News on Abortion (In Jamaica)
Here you are made aware regarding the issue or on the matter of abortion:
LifeSiteNews.com (A Powerful & Touching Article): Follow the link:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-jamaican-missionaries-lead-effort-to-stop-abortion-launch-massive
Fr. Richard Ho Lung, M.O.P. : On Abortion Issue (An Interview):
St James residents against abortion
Published: Wednesday | January 27, 2010
Christopher Thomas, Gleaner Writer
Members of the head table at the abortion forum held at the Montego Bay Civic Centre in Sam Sharpe Square last Wednesday. They are (from left) Taitu Heron, women’s rights activist and representative of Development Alternatives for Women of a New Era (DAWN)’s Caribbean chapter; Floyd Green, the forum’s moderator; Shirley Richards, vice-president of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship; Dr Evan Nepaul, a department head from the Savanna-la-Mar Hospital; Christina Milford, representative of the Pregnancy Resource Centre of Jamaica. – Photo by Christopher Thomas
WESTERN BUREAU:
St James residents who turned out at a forum last Wednesday took a near-unanimous stance against the legalisation of abortion in Jamaica.
The forum, hosted at the Montego Bay Civic Centre, was organised by a joint select committee of Parliament, which was set up to consider the final report of the Ministry of Health’s Jamaica Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group.
“We’ve been on (the abortion policy) since 1975, and hopefully this committee will make some final recommendations,” Health Minister Rudyard Spencer said in a brief address.
Representatives from various organisations made presentations on abortion, which in some cases were accompanied by graphic illustrations and statistics.
Residents subsequently directed questions, comments and recommen-dations to the panel.
At one point during the forum’s feedback segment, emotions ran high, as the anti-abortion supporters in the audience made their views known.
The prevailing view voiced by that group was “Abortion is murder!” accompanied by thunderous applause.
“Why don’t we allow gunmen the right to choose who to kill?” one resident queried, in making comparisons to giving pregnant women the right to abort unwanted foetuses.
“It’s essentially the same thing.”
The forum was the first of three intended to discuss the legalisation of abortion in Jamaica, and to get the views of the public on the issue.
There will be a forum today in St Thomas and another in Clarendon on February 3.
“The bulk of our work (on the policy) begins when the consultation ends … . I hope we can finish for this administrative year,” Spencer told reporters.
christopher.thomas@ gleanerjm.com
67% of J’cans polled opposed to abortion
CONCLUSION
Monday, October 26, 2009
Just under 70 per cent of adult Jamaicans surveyed say they are against abortion, according to a Don Anderson poll commissioned by a pro-life group.
 |
| ANDERSON. it is safe to make the point that Jamaicans are pro-life supporters |
Anderson, who conducted the poll between June 4 and 10, said that when his field team asked persons to state whether they are against, or are in favour of abortion, 67 per cent of all persons interviewed said that they oppose the practice, while 15 per cent said they were in favour of abortion.
Anderson pointed out, however, that “18 per cent are ambivalent on the issue”.
“The majority of persons interviewed in the survey are pro-life and therefore not in support of abortions for any reason,” said the pollster in his analysis of the findings.
The poll was commissioned by the Mustard Seed Communities – a member of the Ecumenical Pro-Life Council – which said it wanted the survey done in order to stimulate public discussion ahead of a planned debate in the Parliament on the controversial issue.
Anderson said that the poll, which has a margin of error of “plus or minus 4.5 per cent at the 95 per cent confidence level”, captured the views of 535 persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years.
 |
The issue of abortion has been before a Joint Select Committee of Parliament that has been contemplating the report of the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group (APRAG) which was established in 2005 by former health minister John Junor with the aim of reducing what was said to be the high rate of maternal mortality in Jamaica.
But its recommendation that abortions be legalised has drawn fire from pro-life groups which argue that it is contrary to the law of God and militates against deeply held values in Jamaica.
Here is Anderson’s summary statement on the survey, the results of which have been running twice weekly in the Observer since September 7.
“The survey conducted by Market Research Services Limited, on the issue of abortion, has pointed to very clear positions being held by the general public. There is, for example, no question that the significant majority of persons within the Jamaican population are opposed to the notion of having an abortion. From this perspective, it is safe to make the point that Jamaicans are pro-life supporters.
These views are strongly held and there is a solid block of persons who feel that abortion is morally and legally wrong and that efforts should be made to encourage more adoption rather than abortions, if indeed the child is not wanted. These views extend to situations where pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest, a fact which tends to confirm the sense of conviction the majority have with regard to this issue of abortion.
One of the clear reasons for the strength of opinion against abortion is that the large majority of Jamaicans are convinced that the foetus within the mother’s womb is actually a human being, and from that perspective, to carry out an abortion is tantamount to murdering the child.
One of the other clear factors that emerged from an evaluation of the survey data is that Jamaicans are critical of the role being played by Church, State and the media in dealing with issues of sexuality. There is, then, a call for more responsible action to bring about a higher level of morality on sexual matters and to formally encourage more education to increase the levels of importance given to adoption as an alternative to abortion.
In the final analysis, the data firmly indicate that the majority of Jamaicans would be opposed to the notion of legalising abortions, for whatever reasons.
What’s the PNP’s abortion view?
Published: Friday | October 23, 2009
I am always concerned though, when glaring inconsistencies arise in applying general principles. Mrs Simpson Miller, for example, has, along with her party’s representatives, sounded willing to legalise abortion in Jamaica. Are the views of the majority in Jamaica on this sensitive issue going to be taken into consideration when she votes on it?
I make the same request of the People’s National Party that its leader as Mrs Simpson Miller has made in Parliament on Tuesday. Please “respect our views” in the matter of legalising the wilful termination of the life of an innocent unborn child.
I am, etc.,
DOUGLAS SIMPSON
doug_simpson5@hotmail.com
Kingston 8
LETTER OF THE DAY – Denunciation will not halt abortions
Published: Monday | October 12, 2009
The Editor, Sir:
Anne Arthur, in a letter titled ‘Who distorts the abortion debate?’ (The Gleaner, October 10), claims that “the statistics of the Ministry of Health (MOH) are misquoted in applying all data as if they refer to ‘induced abortion’, which they are not. Gynaecologists call any loss of pregnancy ‘abortion’, and it is this overall term that the MOH paper refers to.”That’s not what we debate here. We are debating whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy wilfully by aborting the child she is carrying. The MOH data cannot help in this respect.”This is woefully incorrect. Women are already wilfully having abortions. They already are allowing themselves to terminate a pregnancy. The debate is really about the circumstances under which this can be legally permitted. So, based on this, the MOH data are actually helpful.Let us go directly to the data that Jenny Jones referred to. According to Jones, the MOH reported that an average of over 1,000 women per year are admitted to our public hospitals because of complications resulting from unsafe abortions.The report, as the MOH produced it for a UN study, is reproduced below:COMPLICATIONS OF ABORTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE LEGALLY DONE IN HOSPITALSDischarges for complications of unsafe abortionsYear No.2003 1,4412004 1,0942005 1,0742006 1,080Source: Ministry of Health Illegal abortions are not reported, unless the woman presents at a government health-care facility for a complication. Complications would be known from a patient’s history or from medical examination findings on admission.There is a difference between a spontaneous abortion (i.e. a miscarriage) and an induced abortion. An unsafe abortion includes methods, such as taking certain drugs without medical supervision, going to an unregulated medical facility to procure one using unclean instruments; drinking certain concoctions; inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix; and, placing foreign bodies, such as a stick or coat hanger, into the uterus.So the question I would have for Anne Arthur is, what do we do about these women who do not want to have the child and are willing to go through all this just not to have it? What is the point of having an unwanted child? If they wilfully abort a foetus, it is what it is. It is done wilfully. What part about that is difficult to understand?Sex educationUntil we get to a point where sex education in this country is adequate and where rape and incest do not exist, abortions (illegal or legal) will be done by women. When a woman decides to have an abortion, she has already exhausted her options. If she is willing to go the unsafe route, one must think of the circumstances of her life that she had to decide on to make that choice.It does not matter what those who are opposed to women’s choice over fertility think. It is what it is. They are not the ones carrying the foetus and thus are in no position, such as Anne Arthur, to wax lyrical about so-called ‘child killing’.I am, etc.,REBEKAH LAWRENCEnavelstring@gmail.com
Abortion – truth or lie?
Published: Monday | October 12, 2009
Distortion #1: Abortion is not a matter of morality. The truth is, as demonstrated by the recent Don Anderson polls on views on abortion, there is still a significant majority of Jamaicans who are opposed to abortion, on most, if not all, grounds. This reflects the consciences, godly influence, perceptions of morality and the value of life from conception.
When Mary, mother of Jesus, was found to be pregnant (in a context that in our society today, some would advocate an abortion due to an unplanned and inconvenient pregnancy), the scripture described her as being ‘with child’, not potential child.
Conducted by qualified docs
Distortion #2: Legalising abortion reduces risk of pain, suffering and death of women. This ignores the statistical reality that far more persons have abortions when the law, no matter how carefully framed, allows it. This leads to a higher risk of suffering.
Reference to the 1,173 women per year who suffer from painful complications following unsafe abortions belies the truth that most abortions in Jamaica, illegal as they may be, are known to be conducted by qualified, well-known doctors, in clinics or privately-equipped surgical offices, and not, as implied, under “unsafe, backyard” conditions.
An honest assessment may lead to the conclusion that maternal mortality rate (MMR) statistics are more reasonably linked to countries socio-economic capacity than their abortion laws.
Distortion #3: A foetus’ lack of viability outside the mother is justification for abortion. If we begin to go down this road, we begin to question the efficacy of maintaining the life of humans, young or old, who may need external life support of any kind to keep them alive if their viability otherwise would be in doubt.
Biological deception
Distortion #4: The foetus is part of the mother’s body and gives her the right to do with it as she desires. This is a biological deception. The mother and her child have separate circulatory systems and do not share the same blood. The placenta, from which the child draws nourishment, is part of the child’s system and through which he or she receives nutrition from the womb. The placenta has two parts (maternal and foetal) which facilitate the bringing of the foetal blood extremely close to the maternal blood. No intermingling of blood occurs, just the transfers of nutrients and oxygen one way, and waste, the other way.
If the unborn child inherits the father’s blood type and it is antagonistic to the mother’s, traumatic conditions leading to the mingling of the baby’s and mother’s bloods may lead to the baby being rejected by the mother’s body as a ‘foreign’ entity. This would absolutely not happen if the baby were part of the mother’s body as distinct from being within her body. The baby is not an appendage or growth. The mother and her unborn child neither share blood nor DNA. The baby is an independent life and should not be treated as a disposable part.
Distortion #5: Failings of the Church and society necessitate change in the law. The slide in morality does not justify the lowering of laws to reflect these retrograde trends. The Church and Government may well need to do more and talk less. Let us not follow the errors of other countries and lower our standards, but rather call our society, and the Church at large, to do more to help those who need tangible support in their time of need!
Let truth prevail!
I am, etc.,
RICHARD DELISSER
richied100@gmail.com
Jacks Hill
St Andrew
Who distorts the abortion debate?
Published: Saturday | October 10, 2009
Reading the letter ‘Distortions in abortion debate’ by Jennifer Jones, which appeared in The Gleaner of October 9, I could not refrain from shaking my head. If “distortion of the abortion debate” was the supposed issue of this letter, then it has certainly contributed to misinform the public even more than the writer intended.
Quoting the medical journal Lancet does not help the issue at hand in Jamaica. And the statistics of the Ministry of Health are misquoted in applying all data as if they refer to ‘induced abortion’, which they are not.
Gynaecologists call any loss of pregnancy ‘abortion’ and it’s this overall term that the MOH paper refers to. That’s not what we debate here. We are debating whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy wilfully by aborting the child she is carrying. The MOH data cannot help in this respect.
Jones contends that if one removes a foetus from the mother’s womb, it could not survive and is therefore no human being. Well, I pose the question: if a baby is born after a pregnancy of nine months, can it survive on its own? Certainly, without the mother’s care, it would die. The writer notes further that a foetus does not look like a child … well, a little basic biology class would help. Or, check the internet for photos of foetuses in different stages of development.
It is a given fact that at 10-12 weeks the body of an unborn human being (yes, a human being, which can suck his/her thumb at that age of development) is fully developed and the only thing he/she needs to do is to gain weight until birth.
viable human life
Jones uses a very dangerous notion very loosely in stating that a foetus eventually becomes “viable human life”. How do you define viable human life? Is someone in a coma on life-support, who cannot speak, communicate, work or function on his/her own a “viable human life”? Or, could we kill that person too because he/she is not viable on her own?
In addition, Jones should learn that an unborn human being is never part of the mother’s body. By simple genetics, an unborn baby has a unique set of genes, composed of the chromosomes of the mother and the father. No other human being has that unique composition of genes. An unborn child is being nourished by the mother’s body, but that’s all the connection there is. Therefore, the mother carries a child that is completely different and distinct from herself. If she aborts, she aborts not a part of her body but another human being.
To the question: what is life? No, we don’t have the power over what you call “optimal emotional, psychological and spiritual existence”. That belongs to a higher power than you and me.
You implore us to “save lives”. I agree with that statement. Only, you don’t save lives by aborting them! You save lives by letting the children be born and caring for them. To save lives, we are called to improve our social environment and the care for mothers and children.
carefully stipulated
You support the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group’s recommendations to the Ministry of Health, which you call ‘carefully stipulated’. Read again; the contradictions galore. They will certainly not create what you desire: “an environment where conception is a responsible act and every newborn is wanted and loved”. That beautiful world will not be achieved by allowing induced abortion. These recommendations will destroy lives, rip apart the morals for responsible sexual Behavior, force medical personnel to act against their oath, and waste our taxpayers’ money to pay for killing clinics – whereas what we really need are facilities to create a proper social network for mothers and babies.
Ms Jones, by studying a broader set of correct documents you will recognise your error of thinking.
I am, etc.,
ANNE ARTHUR
amecarthur@yahoo.com
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
Distortions in abortion debate
Published: Friday | October 9, 2009
The Editor, Sir:
The abortion debate carried in the newspapers recently has focused on the moral issues. However, the approach of the Mustard Seed poll, although obviously concerned with moral issues, has for many of us distorted the debate by asking questions in such a way that the issue is twisted.
By this means it tries to smear as immoral those who, unlike its sponsors, support a repeal of the legislation on abortion by implying that they support 1) child murder, 2) the use of abortion as a means of birth control, and 3) the denial of rights to conscientious objectors. This is very regrettable and does not help the country to be informed in reaching a decision on abortion.
Morality grapples with the problems of ‘living life’ based on principles of good in an imperfect world. Certainly a core moral principle is a concern for the suffering of others, so the public health aspect of this matter is important. Statistics from the Ministry of Health indicate that between 2003-2007 on average 1,173 women per year were treated for often painful complications (which can include infertility) following unsafe abortions.
One in 12 women die
Statistics from an article in the British medical journal Lancet indicate that about one in 12 women dies from unsafe abortions. In countries where abortion has been legalised, mortality has declined significantly and remains low. Over time, the abortion rate declines as women are counselled regarding appropriate contraceptive choices.
There are those who oppose changing the law, contending that from the moment of conception, the foetus should be treated as a child with the rights of a human being, so they view abortion as murder, although if that foetus was removed from the womb of the mother it could not survive and would not even look like a child. By the definition of full development and viability, therefore, the foetus is not yet a human being, capable of life, but still part of the body of the mother, although with the potential to grow over time into a viable human life.
The question that then arise is: What is life? Life is not just a matter of a material physical existence but a matter of emotional, psychological and spiritual existence. Nature itself may abort a foetus with a physical defect in order to ensure optimal physical existence. But it is we who have the power over optimal emotional, psychological and spiritual existence.
Not all sex acts are between adults able to give informed consent; with numerous documented and undocumented cases of rape, incest and intimate partner abuse. One third of sexually active couples not wanting children do not use a contraceptive.
Lessons of love and forgiveness
One of the difficulties of morality (as indeed Jesus showed on several occasions) is that it is not a matter of black and white. The Christian Church from time to time demonstrates that it has failed to learn some of the teachings of the God it follows, particularly the core, but difficult lessons of love and forgiveness.
This was demonstrated again in the recent abortion case in Italy. Doctors who terminated the twin pregnancy of a nine-year-old girl, repeatedly raped by her stepfather, because they did not think her small body of 80 lbs could safely carry two pregnancies to term, were punished – excommunicated by the Catholic Church along with her mother! There was no reference to the stepfather! A Vatican bishop (there are always exceptions who live according to the spirit of the law) criticised the decision for its insensitivity and lack of mercy. He told the young girl that others merited excommunication, not those who helped her regain hope and trust.
Save lives
Let us not make the same kind of mistake. Let us save lives and eventually reduce pregnancy terminations by supporting the recommendations of the Jamaica Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group to the Ministry of Health, with its careful stipulations. Let’s facilitate an environment in which conception is a responsible act and every newborn child is wanted and loved.
I am, etc.,
JENNIFER JONES
jennyjones33@gmail.com
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
LETTER OF THE DAY – Abortion vs conscience
Published: Thursday | August 27, 2009
Your Letter of the Day, August 6, titled ‘Termination of Pregnancy Bill not punishment’, penned by The Working Group For Women’s Reproductive Health and Rights (WG), is deserving of comments.
Before commenting on the bill, may I express a few concerns on the depth of the abortion debate.
It would seem that a rational debate on abortion would not be complete without considering the impact of the practice of contraception on pregnancy and ultimately the birth of babies. And, the practice of contraception is not restricted to the usage of condoms and tablets. The range of devices is much wider, including from tubal ligation to abstinence.
To exclude the practice of contraception is to begin the debate at the advanced stage of the foetus, thereby concealing some of the fundamental arguments of abortion or other ways by which the desire of not having a baby is achieved. When placed under clinical microscopic examination, the sperm cells trapped inside a condom resemble swimming tadpoles (life-filled and searching for the egg of the female for the purposes of procreation).
One study has shown that one ejaculation of sperm contains over 1,300 sperm cells with the potential of creating as many foetus/babies. Imagine then the potential of a single sex act that produces 15 ejaculations (1,300 x 15 = 19,500 foetuses/babies). Further imagine the chance of survival of such a pregnancy! The carrier would likely burst asunder.
The study has further shown the largest number of babies born from a single pregnancy to be 17. None was larger than a thumb and all died shortly after birth due to their underdevelopment. On the other hand, single births produce developed, healthy and surviving babies more times than not.
The Proposed Legislation
When the sex act is looked at holistically, it drives us to the logical conclusion that to have developed, healthy and surviving babies, the potential of the sex act is drastically diminished internally. It discloses further, that abortion is not restricted to the insertion of medical instrument into the body and the removal of the foetus. The practice of contraception, which we have sugar-coated, commercialised, promoted and marketed as ‘family planning’, also has had the effect of interrupting or aborting the procreation process. Likewise, the intervention of nature (the drastic internal destruction of sperm cells to allow for the development, birth and survival of healthy babies) strongly suggests that abortion is a prerequisite for our survival.
“The proposed bill,” says the WG, “acknowledges that the patient is at the centre of the debate and, therefore, the midwife or practitioner is obliged to refer the patient to another doctor who may provide the service.”
Like Donovan Cole’s ‘Condoning terrible acts’, page B8, The Sunday Gleaner, August 9, 2009, it is awkward and inconsistent to provide for ‘freedom of conscience’ not to perform abortions while imposing responsibility for providing referrals and information to other doctors from whom the service may be obtained.
‘Conscience’ should be unencumbered or unconditional. It should not be coaxed or trapped in a compromising position. Moreso, there seems to be no compelling reason to consider or treat one’s legal right to abortion as a case of emergency, barring incidents of rape and life-threatening circumstances. It should be convenient and sufficient for the Ministry of Health to provide the public with information on the availability of the service and where it can be obtained. Places like post offices, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and other medicare facilities, including private ones which wish to volunteer, should be sufficient outlets for the dissemination of referrals and information.
The proposed legislation should be reviewed with the view to absolving the pro-lifers from having anything to do with the commission of an abortion, including providing referrals and information as to where the service may be obtained.
I am, etc.,
Lionel Russell
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Legalised abortion, the height of discrimination
Published: Monday | August 10, 2009
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WRITE TO contest Doreen McGann’s letter in your publication of August 7. It is an illogical argument to say that since Father Richard Ho Lung has chosen to not get married and have children, he cannot oppose the legalisation of abortion.
It would seem to most of the rest of us that Fr Ho Lung knows more about the sanctity of life than most people. He has spent most of his adult life looking after children and older persons, and this certainly shows his deep concern for people. What pro-abortionists like McGann fail to acknowledge is that at least one human life is involved in any decision to have an abortion.
Legalising abortion is like what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews in the 1940s, where a law was passed that stated that Jews were non-persons and, as such, any other person was allowed to take their lives. A similar thing occurred during slavery in Jamaica and elsewhere. Slaves were considered chattels under the then laws of the various countries. In other words, they were not human and their lives belonged to the slave owner. It is called eugenics.
Pro-abortionists are able to make these irresponsible and cruel arguments because their mothers DID NOT have abortions.
I am, etc.,
John Mais
jrmais@gmail.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
The EU and abortion
Published: Monday | August 3, 2009
Richard Ho Lung – diary of a ghetto priest Some pro-abortionists have proposed that in Jamaica, anyone – doctor, nurse, priest, pastor or guidance counsellor – who rejects or advises against abortion should be charged and found guilty for not performing or not encouraging the performance of the procedure.
While the proposed bill recom-mends punishment for medical personnel who do not perform abortions and refuse to advise the woman where she could have one done, at least one pro-abortion group has recommended punish-ment for persons who speak against abortions in areas where the procedure is done.
We need to understand that abortion is murder. It is the snuffing out of life. Therefore, the new law proposing abortion, and silencing those who are for life, is diabolical. It is a strange reversal of God’s law, ‘Thou shall not kill’.
The European Union (EU) and its powerful material wealth is often exported along with its hedonism, materialism and atheism so foreign to us. Loans or financial gifts tie us to conditions for some countries in the EU. Abortion is one of those conditions. Let us not forget that nothing is free. I believe there is a new slavery in our times, with the principle that money is king. When we owe money, we are slaves. We must comply with the masters.
In a recent speech (March 2009), Ambassador Marco Mazzochi Alemani of the EU stated that the EU did not tie loans or grants to abortion issues. This is not entirely true. It is known that recently the EU Commissioner Ferraro Waldner had Francesca Mosca as his Ambassador threaten the National Parliament of Nicaragua to rescind legislation protecting the life of the unborn. Sweden subsequently cut $20 million in aid to that country.
Consequences
Also, the German Federal Minister for Economics Co-operation and Development, Heidemaine Wieczorek-Zeaul, stated:, “The international community of the donor countries clearly expressed to President Ortega (of Nicaragua) that there will be immediate consequences in terms of development cooperation, if his national piece of legislation is not repealed.” Other European countries such as Sweden and Holland seemed to be pushing, if not bullying, other developing countries in matters of abortion.
As atheism, hedonism and materialism replace Judeo-Christian principles of life, Europe seems to be making a death wish. Its population is declining and the greying of Europe seems to be rapidly happening. Nevertheless, it persists in its policy of sex without consequence.
With the event of population growth among the Muslims and their strict moral principles of pro-life, I believe the United Nations (UN) does not dare to enforce abortion explicitly. However, there are agencies receiving tremendous aid for abortion from Europe and from UN (for example the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). This way, the EU promotes abortion but washes its hands clean by passing on the job to other abortion agencies.
Blood money
I ask the EU Ambassador to Jamaica, Marco Alemani, who disclaims my statement about blood money and abortion: Does the EU promote abortion and tie it to international aid? Does it fund IPPF and the UNFPA which support abortion? Is the EU’s help being given in Jamaica for abortion whether it be direct or indirect? What is the relationship with these two agencies in Jamaica?
I wish that the richer countries that have the means would be truly benevolent and be partners in developing our country and other needy countries. We need to develop family life, education, hospitals, housing and agriculture with money that does not interfere with our own way of living and our beliefs.
I do not want the womb of our mothers to be the killing fields for innocent babies. If abortion is legalised, surely it will become wholesale as has happened in Europe and the United States of America. I do not desire any abortionist to be hurt but to understand the terrible sin committed.
Richard Ho Lung is founder and superior general of Missionaries of the Poor. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Circumstances should not alter abortion law
Published: Thursday | July 30, 2009
THE Editor, Sir:
I would like to point out some problems I found with Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era’s (DAWN) advertorial on Direct Abortion and Public Health published in The Sunday Gleaner of July 26 on page E9.
DAWN alleges that the proposed amendments to the Jamaican abortion law do not support “abortion-on-demand”. Does DAWN itself support abortion-on-demand? The third to last paragraph of their advertorial states “Not every woman is able or willing to mother a child at the time when she gets pregnant. Nor should any woman be forced to do so.” Is this not abortion-on-demand?
The part statement “no matter the circumstances” indicates that DAWN believes that circumstances can make a wrong action right. This is not so. There are three things that make up an action, and all three must be free from defect simultaneously. These three things are: the means, the ends or intentions and the circumstances or consequences. Surely DAWN is familiar with the sayings ‘the ends do not justify the means’ and ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Well, circumstances do not justify the means of direct abortion.
There are just ways of dealing with the mother and the unborn baby as equals when the mother’s life is threatened with impending death, and none of these ways include a direct or procured abortion.
Unlawful
DAWN trips over the word “unlawfully” in the Offences Against the Person Act Section 72. According to the law as published on the Ministry of Justice Jamaica website the wording is “shall unlawfully.” This is a declaration that the intent behind all procured abortions is unlawful. This is brought out again in section 73 of the same Act where unlawful use is equated to the intent to procure abortion for any woman. Section 73 says “instrument … unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman.” The equating word is ‘or’ and the law, by using the word ‘or’ is saying that one is the other, that is, unlawful is the intent to procure abortion.
DAWN, with respect to procured abortion and discerning whether it is right or wrong, the theological and philosophical methods take precedence over all other ways of knowing, including the scientific method. This is so because the question of when is it that a human person is constituted is not a question that science can answer definitively, only in corroboration; but a definitive answer is necessary because such an answer is a fundamental need in the discernment of the legitimacy of procured abortions.
The discernment on procured abortions has been done already by the Catholic Church from the first century AD and all procured abortions have been found to be wrong. All the unborn should be treated as persons from the moment of their conception.
I am, etc.,
ROMAIN G. STEWART
romainstewart@inbox.com
Montego Bay
Jamaica Gleaner Online
Catholic priests take abortion debate to the streets
Published: Wednesday | June 17, 2009
Ho Lung Fathers Gregory Ramkissoon and Richard Ho Lung are taking a new approach in their drive against the legalisation of abortion.
They are seeking direct feedback, from citizens, to their message about defending the lives of the unborn.
At a breakfast hosted by Ho Lung at the Corpus Christi Monastery, downtown Kingston, yesterday, Ramkissoon said he and Ho Lung have had several meetings in the past few months with women in central Kingston, the Rastafarian community and pastors. He said the breakfast was a continuation of their efforts, with approximately 35 pastors attending.
Ho Lung said the group has been well received and that citizens are asking for more.
“We’re going to build it up because many of them want to do it again,” he said of the talks the group has held. “We initiated it, but it’s the people who are calling for more of these meetings because they don’t know much about abortion and they want to learn.”
Facility for babies
Ho Lung is now looking forward to constructing a facility to house 200 babies and 200 mothers at Heroes Circle in Kingston. He said that at that facility, all expenses for the babies would be catered for and all attempts would be made to secure employment for the mothers.
The guest speaker at the event was Dr Wayne West, a member of the Coalition for the Defence of Life, which was formed in response to the deliberations on the possible legalisation of abortion in Jamaica.
During his presentation, West pointed to several arguments that have been presented for legalising abortion but rebuffed each, saying the policies in the United Nations are driving Jamaica to push for abortion policies.
West said there must be a point at which a line is drawn when it comes to taking the life of a living being as this might lead to an erosion of other values to the detriment of society.
“In the not-too-distant future, lots of the traditional values, a lot of the things we hold dear to Judaeo-Christian morals will be swept away under the rights argument. We will not be able to say anything because we will be locked up for hate speech. It’s happening, it’s gonna happen again and we need to do something about it,” he argued.
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
JAMAICA: For an Abortion Law That Reaches the Poor
By Zadie Neufville
KINGSTON, Jun 14, 2009 (IPS) – When a Jamaican women’s group Sistren realised the voices of poor women were missing in a national debate on abortion rights, they boldly staged a play before parliamentarians reviewing a draft law that seeks to clarify when abortion can be deemed legal.Called ‘Slice of Reality’, the performance was aimed to give “a voice to groups of women whose experiences may not otherwise be heard”, says Lana Finikin, Sistren’s executive director. It tells the stories of “poor women who are being robbed of the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies” she told IPS in an interview.The right to abortion is outlawed in Jamaica under an archaic Offenses Against the Persons Act, which is modeled along the lines of an English law of the same name, legislated in 1861. It prescribes life imprisonment for a woman who aborts her foetus and up to three years in jail for the doctor who helps her.The common law under which abortions may be legally carried out, women’s activists say, perpetuates a situation where only the rich are able to take advantage. Abortions are allowed in cases of rape, incest, and extreme abnormality of the foetus or danger to the mother, but the only hospital that provided the service to the poor closed in the mid-90s.
 |
|
|
Sistren’s taut, 10-minute performance on Mar. 12 was one of dozens of presentations before a joint select committee of parliament reviewing the pending Termination of Pregnancy Act. The new law seeks to clarify when abortions can be termed legal.
In Kingston’s tough inner-city communities, an unplanned pregnancy can mean a lifetime of poverty. Abortion which carries a stigma – scorn and social ostracism – is out of the reach of most women. With only a few doctors willing to do the procedure, the cost of a termination is high, starting at 250 dollars, when daily wage workers earn roughly 43 dollars a week.As a result, according to Finikin, many risk their lives in unsafe abortions or by consuming dangerous herbal concoctions or lethal drug combinations to cause miscarriages. Health Ministry data show that between Mar. 1 and Aug. 31, 2005, there were 641 admissions due to complications from botched abortions at the island’s main maternity hospital in Kingston.For more than a year now, the joint select committee has been hearing pro- and anti-abortion arguments as it seeks to re-write the draft legislation.Finikin feels that the debate is confined to the rights of the foetus and the immorality of the act without regard for the reasons why women decide to abort. She is upset that a poor woman who is raped has no choice. “When you tell me that somebody rapes me, that I must walk with that trauma for nine months and then bring it to fruition…” she said, very graphically expressing the pain many women who have to raise a child born out of rape.
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), a Caribbean women’s rights forum, which has been coordinating the campaign for a just abortion law for the poor, issued a statement. “To continue to criminalise abortion puts women’s lives at risk, and suggests that the right of the foetus outweighs the right of women to have control over their own body and life,” it noted.
The Sistren Theatre Collective, one of the members, has been at the forefront of educating women about their rights for more than 32 years.
Meanwhile, the pro-life lobby has several well-known members of the Christian clergy in its ranks including a well-known playwright, actor and Jesuit priest Father Richard HoLung, a longtime advocate for the poor and founder of the Missionaries of the Poor.
They have accused parliamentarians of supporting abortion, “a barbaric and evil” act, in order to secure money for HIV/AIDS programmes from the European Union and the U.S., charges which both have denied.
Opposition member of parliament Lisa Hanna who is on the joint parliamentary committee told IPS that in her rural north coast constituency of South Eastern St. Ann, women and girls who are desperate to end their pregnancy resort to all sorts of life threatening solutions.
Slice of Reality portrays these and other stories of mentally ill or other challenged women and those without social support who are preyed on by abusive men, or girls who are forced into sexual relationships with gunmen in their communities.
In addition, there are teenager victims of incestuous relationships who are sworn to secrecy by their families, and women whose husbands refuse to permit them to access birth control methods.
Lobbying for support for women’s reproductive rights and (access to) abortion, DAWN states “it is a woman’s right to have all options available to her” so she can make an informed decision.
While the common law allows abortions under specified conditions, it “gives doctors the right over women’s lives since not all situations in which women become pregnant, may be strictly in line with the definition provided for under the law”, according to DAWN.
With the hearing almost completed, the parliamentary committee will soon make its recommendations.
“All information taken in these hearings will be taken into consideration. The chairman will make our report to parliament and the legislation will be redrafted,” says MP Hanna. She is optimistic that the committee will be able to table the bill in Jamaica’s lawmaking lower house of parliament by year end.
(END)
Abortion bill similar to Hitler’s ideas, says pastor
Published: Monday | February 23, 2009
Edmond Campbell, Senior Staff ReporterA PRO-LIFE crusader last Thursday argued that a provision in the draft abortion bill bore similar marks to German dictator Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate Germans who had physical or mental disabilities.
Reverend H. Earl Thames told members of the joint select committee considering the report of the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group that Section 5c of the proposed law comes “perilously close” to Hitler’s extermination of deformed people.
The draft legislation provides for pregnancy to be terminated after 22 weeks in special circumstances. It indicates that abortion would be allowed where there is substantial risk that the child would suffer serious physical or mental abnormality if it were to be delivered.
Group taken to task
The Coalition of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn also took the advisory group to task on the permissibility of abortion in circumstances such as the risk of the child being handicap.
Attorney-at-law David C. Henry, who made a presentation on behalf of the group, charged that the draft bill was “manifestly disingenuous and insidious”.
“This smacks of Nazi Germany in which the practice of eugenics was mastered,” he said, adding that the proposed law was moving in a direction that could determine the survival of “the superior race, so to speak”.
Debating the report on abortion from a Judeo-Christian perspective, Reverend Thames declared that both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible showed that God’s plan for human lives started from conception.
According to the clergyman, God said to Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee … and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” He said this indicated that God had a specific plan for the prophet’s life even before he was born.
Abortion should remain unlawful
He argued that no doctor, psychologist or theologian could determine God’s plan for a human life. In that regard, he said abortion should remain unlawful, except in the most extreme cases such as proven threat to the life of the mother.
Reverend Thames said in the case of rape or child abuse, there should not be an automatic abortion, but attempts should be made to preserve the life of the child and counsel the mother to consider adoption. “If the mother insists on an abortion, this should not be treated as a criminal offence, but as the subject of further counselling,” he added.
At the end of its deliberations, the joint select committee considering the report of the abortion policy review advisory group will make its recommendations to Parliament.
The Houses of Parliament are expected to exercise a conscience vote on the controversial proposed bill.
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
Abortion, not adoption – Two women tell how they would prefer termination to giving up the child
Published: Saturday | January 3, 2009
Athaliah Reynolds, Staff ReporterAt least two women who have had abortions say they would rather terminate a pregnancy than give the child up for adoption.
The women were responding to a call recently made by several members of the church community and other anti-abortion advocates for expectant mothers contemplating abortion to take the babies to them instead.
Father Gregory Ramkissoon, executive director of Mustard Seed, threw out the lifeline during a press conference recently, saying his organisation and other churches would be willing to care for children whose mothers believed they could not keep them.
However, the two young professionals who spoke with The Gleaner said they would feel guiltier if they were to carry the baby to term and then give it up for adoption, than they would if they terminated the pregnancy.
“I would feel like I neglected my child,” said 22-year-old Cecile Lyn.
Lyn explained that the idea of carrying a child to full term and then turning it over to an adoption agency or the church would be more traumatic than having an abortion.
“I don’t really see the sense in that,” she said. “Why bond with a child for nine months and then give it away?”
She said her decision to have an abortion three years ago was based on the fact that she had just started university and had no money or support.
Lyn explained that after she told the father of the child that she was pregnant, he broke off the relationship, leaving her to deal with the situation on her own.
“I don’t regret having an abortion. It was the best thing for me to do at that time because I wasn’t ready to be a mother,” she said.
Twenty-six-year-old Karice Sinclairshared Lyn’s sentiments. “I couldn’t sleep at night knowing that my child was alive in one of those homes and is probably suffering and just leave it like that,” she said. Sinclair said she believed that this was a worse fate than abortion.
Sinclair admitted that her decision to have an abortion at 21 years old was a matter of convenience. “I was just starting out, just finished school and I made the silly mistake of getting pregnant,” she told The Gleaner.
Reverend Donovan Cole, a member of the Coalition for the Defense of Life, said it was unfortunate that some persons saw it necessary to put convenience over life. “It shows a real deterioration in values,” he said.
Cole said the Church would be willing to care for the child until the mother was in a position to do so herself.
Debate on abortion intensified in September 2008, when a joint select committee of Parliament began hearing submissions from the public on the controversial issue.
The committee has been set up to consider the recommendations of the Abortion Policy Review Group.
Names changed on request.
athaliah.reynolds@gleanerjm.com
Copyright Jamaica-Gleaner.com
Jamaica Gleaner Online
Abortion could save lives – health professor
published: Monday | July 14, 2008
At least one university professor believes the lives of many Jamaican women are at risk if the practice of abortion remains illegal.
Affette McCaw-Binns, professor of reproductive health epidemi-ology at the University of the West Indies (UWI) Department of Community Health and Psychiatry, said botched abortions are continuing to take the lives of several Jamaican women each year. She argues that this can be reversed if the practice is legalised and carried out under strict guidelines where women are able to have abortions in a safe environment by trained professionals.
The UWI professor’s suggestion comes just days after the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group tabled its report in Parliament last Thursday.
Botched abortions
According to McCaw-Binns, about five women die each year from botched abortions. However, she said hundreds of women are admitted to hospital annually for complications associated with poorly done terminations.
The Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group, in its presentation to Parliament in January, revealed that at one premier hospital in Jamaica, in a period of just six months, there were 641 patients admitted with abortion complications.
McCaw-Binns also pointed out that abortion was the fifth leading cause of maternal death for women over 40 years, and the second-highest cause of maternal death among adolescents.
She said the reality is that whether the practice is legal or not, women would continue to have abortions.
Additionally, contrary to the common notion that only lower-class women were having illegal terminations, she said the ‘Reproductive Health Survey 2002′ showed that one in 20 middle-class women confessed to ending a pregnancy. This compared to one in 50 working-class woman who admitted to having had an abortion procedure done.
“It is happening, but it is happening in a very haphazard way and it is happening in ways that are dangerous to women’s lives,” she said.
“What we want is to create an environment where abortion is not needed, but we also have to have an environment that when it is wanted, it can be delivered safely,” added the UWI professor.
Establish rules
She said if it is made legal, the Government could then establish rules to determine where and when the procedure can be done, and under what circumstances.
McCaw-Binns said medical providers who are registered to do abortions would be licensed and monitored. In addition, regional public facilities, which could provide procedures safely to persons meeting the criteria, would be created.
She further argued that international statistics showed that once abortion is legalised and clinics are operated within proper guidelines, the mortality rate from abortion goes down.
Abortion is the fifth leading cause of maternal death.
Abortion is the second leading cause of maternal death among adolescents.
- Eighty-five per cent were due to induced abortions.
- Only 15 per cent occurred after spontaneous foetal loss or miscarriage.
Macaulay
Jamaica Gleaner Online
THE ABORTION DEBATE
published: Tuesday | March 18, 2008 
Worshippers of the Open Bible Standard Churches of Jamaica at their 59th annual convention at the National Arena on Sunday. The membership voiced their opposition to any move to make abortion legal in Jamaica. – Norman Grindley/Deputy Chief Photographer
Join the abortion debate!The Government is examining possible amendments to the laws relating to abortion in Jamaica. Should abortion be legal? Join the abortion debate. Email us: editor@gleanerjm.com; or fax: 922-6223.
Rev Dr Alston Henry, general superintendent of the Open Bible Standard Churches of Jamaica: “Following an extensive airing of the scientific and sociocultural implications of abortion in Jamaica, made in formal presentations to delegates and the wider constituency attending the 59th annual conference/convention of Open Bible Standard Churches of Jamaica, there has been a registration of strong opposition to any measure designed to introduce legalised abortions in Jamaica. Conference delegates and scores of members of the association’s churches have made their position clear by signing a formal petition which is to be presented to Parliament shortly.”
Freedom of choice
The Editor, Sir:
Freedom of choice is given to all individuals by God. If she is old enough to make her own decision, she should be left alone to do so. There was a case where a woman was ducktaped and raped. She did not see who raped her.
I cannot imagine the trauma. She would need psychiatric and other assistance that she would not even be able to get. I am not saying that I agree for wholesale abortion, but no one has the right to take away the freedom of choice from anyone.
I am, etc.,
Joyce McDonald
Jmcdo62658@optonline.net
Male in support of abortion
The Editor, Sir:
I find rather interesting some of the comments on the abortion issue. I am a male and I love children. I have four of my own, and I see no reason for one to bring a child into this world and let it suffer. I have seen where children are in need, but some of those same people who are ranting against abortion treat their dogs better than adopting one of those children.
So as far as I see, those abortion opponents should ask themselves this simple question, what would I do if I have bad weed in my flower garden choking out my flowers? This will give them the answer because one did not plant a flower garden to get bad weeds. I would rather a woman have an abortion, than the child be born just to be killed or starved to death.
I am, etc.,
Robert Clarke
hotshot_target_5@hotmail.com
Don’t legalise it!
The Editor, Sir:
As a young person, I do not think that the Government should legalise abortion. I have just one simple question for you:
What if your mother had aborted you, would you be the Editor-in-Chief, would there be a Bruce Golding?
Think about it Mr Editor, the next baby that is aborted may be the next doctor who will take care of you when you get older.
I am, etc.,
KOOLBLACKS
Kingston
Blair warns politicians – Hits at campaigns, abortion, gay marriage
published: Monday | August 6, 2007
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and Opposition Leader Bruce Golding participate in a symbolic candle-lighting ceremony yesterday. The two political leaders and other electoral candidates joined in a worship service dubbed ‘Heal Our Land’ at Faith Cathedral Deliverance Centre in St. Andrew. Both leaders read lessons from the Bible. – Ricardo Makyn/Staff Photographer
Bishop Herro Blair, pastor of the Faith Cathedral Deliverance Centre in St. Andrew, yesterday warned politicians that the Church will be watching them closely when campaigning resumes tomorrow.
“Our cameras are on zoom lens and we are going to listen to the speeches as of Tuesday,” Blair, who is also the Political Ombudsman, told a packed congregation, including Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, Opposition Leader Bruce Golding and several electoral candidates for Kingston, St. Andrew and St. Catherine.
Simpson Miller had last month announced that her party would cease campaigning from July 31 to August 6, and urged the religious community to join in prayer and reflection.
The political campaign has become tense in recent weeks with some candidates trading vitriolic remarks. Vandalism and a number of murders and arson attacks have also been linked to political rivalry.
Church still powerful
Last week, some clerics attending a Gleaner Editors’ Forum said the Church was a dismal failure in influencing the nation and its leaders in pursuing justice and political maturity.
But according to Blair, the Church is a powerful force. “I don’t care what nobody has to say, it has not lost its powers.”
The televangelist conceded that it was impossible to eradicate immorality from the society but warned politicians to be careful of hot-button legislation.
“To legalise the murder of an unborn child and to legalise same-sex marriage – it is not here yet – but it is a slap in the face to the Almighty God,” he told the congregation.
