Abortion is from now on one of the seven updated deadly sins for the age of globalisation. The list, published in March in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.
In the 6th century, Pope Gregory the Great laid down seven initial deadly sins or capital vices broadly popularized in the Middle Ages by Dante in “The Inferno”: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy and pride.
Besides abortion, the new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, pedophilia and causing social injustice.
The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence.
Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary, the Vatican body which oversees confessions and plenary indulgences, said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended “the dignity and rights of women,” and pedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the “human and institutional fragility of the Church.”
In order to put the kibosh on abortions of female foetuses (about 500 000 per year), the indian government has announced on March 3 that a new allowance will soon be paid to poor families for them to give birth to the girls and then bring them up. Parents from seven States in the country can expect to earn around 15 500 rupees (253 euros) per each girl raised within the families which meet the criteria under the government scheme.
In India, and particularly in remote and rural areas, families justify their preference for male babies due to the perceived cost of marrying off a daughter and the contrasting anticipated benefits of having a male child. This traditional conception leads to millions of daughters being killed even before they are born.
According to the most recent national census, the country’s gender ratio is 933 females to 1,000 males but in some remote villages the difference is far greater. A recent study published in the medical journal The Lancet reveals that about 10 million female foetuses may have been aborted in India over the past 20 years. The new government scheme is aimed to stop such practices.
With the electronic sex determination tests now offered more and more easily to expectant couples in western countries the practice has grown dramatically over the past few decades. However, the recourse to pre-natal sex determination – except in a few cases – has been banned for more than a decade in India.
And yet such tests and the subsequent abortions of female foetuses continue, even in India’s largest urban areas. Last year a doctor in Gurgaon, the hi-tech satellite city adjoining Delhi, was arrested after admitting to aborting more than 250 such foetuses over the past 10 years.
Families under the scheme announced by the Indian authorities will be required to respect some conditions though. The money will be allocated only once the daughter reaches the age of 18 and can prove that she has been to school. Her nutrition and health will also be checked and for the family to receive the sum, the young woman must not be married.
The project will be tested out in the seven states where girls face the worst discrimination – Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab.
In France, in Italy, in Spain and elsewhere, the Catholic Church uses every trick against contraception and abortion. These attacks are not recent, but nowadays the Church feels all the more powerful since right-wing political parties are willing to help it in its quest.
In the United Kingdom, the Catholic religion, despite its marginal status (or rather because), is for a long time much more influential and militant. Here is an article about the issue of abortion in the UK and in the world. It was written by George Monbiot, and published in the Guardian on February 26, 2008.
I agree with His Eminence about the distress caused by the deaths of unborn children – but his policies will only increase the rate.
Who carries the greatest responsibility for the deaths of unborn children in this country? I accuse the leader of the Catholic church in England and Wales, His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. I charge that he is partly to blame for our abnormally high abortion rate.
Let me begin with a point of agreement. “Whatever our religious creed or political conviction,” Murphy-O’Connor writes, the level of abortion in the UK “can only be a source of distress and profound anguish for us all”. Quite so. But why has it climbed so high? Is it the rising tide of liberalism? The absence of abstinence? Strange as it may seem, the evidence suggests the opposite. [...] Murphy-O’Connor has denounced contraception and abortion many times. That’s what he is there for: the primary purpose of most religions is to control women. But while we may disagree with his position, we seldom question either its consistency or its results. It’s time we started. The most effective means of preventing the deaths of unborn children is to promote contraception.
Source: www.mikhaela.net
I do agree with George Monbiot. I do not recommend abortion as a way of birth control though, but I do believe that abortion should remain accessible to all women and to be offered in a safe medical and sanitary environment. As Monbiot says, a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy will find a way to do it, wheter it is in a private hospital or in terrible conditions. With bad cirumstances surrounding the pregnancy termination, women put their lives at risk and compromise their chances of being pregnant again.
Thirty years after the legalisation of abortion in Italy, women’s associations are back on the streets to fight for their vested right. From Milan to Naples, to Rome or Bologne, they mobilise to defend the 194 law on voluntary termination of pregnancy (V.T.O.P). Because less than two weeks before the Italian legislative elections (13-14 April), the reconsideration of the V.T.O.P is at the heart of the political debate.
Over the course of these recent months, at the instigation of Pope Benedicte XVI, the Catholic Church has increased the pressure against abortion, legalised in 1978 in the Peninsula.
In the campaign for Italian elections this month, abortion has emerged unexpectedly as a major issue. In the lead of the debate is Giuliano Ferrara -a conservative newspaper editor and former government minister- who is even running for parliament on a single point: ending abortion.
Promoter with the other right-wing parties and some figures from the Centre Catholic of the “Family Day” a few months ago, Silvio Berlusconi has declared himself favor to the abortion ban. However, the former Prime Minister is aware that the issue provokes serious divisions amongst the political parties and hesitates as a consequence to patently support Giuliano Ferrara. It is all the more a fussy position for Berlusconi since some elected representatives from his coalition are refusing “to use the issue of the abortion to their own advantage”.
But in a country where the influence of the Church remains important, the temptation of using for political purposes some ideas dear to the Vatican is still strong.
Two decades after a medical abortion became legal in Canada, abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion activists alike marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling that allowed medical professionals to help women end their pregnancies.
On January 28, 1988, Chief Justice Brian Dickson ruled that a Canadian law severely restricting access to medical abortions was unconstitutional because it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Twenty years later, advocates for a woman’s right to an abortion gathered outside Ottawa’s Morgentaler clinic on Bank Street to remember the occasion and discuss the hurdles that remain for women seeking abortions.
But not everyone thought the ruling was a cause for celebration. Louise Harbour, who is a member of the anti-abortion group Action Life Ottawa, said people’s perspective on unplanned pregnancy has changed in the years since the law was struck down.
“It’s as if it’s almost expected that …you will choose an abortion if you find yourself pregnant,” she said. “Is this the best that we can do for women?”
Lisa Middleton, a member of Canadian Youth for Choice, said abortion rights advocates and anti-abortion groups do share some common ground, and the next step in the ongoing debate over abortion rights is for the two sides to work together.
Meanwhile, some abortion rights advocates said hurdles remain for women seeking abortions, such as the ongoing stigma against abortion, continuing opposition by anti-abortion groups and limited access to abortion in some cases.
Between 1969 and 1988, Canadian law stated that abortions could be performed in a hospital if a committee of doctors decided that continuing the pregnancy could endanger the mother’s life or health. Access to abortions varied across the country.
Canada is now one of a small number of countries without a law restricting abortion. An abortion is now treated like any other medical procedure and is governed by provincial and medical regulations.
In the following video, you can see that the debate on abortion is still on, 20 years after its legalisation, which leads to many incients between pro-life and pro-choice advocates: On April 7, 2006 in Vancouver, in front of an abortion clinic, pro-life demonstrator Rose Mawhorter (Campaign Life Coalition BC) is quickly assaulted by a pro-”choice” woman.
On February 6, 2008 in London, more than 400 pro-choice advocates took to the streets in favor of abortion. Protesting outside Central Hall Westminster against the London leg of an anti-abortion road show with Ann Widdecombe MP and Lord David Alton, the crowd waved banners and placards reading “83 per cent support choice”, “no attack on the time limit – defend a woman’s right to choose” and “more abortion rights, not less!”. The pro-choice activists, students, trade unionists, and other protesters gathered to defend women’s right to choose could be heard across at Parliament, while they chanted “our bodies, our lives, our right to decide”, “not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate” and “hey, ho, attack our rights? We say no!”.
The protest showed the strong feeling in support of abortion and against any planned attacks on women’s abortion rights in Parliament by anti-abortion MPs in coming months – particularly on the abortion time limit. The road show with Ann Widdecombe aims to mobilise anti-abortionists to lobby MPs ahead of key votes.
Many leading figures from the British political scene and from women’s rights associations had given their backing to the pro-choice demonstration, including Christine McCafferty MP, Emily Thornberry MP, Fiona McTaggart MP; Baroness Joyce Gould, Baroness Jenny Tonge, Katherine Rake, Director Fawcett Society; Anni Marjoram, Advisor to Mayor of London; Jane Loftus, CWU President; Siobhan Endean, Women’s Officer UNITE the UNION; Sharon Green UNISON; Megan Dobney, Secretary SERTUC; Kat Stark NUS Women’s Officer.
Meanwhile further protests were organised for Liverpool on 12th February, Coventry on 13th February and Cardiff on 4th March 2008. But the more symbolic mobilisation was the one in London for International Women’s Day on 8th March.
The debate on abortion was at the heart of Spain’s general election campaign last March.
In December 2007 already, Prime Minister José Luis Rodrigues Zapatero had reconsidered his initial decision not to “meddle with such a polemic issue” after several private hospitals in Barcelona and Madrid were accused of performing “illegal pregnancy termination”.
Since 1985, women are allowed to have recourse to abortion only in case of rape (before the twelfth week of pregnancy), malformation of the fetus or risk for the physical or psychic health of the mother. In the last case however, which is invoked by 90% of the 100 000 candidates for voluntary termination of pregnancy (V.T.O.P) yearly, the law does not specify any time limit.
This restrictive law which still considers abortion as a crime -even if the practice currently experiences a boom in Spain with 105 000 avortements in 2007, twice as much as in 1997- obviously explains the recent affair in the country, where 29 women were brought before a court for “illegal abortion”.
The scandal first blew up on November 2007 with the arrest of Carlos Morin, a doctor from Barcelona accused of interrupting late pregnancies -up to seven months- for a fee of 600 euros. Since the current law does not impose any time limit when the physical or psychic health of the mother is considered at risk, Morin may have falsified psychiatric reports. As a result of such abuses, every private hospitals -which are responsible for 98% of VTOP in the country- are now targeted by the authorities.
Worried about these attacks to women’s rights, feminists are calling for a reform: up to 12 weeks, a woman should not be obliged to justifiy her choice.
Have a look at France 24’s report to understand what Spanish women experience in their daily lives when it comes to abortion:
Since January 18, 2008 in the French underground and in some train stations, about 600 posters entitled “ Sexuality, contraception, abortion, a right, my choice, our freedom” have been placarded to draw the public’s attention on the difficulties still faced by many women who want to abort in the capital and its suburbs.
The slogan is part of a new campaign launched by the Family Planning in coordination with the region of Ile-de-France (Paris area).
According to the campaigners, Ile-de-France (which is the most populated region of France) is also a “region where the obstacles are becoming more and more numerous when it comes to assert ones rights in terms of abortion. A region where access to abortion remains an hassle”.
The Family Planning claims that the lack of financial and moral care, the important delays or the reduction of the number of medical centres dedicated to abortion often plunge women in a situation of time trial since abortion cannot be performed beyond 12 weeks of pregnancy according to the French law.
For all these reasons, it is said that 3 000 to 5 000 women are forced every year in France to terminate their pregnancy abroad. Women who live in Ile-de-France, Provence-Alpes-Cotes d’Azur and Outre-Mer regions are said to be the most exposed to difficulties during the tiring process of abortion (Source French Movement for Family Planning).
More than a matter of law, the question of intolerance seems to be the main ongoing obstacle to abortion in France, 33 years after its legalisation, pushed forward by the famous French lawyer and politician Simone Veil in 1975.
For the pro-life movement, the campaign is obviously an “advertising in favour of abortion”. People opposed to interruption of pregnancy are still numerous in France, and that despite some recent declarations from the government defending the right of women to abort. On Saturday 19, 2008, an handful of anti-abortion militants organised a “march for life”.
The new legislation on abortion is finally effective since last July 15 in Portugal. The new law, which has been approved by very large majority in Parliament on 8th March 2007, legitimates VTOP for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Women who want to have recourse to abortion during this period of time will have first to be advised and fully informed by a doctor and after a time for reflection of 3 days, the surgical operation will have to be done in an hospital or an accredited clinic.
However, the enforcement of the law is meeting some difficulties, since a large number of medical practitioners still refuse to go in for abortion.
The Socialist Party, the Communist Party, the Left Bloc and 21 deputees from the Social Democratic Party represented in the Assembly of the Republic approved the Bill. The CDS-PP (Democratic Social Center/People’s Party – Right) voted against the proposed legislation and tried for a while to convince the Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva to veto it.
The previous legislation, from 1984, was one of the most restrictive in the European Union. Women found guilty of having aborted faced sentences up to 3 years in prison, except in case of rape, malformed fetus or if the woman’s life was in danger.
According to a study published by the Association for the family planning in December 2007, 18.000 Portuguese women aborted illegally in 2006.
On October 27th, 2006, a new law was passed in Nicaragua. This law bans voluntary termination of pregnancy (V.T.O.P) in ANY circumstances, and that even if the woman gets pregnant after having been raped. Before the reinforcement of the legislation, the clinical operation was authorised for medical reasons or when the pregnancy was harmful for the woman’s life.
Following an intense pressure from the Church as well as from the pro-life movement, a total interdiction is from that time in force in the country. The ban has also received support from the President and almost all the political parties in Nicaragua.
The consequences of such a law are easy to guess: millions of women might die in labour, innumerable teenagers might deliver babies whom they will not be able to take care, and more and more women might have to resort to illegal pregnancy termination.
We should not neglect that in Nicaragua, one out of three girls is victim of sexual abuse during her lifetime (Source: Oxfam).
This law is clearly an infringement to women and children’s rights.
