Monday, September 1, 2014

Put humanity before extreme beliefs

MICHELLE Mulherin is to be congratulated for her honesty.
One has to conclude that the Mayo TD spoke for many in the so-called pro-life movement when she declared last week that: “Abortion as murder — and therefore sin, which is the religious argument — is no more sinful from a scriptural point of view than all other sins we do not legislate against, such as greed, hate and fornication; the latter — fornication — being probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”
Her comment provoked a gamut of reaction, from outrage to ridicule. Among those who are opposed to any form of abortion, however, it must have been greeted with dismay. These people like to talk about values, and the vulnerability of the unborn, and project themselves as acting in the name of humanity in its purest form. They talk about killing babies. But they studiously avoid mention of their primary motive. Then along comes a kindred spirit and lays it out plain and simple — it’s all about religion, about personal beliefs and interpreting those beliefs in a manner that leaves no room for humanity, and then foisting those extreme interpretations on the whole of society.
Last week, one of the women who travelled to Liverpool to have her unviable pregnancy terminated spoke of her own beliefs: “I believe in a loving, caring, understanding God and I won’t be damned for what I did.”
Those who disagree with how she acted have a different God. Their deity instructs that a 14-year-old who has been raped is obliged to carry the rapist’s child. He commands that a 17-year-old in state care can’t terminate her pregnancy although the foetus will be born without a head. He instructs that a woman suffering painful cancer cannot end her pregnancy, even if that means she has a better chance of survival. He commands that a woman with an unviable pregnancy must carry on, irrespective of the psychological damage and pain being inflicted, until a child is born dead. This deity might give lip service to compassion, but largely he is focused on imposing his will on all before him, if necessary destroying people in order to save them.
The stories publicised last week of the four women who travelled to Liverpool to terminate their pregnancies couldn’t have failed to touch anybody with an ounce of humanity. They and their partners had first been subjected to the devastation that they would not be receiving a child into their world. Then, they had to face the harsh reality of a state which turns away from its citizens just at the point when they need to be comforted and assisted.
Finally, cast out, they had to leave home and fly to a jurisdiction where their condition is accepted in medical rather than moral terms. One woman described how she had “to walk around Birmingham for five hours when you’ve just ended your baby’s life, you’ve had an anaesthetic and are bleeding and cramping”.
This is precisely what some women are obliged to endure as a result of the actions of the pro-life lobby.
How offensive is that term? Labelling yourself pro-life infers that those who disagree with your personal beliefs have less regard for life than you do. It is ironic then, that among the anti-abortion lobby, precious few of them — with a few exceptions — give any thought to advocating for the most vulnerable once they are born into life.
Their other offensive term, “abortion on demand” speaks volumes. The term evokes the image of a confident or angry woman striding into an establishment and demanding that her pregnancy, the result most likely of “fornication”, be terminated. Again, it demonstrates a total removal from the real world. Anybody who knows a woman who has found herself in that position knows that decisions weigh heavily, and that far from being disposed to demand anything, they are often wracked with doubt, and sometimes guilt.
Fear is the key. Just as their God values fear over love, so too do these extremists themselves. Last week’s private members bill by Socialist TD Claire Daly to enact legislation for the X Case was another reminder of how the political establishment is scared stiff of these people.
Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was legal in the case where a mother’s life was in danger. Twenty years later the body politic is still stalling. It is inconceivable that in almost any other facet of life, such a situation would be allowed to fester through six different governments.
Last weekend the Labour party voted at its conference to push for legislation, and then its parliamentarians voted against Daly’s bill. It would be reasonable to surmise that, like the majority of people in the country, most in the Oireachtas do not share the extremists’ view, but they know the capacity these people have to instil fear and hatred.
The situation is so demented that even those who are desperate to create life are being held hostage by these people. Assisted human reproduction, principally through IVF, is a norm in Western society. It is a reality that some couples have difficulty in conceiving naturally. Advances in science mean this does not have to condemn couples to a childless future. It is possible to assist nature on its way.
To this end, the government of the day was obliged to have a report prepared on how best to legislate for the area, particularly to protect those seeking the service. The Commission on Assisted Reproduction published its report in May 2005. The extremists were unhappy with conclusions which they felt were not compatible with their personal beliefs. As a result, no government since has had the basic courage to its duty and legislate. As a result, assisted human reproduction remains a grey area, which can at times be brutal, where vulnerable couples are sometimes exploited, and where science has galloped way ahead of the law. And all because these people and their capacity to divide opinion.
Times change. The power that these extremists have wielded in the past may be dissipating. The majority of citizens in the State would most likely be opposed to abortion being widely available. Arguably, it would not be a good thing for universal access, certainly in the short term.
Those who profess allegiance to the majority religion are instinctively opposed to abortion. But opinion polls in recent years suggest that many are moving away from the extreme interpretation that the anti-abortion crowd, and the hierarchy, peddle. Legions of practicing Catholics in this country ignore the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception. They turn a blind eye to the stuff about pre-marital sex. They realise that in the real world, people sometimes divorce.
Some question why their Church appears to be obsessed with sexual matters in general, and women’s bodies in particular. Their brand of Catholicism has room for basic humanity.
And so, it must be hoped, that view will be to the fore in the near future as the issue of abortion in certain circumstances is finally tackled.

It’s long past the time when basic humanity should have precedence over the extreme beliefs of a small, but powerfully vocal, group.

By Michael Clifford

No comments:

Post a Comment