Abortion has been always been a very contentious issue.   A more facile 
statement I would be hard pressed to concoct.

This practice has been going on since the beginning of mankind.  Varied people 
in different situations have reacted in diverse fashions to the practice.  
Those in society, seen as its pillars, outwardly at least, have almost always 
reflexively frowned.  Seeing it, in all circumstances, as murder with all the 
moral baggage that this awful act entails or a sign of the mother’s immorality 
and hence deserving of condemnation and punishment. 

Those guided by a moral compass will almost always admit no mitigation in their 
stance for the sanctity of life and hence are in favour of an automatic 
abrogation of any rights of the mother to be.  

The ‘pillars of society’ type are rarely  swayed by the question of morality 
but are  almost always driven by societal perceptions of good and bad and damn 
the consequences.  Almost always.  There are people of course who want to 
ensure that society does not fall prey to sexual immorality et al and think 
that abortion will loosen the bonds that maintain cohesion and tradition within 
society.

This categorisation will I think broadly cover the most significant proportion 
of those amongst the anti-abortion lobby.

In the pro-abortion lot, I believe, there are those who reflexively react 
adversely against any restraint or restrictions imposed on individual liberty.  
Then there are those for whom the foetus has no human rights as they do not 
consider it human till birth or very late in the pregnancy.

There are obviously finer differences amongst the pro-abortion lobby, but 
generally the camps defined in the preceding paragraph cover the gamut of the 
group.

The argument has become more heated and pertinent as science has advanced the 
borders that permit us to delve into the mysteries of blossoming motherhood:  
to chart the journey of a foetus and monitor its physical and emotional 
development with a mind blowing precision. 

I am no man of science.  I must however, admit to being a fan of scientists.  I 
believe they are a part of the human race, endowed with the ability, to 
increase our perception of the workings of the ALMIGHTY.

Which brings me neatly to admitting that I believe in the a religion that will 
not accept the killings of the un-born, except in extreme exigency.

To make another facile declaration: there are personal axe grinders in both 
camps, as there are hypocrites.  In both camps there are people who when the 
shoe is on the other foot or when placed in a situation that would test them 
severely will change their preferred stance.

All that I’ve written above is accepted wisdom.  

The reason I’ve reiterated it is because in all the heat and hullabaloo we seem 
to forget that our beliefs, all our beliefs, held with fervour and faith and 
inspired by religion or rationality, makes us lose sight of the others point of 
view.

I will not judge, in this posting, either camp.  I will however, use this 
opportunity to condemn, any extremist school of thought that prompts violence 
and unnecessary vitriol.

To those who do not have any religious allegiance I would urge tolerance of 
their fellow beings who are inspired by their faith that allocates spirituality 
to GOD’S creations at every stage of their development.  
Those amongst us driven by religious precepts should, I believe, place their 
faith in the ALMIGHTY we worship and bank on HIS wisdom and glory to take care 
of his own.

As for the state backing either camp, I think its neutrality is essential in 
this debate.  And more importantly it will  prompt less acrimony.

There is however, one position of the pro-abortion lobby that I feel I cannot 
support. 

I cannot support the backing of the state for sponsored abortions.  Unless the 
life of the mother is in jeopardy or some such extreme exigency.

And the reason I take this stand is simply because: if we call for neutrality 
from the state, than the views of all its taxpayers must be respected.

Just as the pro-abortionists want their taxes to sponsor their viewpoints; the 
anti-abortionists find this practice an anathema.  

In fairness to both camps, abortions not compelled by extremely unusual 
circumstances should not be available in state sponsored health services.

Sincerely

Xanno Moidecar 



Xanno Moidecar



Reply via email to