said it was of paramount importance that the adoption laws be revised, so that
the service can be legally and professionally available to women.” Then if it
is that it should not be used as a means of contraception nor poverty as a
reason, then what is the purpose for revising it? On what basis should it be
professionally and legally available to women?
Abortion activists proposed that nearly all abortions take
place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the
mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is
dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it
cannot exist outside her womb. So, should we accept that abortion be done
‘only’ in the first trimester? What about conjoin twins, where one maybe
dependent upon the other for survival, should we kill the one that is dependent
because it cannot survive independent of his/her sibling? People who are on
life machines, should we kill them because they cannot survive independent of
the machine? Is it that the more dependent you are, the more vulnerable you are
to be killed?
I think what Dr. Campbell is really saying is that we should
scrutinize the issue, weigh the pros and cons and decide whether or not the cons
really outweigh the pros. But really, what are the pros? If it is that the
abortion law is revised, what do we hope to achieve? Aren't there issues that
are more important than debating abortion? Dr. Campbell is disguising the
truth, what other purpose is there to revise the abortion law if not as a means
of contraception or that poverty is the reason?
He said that poor women are in need of the service. In 2008,
it cost between J$15000-$20000 to do an abortion, how much is it now? If they
cannot find money to buy basic necessities, in these tough economic times where
are they going to find the money to do an abortion? Will it be on the onus of
tax payers to finance it, as is the case in some countries? In that same year
the abortion rate in Jamaica (number of abortions per 1,000 women age 15-44 per
year) lies between 31,251 and a 51,875. That would mean that approximately
J$778,125,000 was spent on abortion (killing babies) per 1000 women. That is a
lot of money. But one may reason, why bring a child into world if one is not
financially and psychologically prepared? Will it not add to the poverty
statistics?
Studies show that abortion leads to child abuse, and
currently, the child abuse rate has increased by 40 per cent. LifeSiteNews.com reported
on October 24, 2005: A new study published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica has
found that women who have had an abortion are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children. The study, led by
Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, looked at data taken from
a survey of 518 low-income women in Baltimore who were receiving Aid to
Families with Dependent Children and who had at least one child aged 12 years
or younger. The data compared rates of child abuse and neglect among women who
had experienced either an involuntary (miscarriage or stillbirth) or voluntary
(induced abortion) pregnancy loss. Is this what we really want?
Kenroy Davis is an educator and commentator on social issues. Email feedback to: kenroy.davis20@gmail.com
