Professional Mother,
Given the heat it has drawn, the abortion debate has erroneously been depicted as a battle drawn between the “conservative patriarchal” Church and “progressive feminist” thinkers.
And so as not to be swayed by any of these two schools of thought, let us, for once, put our passions, emotions and prejudices aside and discuss this contentious issue from an angle devoid of religious connotations.
There is no contradiction on the universally accepted fact that a human being is the subject of inalienable rights; and that no right is more fundamental than the right to life itself. This right to life is inviolable from the beginning of the process of conception to its natural death.
As it were, human existence does not belong to society nor does it belong to public authority so that the right to life for some people will be recognised and not for others. Rather, as citizens of this country, we have the sole duty to guard with utmost care and promote all human life.
And because the right to life demands recognition, the Constitution of this country has to provide clearly and definitively a base for the protection and sustenance of the right to life without inserting clauses that would antagonise the most fundamental rights.
In this light, the short range result of an undefined Clause on The Right to Life or the inclusion of clauses that contradict life in the Constitution would, as sure as night follows day, be legislation of abortion and its associated vices. Once people subordinate life in the early stages of its development to any other values; they thereby forfeit any future appeal to a legal system that can logically protect human life at any other point.
This means that the acceptance of abortion will open, in principle, the right to terminate human life at the end as well as at any point in between when that life is perceived to be burdensome or unwanted. Thus before long, we will have to grapple with demands for legalised euthanasia. The vices of abortion and euthanasia are directly linked to other heinous abuses to life which include infanticide, paedophilia and necrophilia.
Those who hold the reigns of government therefore, should not forget that it is the duty of public authority, by appropriate laws and sanctions, to defend the lives of the innocent. And this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves.
Now, to accept the fact that after fertilisation has taken place a new human being has come into being is no longer a matter of tests or of opinion. This is because the human nature of the human being from conception to old age is no more a metaphysical contention but rather plain experimented scientific evidence.
Modern molecular biology teaches us that all living organisms begin with living and not dead cells. That a new human life, which is a much later outcome, is the result of the culmination of two living and healthy cells – the ovum and the sperm.
Further, science elaborates that from the moment that the ovum is fertilised, a new and unique human life is begun. Contained in each cell are the distinct blueprints for the genetic heritage as well as future essential characteristics of the new human being, which include sex, intellectual potentials, facts of character and temperament.
Logically, this new life would never be made human if it were not human already. Differently put: can a dead cell form a live zygote or foetus?
Science has also shown univocally that there does not exist any pre-human stage of the embryo in the mother’s body. From the moment of fertilisation on, only one and the same individual develops. It is not as if at a certain point in time a change is effected as to make the organism pass from animality to humanity.
In the case of test tube babies, after the sperm and the egg have been harvested and fused on a Petri dish, there is nothing else added to give the baby life, except to transfer him to the uterine walls of its foster mother. This gives the best technical answer, with no theoretical consideration, that the life of that baby began at the moment of the fusion of the sperm and ovum and not with the implantation inside its surrogate mother.
The afore-mentioned affirmations do not stem from theological or ideological pre-conceptions. It is a question of realities that cannot be explained in any way other than science.
With these very elementary scientific facts, would we still want to wish-think that the fertilised ovum is a non-entity until after nine months? Or that it is a mere excrescence of the body of the mother? Or until someone proclaims that it is a living being? Or simply accept that the humanness of a person is less human because some people are unable to recognise the humanness at the very first nuance?
It is true that some circumstances which may face a pregnant woman sometimes explain why people resort to abortion. But even then another fact remains that abortion never puts an end to social distress. It only adds to the tragedy.
As regards cases where abortion is the only way of saving the mothers health, let it be known that today medical opinion is virtually unanimous that cases where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life are fortunately so rare that their existence is becoming merely theoretical. In any case, as practitioners called to serve and save life, they would be expected to work towards saving the lives of both the mother and the child.
So when we see men and women who, by their very training and oath are supposed to protect human life, rooting for abortion, we should be wary; very wary.
The author is a professional mother
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Constitution – Good Draft in Mortal Danger
William Maema*
The jury is out: most Kenyans are in agreement that the draft Constitution currently being debated in and outside Parliament is the best effort yet in finding an acceptable Constitution for the country after a twenty-year barren search and billions of shillings in the drain.
The draft Constitution has, against all odds, received an almost universal thumbs up from both eternal cynics and the usually antagonistic forces across the political divide.
Unfortunately, however, two vexing issues have emerged to pose a real mortal danger to the enactment of the new Constitution, namely, the perceived backdoor legalization of abortion and the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Whereas the charge against the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution has been led almost single-handedly by Christians based on what appears to be religious rather than legal reasons, the opposition to the legalization of abortion has received the undiluted support of practically all faiths, Christians and Muslims alike.
My own take is that unless an urgent deal is struck on these issues, the fate of the draft Constitution is as good as sealed, come the national referendum in a few months’ time.
The most potent missile aimed at the draft Constitution is the perceived legalization of abortion.
As any first year constitutional law student would confirm, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. By the same analogy, a Christian would hold that the law of God is the supreme law of the universe and any human law, including any Constitution, which is inconsistent with God’s law is null and void in its entirety, irrespective of the extent of the inconsistency.
The right to life is God-given and, therefore, according to Christian thought, no human law can negate it. Granted that even the Bible recognizes the death penalty under certain circumstances, there is no known religion or civilized culture which permits the killing of innocent persons, leave alone defenseless children by their own mothers.
The drafters of the new Constitution, probably acting under pressure from the proponents of “safe motherhood” and “reproductive health” (euphemisms for abortion), seem to have misread the mood of the majority of Kenyans on this issue. Having conceded that life begins at conception and that it is entitled to protection under the Constitution, they should not have gone out on an appeasement mission to create ridiculous and untenable exceptions to the right to life. By creating such exceptions, they have literally taken away by the left hand that which they had given Kenyans by the right hand.
To allow any medical practitioner, irrespective of his qualifications, experience or moral standing to decide whether a pregnancy should be terminated amounts to handing a signed death sentence to innocent children at the hands of professional abortionists.
What constitutes “danger to life or health of the mother”? As any gynaecologist will confirm, any pregnancy, no matter how trouble-free, potentially presents danger to the life and health of the mother. For example, a pregnant woman might suffer acute loss of appetite due to pregnancy which might be construed as danger to her health or even life. Similarly, the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy by any woman poses some danger to her mental and physical health. According to the draft Constitution, pregnancy should be terminated under circumstances such as these.
Abortion is also to be allowed “if it is permitted by any other written law”. This is the most blatant step towards the legalization of abortion yet. While currently such a law does not exist, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from passing such a law in future since it is already contemplated in the draft Constitution.
Kenyans have, of course, not forgotten that there is a Bill in the current Parliament’s register – The Reproductive Health Rights Bill, 2007 – which aims at making abortion legal in Kenya. Is this provision meant to pave way for the passage of that Bill?
Will the religious groups relent and support the draft Constitution? This is highly doubtful for the following reasons:-
First, most religions do not accept that the life of a mother is more precious than that of her unborn child since they both are created in the image of God and each is entitled to life independent of the other. On this basis, any qualification imposed on the right to life based on the preservation of the mother’s life or health at the expense of the child is unlikely to find favour with the religious groups. To that extent, Article 26(4) is fatally flawed and incapable of remedy by way of amendment and must be deleted.
Second, ironically, the right to life is not even a religious issue as such. It is a human rights issue and the religious groups are merely acting as the defender of what in reality is a universal value in all cultures i.e. the preservation of human life in all its forms.
Third, the opposition to abortion is premised on the belief that its legalization will usher in what the religious groups call the “culture of death” from which the Kenyan society will never recover.
Lastly, apart from it being illegal, abortion is a deep moral issue with profound psychological and physiological consequences which can only be appreciated and dealt with by the person concerned, whether the abortion was procured legally or illegally.
On the Kadhi’s courts, the opponents posit that the historical reasons that led to the Kadhi’s courts being enshrined in the current Constitution no longer exist. These courts were a political compromise between the Sultan of Zanzibar (who then ruled the 10 mile coastal strip) and the nascent independence Government to cajole that region to become part of Kenya. Being a minority faith, Muslims feared that the Government would later on renege on the promise and subject matters of Islamic personal law (marriage, divorce and succession) to the secular judicial system. The Government was forced to guarantee this promise by entrenching the Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Unlike in 1963, Muslims are today fully integrated into the Kenyan society and it would be unthinkable and foolhardy for any government (or Parliament) to ever contemplate antagonizing them needlessly by denying them the right to have Kadhi’s courts even if they were not enshrined in the Constitution.
The majority of Kenyans seem to be saying that Kadhi’s courts should continue to exist but they should be established by the same law under which other courts of similar level are established, that is, the Judicature Act and not the Constitution.
Parliament can salvage the draft Constitution by recommending the above amendments to the Attorney General within the thirty (30) day window of opportunity provided for by the Review law. If it fails to do so, we shall, unfortunately, be back to square one, which is a big pity considering the huge financial and intellectual capital that has gone into this process.
Will Parliament do it? Only time will tell.
*The writer is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, wmaema@ikm.co.ke
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
The jury is out: most Kenyans are in agreement that the draft Constitution currently being debated in and outside Parliament is the best effort yet in finding an acceptable Constitution for the country after a twenty-year barren search and billions of shillings in the drain.
The draft Constitution has, against all odds, received an almost universal thumbs up from both eternal cynics and the usually antagonistic forces across the political divide.
Unfortunately, however, two vexing issues have emerged to pose a real mortal danger to the enactment of the new Constitution, namely, the perceived backdoor legalization of abortion and the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Whereas the charge against the entrenchment of Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution has been led almost single-handedly by Christians based on what appears to be religious rather than legal reasons, the opposition to the legalization of abortion has received the undiluted support of practically all faiths, Christians and Muslims alike.
My own take is that unless an urgent deal is struck on these issues, the fate of the draft Constitution is as good as sealed, come the national referendum in a few months’ time.
The most potent missile aimed at the draft Constitution is the perceived legalization of abortion.
As any first year constitutional law student would confirm, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void to the extent of that inconsistency. By the same analogy, a Christian would hold that the law of God is the supreme law of the universe and any human law, including any Constitution, which is inconsistent with God’s law is null and void in its entirety, irrespective of the extent of the inconsistency.
The right to life is God-given and, therefore, according to Christian thought, no human law can negate it. Granted that even the Bible recognizes the death penalty under certain circumstances, there is no known religion or civilized culture which permits the killing of innocent persons, leave alone defenseless children by their own mothers.
The drafters of the new Constitution, probably acting under pressure from the proponents of “safe motherhood” and “reproductive health” (euphemisms for abortion), seem to have misread the mood of the majority of Kenyans on this issue. Having conceded that life begins at conception and that it is entitled to protection under the Constitution, they should not have gone out on an appeasement mission to create ridiculous and untenable exceptions to the right to life. By creating such exceptions, they have literally taken away by the left hand that which they had given Kenyans by the right hand.
To allow any medical practitioner, irrespective of his qualifications, experience or moral standing to decide whether a pregnancy should be terminated amounts to handing a signed death sentence to innocent children at the hands of professional abortionists.
What constitutes “danger to life or health of the mother”? As any gynaecologist will confirm, any pregnancy, no matter how trouble-free, potentially presents danger to the life and health of the mother. For example, a pregnant woman might suffer acute loss of appetite due to pregnancy which might be construed as danger to her health or even life. Similarly, the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy by any woman poses some danger to her mental and physical health. According to the draft Constitution, pregnancy should be terminated under circumstances such as these.
Abortion is also to be allowed “if it is permitted by any other written law”. This is the most blatant step towards the legalization of abortion yet. While currently such a law does not exist, there is nothing to prevent Parliament from passing such a law in future since it is already contemplated in the draft Constitution.
Kenyans have, of course, not forgotten that there is a Bill in the current Parliament’s register – The Reproductive Health Rights Bill, 2007 – which aims at making abortion legal in Kenya. Is this provision meant to pave way for the passage of that Bill?
Will the religious groups relent and support the draft Constitution? This is highly doubtful for the following reasons:-
First, most religions do not accept that the life of a mother is more precious than that of her unborn child since they both are created in the image of God and each is entitled to life independent of the other. On this basis, any qualification imposed on the right to life based on the preservation of the mother’s life or health at the expense of the child is unlikely to find favour with the religious groups. To that extent, Article 26(4) is fatally flawed and incapable of remedy by way of amendment and must be deleted.
Second, ironically, the right to life is not even a religious issue as such. It is a human rights issue and the religious groups are merely acting as the defender of what in reality is a universal value in all cultures i.e. the preservation of human life in all its forms.
Third, the opposition to abortion is premised on the belief that its legalization will usher in what the religious groups call the “culture of death” from which the Kenyan society will never recover.
Lastly, apart from it being illegal, abortion is a deep moral issue with profound psychological and physiological consequences which can only be appreciated and dealt with by the person concerned, whether the abortion was procured legally or illegally.
On the Kadhi’s courts, the opponents posit that the historical reasons that led to the Kadhi’s courts being enshrined in the current Constitution no longer exist. These courts were a political compromise between the Sultan of Zanzibar (who then ruled the 10 mile coastal strip) and the nascent independence Government to cajole that region to become part of Kenya. Being a minority faith, Muslims feared that the Government would later on renege on the promise and subject matters of Islamic personal law (marriage, divorce and succession) to the secular judicial system. The Government was forced to guarantee this promise by entrenching the Kadhi’s courts in the Constitution.
Unlike in 1963, Muslims are today fully integrated into the Kenyan society and it would be unthinkable and foolhardy for any government (or Parliament) to ever contemplate antagonizing them needlessly by denying them the right to have Kadhi’s courts even if they were not enshrined in the Constitution.
The majority of Kenyans seem to be saying that Kadhi’s courts should continue to exist but they should be established by the same law under which other courts of similar level are established, that is, the Judicature Act and not the Constitution.
Parliament can salvage the draft Constitution by recommending the above amendments to the Attorney General within the thirty (30) day window of opportunity provided for by the Review law. If it fails to do so, we shall, unfortunately, be back to square one, which is a big pity considering the huge financial and intellectual capital that has gone into this process.
Will Parliament do it? Only time will tell.
*The writer is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, wmaema@ikm.co.ke
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Heaven Editor
Henry Makori*
My friend and I call him the Africa Editor in Heaven’s newsroom. Peter, as I shall call him because I do not wish to reveal his real name, was in his late 30s when we first met. A very neat and calm gentleman with a wide smile and a boundless sense of humour, he looked every inch a Catholic priest. But Peter was a Catholic journalist. We easily became friends.
Not long afterwards, I heard in our office that Peter was a former priest. My ears flapped in disbelief. But though we spoke freely, I shied away from asking him about it because I had never met an ex-priest. I also feared I could hurt him by asking – in case he had not fully recovered from the trauma of his quitting. And, to be honest, I had concluded he had done a horrible thing abandoning his holy calling.
In 2006, Peter went on his annual leave but did not return. Soon after, he told us he had got a better job. We were very happy for him. (We all endured, not enjoyed, our salaries.) And then Peter was diagnosed with cancer and hospitalized. We visited him. At his bedside was a woman who Peter, not very much bothered with his terrible illness, introduced as his wife – of course with a joke or two.
It was around that time I learned that Peter had actually been a Catholic priest. Several years back he had decided to leave. He requested to be released from the clerical state, but the church authorities were still studying his file. Meanwhile, he moved on with his life. He got a job and a woman. They had a little daughter.
Peter recovered and returned to work, but for only a short time. He was back in hospital again, seriously ill. One day the bad news came. Peter had died. His funeral in his rural home was a dismal affair. The church authorities and the many priests, nuns and religious who knew him stayed away.
I remember my late friend Peter in this Year of the Priest because in Africa today there are priests who find themselves in a situation similar to his. Those who want to leave the clerical state find it very difficult. In his biography, the retired Archbishop of Nairobi Ndingi Mwana ‘a Nzeki recounts how he tried to stop a priest from quitting, including sending him away to another diocese and outside the country for studies. But still the priest married the nun he had had a child with.
And then there are priests who want to have a wife and continue serving. Because this is not possible in current church practice, they have to leave to form or join ‘splinter’ churches. There have been several such cases in Kenya and other countries. Perhaps the biggest ever exodus in Africa was the departure in Uganda of 20 priests in January.
The Catholic Church has its own valid reasons for insisting on clerical celibacy, although we know that this is not a doctrine but ecclesiastical discipline. (As my friend Peter would have joked, it is not necessary to the priesthood or for salvation.) But Catholics can not ignore the fact that celibacy has caused misery to some people and that it is causing division within the church.
Yes, it may be true that priests who have difficulties with celibacy are only a handful and that most priests live their celibacy joyfully. Yes, no one is forced into celibate priesthood. And indeed throughout history there have been Christians who found difficulties with a certain church practice, so this is nothing new. The mere fact that a practice makes demands on us is no good reason to reject it. Moreover, the church has withstood a lot of arguments and splits down the ages.
We must, however, admit that mandatory celibacy for priests is a really divisive issue. The priests who quit may be few but, as Jesus teaches, the Good Shepherd is never content because he has 99 sheep and only one has strayed. Instead, he leaves the 99 in the hills and does not return until he has found the one that strayed (Matt. 18: 12-14).
My friend ‘Peter’, Heaven’s Africa Editor, went to his grave without the church granting his request to be freed from mandatory clerical celibacy. Today, there are priests in a similar situation. Others do not really practice celibacy and quietly know that they would be happier serving the church while married. Is it not time the church, like the Good Shepherd, ventured out of its own disciplinary territory to search for the stray sheep? Isn’t the present crisis a call to the church to attempt new thinking about mandatory priestly celibacy?
*Henry Makori, Works for Media Institute in Kenya
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
My friend and I call him the Africa Editor in Heaven’s newsroom. Peter, as I shall call him because I do not wish to reveal his real name, was in his late 30s when we first met. A very neat and calm gentleman with a wide smile and a boundless sense of humour, he looked every inch a Catholic priest. But Peter was a Catholic journalist. We easily became friends.
Not long afterwards, I heard in our office that Peter was a former priest. My ears flapped in disbelief. But though we spoke freely, I shied away from asking him about it because I had never met an ex-priest. I also feared I could hurt him by asking – in case he had not fully recovered from the trauma of his quitting. And, to be honest, I had concluded he had done a horrible thing abandoning his holy calling.
In 2006, Peter went on his annual leave but did not return. Soon after, he told us he had got a better job. We were very happy for him. (We all endured, not enjoyed, our salaries.) And then Peter was diagnosed with cancer and hospitalized. We visited him. At his bedside was a woman who Peter, not very much bothered with his terrible illness, introduced as his wife – of course with a joke or two.
It was around that time I learned that Peter had actually been a Catholic priest. Several years back he had decided to leave. He requested to be released from the clerical state, but the church authorities were still studying his file. Meanwhile, he moved on with his life. He got a job and a woman. They had a little daughter.
Peter recovered and returned to work, but for only a short time. He was back in hospital again, seriously ill. One day the bad news came. Peter had died. His funeral in his rural home was a dismal affair. The church authorities and the many priests, nuns and religious who knew him stayed away.
I remember my late friend Peter in this Year of the Priest because in Africa today there are priests who find themselves in a situation similar to his. Those who want to leave the clerical state find it very difficult. In his biography, the retired Archbishop of Nairobi Ndingi Mwana ‘a Nzeki recounts how he tried to stop a priest from quitting, including sending him away to another diocese and outside the country for studies. But still the priest married the nun he had had a child with.
And then there are priests who want to have a wife and continue serving. Because this is not possible in current church practice, they have to leave to form or join ‘splinter’ churches. There have been several such cases in Kenya and other countries. Perhaps the biggest ever exodus in Africa was the departure in Uganda of 20 priests in January.
The Catholic Church has its own valid reasons for insisting on clerical celibacy, although we know that this is not a doctrine but ecclesiastical discipline. (As my friend Peter would have joked, it is not necessary to the priesthood or for salvation.) But Catholics can not ignore the fact that celibacy has caused misery to some people and that it is causing division within the church.
Yes, it may be true that priests who have difficulties with celibacy are only a handful and that most priests live their celibacy joyfully. Yes, no one is forced into celibate priesthood. And indeed throughout history there have been Christians who found difficulties with a certain church practice, so this is nothing new. The mere fact that a practice makes demands on us is no good reason to reject it. Moreover, the church has withstood a lot of arguments and splits down the ages.
We must, however, admit that mandatory celibacy for priests is a really divisive issue. The priests who quit may be few but, as Jesus teaches, the Good Shepherd is never content because he has 99 sheep and only one has strayed. Instead, he leaves the 99 in the hills and does not return until he has found the one that strayed (Matt. 18: 12-14).
My friend ‘Peter’, Heaven’s Africa Editor, went to his grave without the church granting his request to be freed from mandatory clerical celibacy. Today, there are priests in a similar situation. Others do not really practice celibacy and quietly know that they would be happier serving the church while married. Is it not time the church, like the Good Shepherd, ventured out of its own disciplinary territory to search for the stray sheep? Isn’t the present crisis a call to the church to attempt new thinking about mandatory priestly celibacy?
*Henry Makori, Works for Media Institute in Kenya
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Friday, February 5, 2010
OPINION: Life from Conception to Birth
Fr Pascal Mwambi*
Altering Definition of Beginning of Life from Conception to Birth is a Denial of the Entire Process of Generation
The parliamentary select committee, which I believe is composed of experts from various related areas, cannot affirm that life starts at birth unless motivated by other selfish motives and anti- life mentality ready to destroy many lives before birth. Biologists, scientists and doctors should not be ashamed to affirm empirical facts about the process of new human organism right away from fertilization leading to the time the pro nucleus come close to each other exchanging the genetic information, thereby the reading and activation of the DNA.
After seven weeks (embryo stage), the new organism has all the organs formed awaiting gradual development. That unborn baby is not in potency but already life in act. There is no single moment we can say that he or she isn’t a human person. Even in cases where there is splitting or monozygotic twins, there are two or more lives so long as there was already a cell neither of the male nor female but of the fusion of both the sperm and ova. There is an autonomous and continuous growth of the baby together with a cross dialogue with the mother who should be the first “Advocatus ventrus” (advocate of the womb) to the child.
There is more to do in the debate than just about legalizing abortion. Once they (pro choice) manage to delay the recognition of a living human being, who is a person entitled to rights and dignity just as any other adult living being; then doors are open for all manipulations, research and experiments on the embryo.
With the precocious (premature) diagnosis of the pregnant women, any indications of abnormalities, hereditary, genetic, chromosomal pathologies will lead to eugenic or selective abortion so long as the unborn baby is not a living person juridically recognized. The same denial will lead to medically assisted ways of fertilization which will ignore or replace the conjugal act, therefore separation between sexual union and procreation.
Reasons that do not allow completion of pregnancy may include pre-mature births (miscarriages), abortions and deaths. The argument that not all conceptions lead to birth will be a more vibrant reality when they allow discrimination of the unborn children. They (doctors) will be the ones to procure abortions or encourage women do so. When it comes to rape cases, we agree it’s a regrettable crime. Sincerely looking at it, who is the aggressor? The conceived child-no, but the man involved. Nature just takes its cause which the so called experts are trying to ignore or deny by saying life starts at birth. Sometimes the figures of these cases of rape or clandestine abortions are exaggerated for the purpose of influencing the public. There are options which the church allows in such cases of rape. In order to avoid that the sperm of the aggressor causes more harm to the woman’s body, she can immediately seek medical attention within the first few hours in order to have a virginal bath before the male gamete meets the female one. The other option could be to use a STRICTLY non abortive contraceptive which unfortunately could be difficult to get nowadays.
We are still at the right track so long as the draft is not yet approved. We have all the power now to make sure that no unjust law, against its own citizens will be approved. Legalization of abortion has not reduced abortion cases (even clandestine ones) in countries where it’s applied. The bishops are conscious of the divine mandate to defend life. Any society, (civil or not), which cannot defend life from its start, is against its own existence.
The state needs to acknowledge the right to life but has no mandate to create or abolish it since it exists in the natural moral law. Any law which does not respect the equal dignity of every single person regardless of their capabilities, age, gender, health, (….) has no reason at all of being recognized. The very fact that there is a human person in the play we should be cautious about it. None of the universal declarations (1948), conventions of rights of the child (1989) or charters denies that life begins at conception. That is an undeniable fact which when approved, puts all science and biology in a dilemma of their own lie. Science gives us the facts, which they themselves want to deny. We are called to go beyond the facts and arrive at the intelligence (truth) which only human beings are endowed with, to realise that truth about our existence cannot be hidden.
There word “rights” quoted often by lobby groups is misleading. We never have a right to possess or not to possess a child since she/he is not a property. The medical practitioners have no right too, despite their expertise to eliminate any life. Their conscience will never be at peace just like that of a mother who decides to abort for whatever reason. The post abortion trauma will be deeper than the crime of rape or its wound. The life of an unborn child is equally worthy of the same dignity to that of the born child, even in terms of medical health dangers. It’s a matter of fundamental rights (life) are highest goods (health) where none of the two lives (mother and child) can be foregone. A person is an end in him/herself and can’t be disposed of for the sake of the other for whatever reason. Thus, killing a baby to save the mother’s life is unthinkable.
The shortage of doctors (doctor-patient ration) is an issue of concern so long as they do what is expected of them. A medical act will be such when it’s geared towards the integral good of the person (to cure) or restore health. Abortion is not and will never be a medical act, since its objective is exclusively to eliminate life of an innocent human being. No doctor should be prohibited from assisting mothers in need of help even after a spontaneous abortion since this has nothing to do with voluntary or procured abortions, illegally called therapeutic.
The sanitary reforms going on in the US have spurred protests recently. The president of the priests for life, Fr Frank Pavone is actively involved. One of the issues in the just ended demonstrations was that rich countries should stop using tax payers’ money to kill unborn human beings in the poor and developing countries. Our leaders should be ready to lose economic support from these donors rather than be pressurized to legalize abortion as a condition for aid.
I pray and hope that we will put our efforts together in defending, protecting and promoting life of our innocent brothers and sisters. It’s not a matter of just changing the clause in the draft but a matter of saving lives of future generations.
*Fr Pascal Mwambi, Rome
Altering Definition of Beginning of Life from Conception to Birth is a Denial of the Entire Process of Generation
The parliamentary select committee, which I believe is composed of experts from various related areas, cannot affirm that life starts at birth unless motivated by other selfish motives and anti- life mentality ready to destroy many lives before birth. Biologists, scientists and doctors should not be ashamed to affirm empirical facts about the process of new human organism right away from fertilization leading to the time the pro nucleus come close to each other exchanging the genetic information, thereby the reading and activation of the DNA.
After seven weeks (embryo stage), the new organism has all the organs formed awaiting gradual development. That unborn baby is not in potency but already life in act. There is no single moment we can say that he or she isn’t a human person. Even in cases where there is splitting or monozygotic twins, there are two or more lives so long as there was already a cell neither of the male nor female but of the fusion of both the sperm and ova. There is an autonomous and continuous growth of the baby together with a cross dialogue with the mother who should be the first “Advocatus ventrus” (advocate of the womb) to the child.
There is more to do in the debate than just about legalizing abortion. Once they (pro choice) manage to delay the recognition of a living human being, who is a person entitled to rights and dignity just as any other adult living being; then doors are open for all manipulations, research and experiments on the embryo.
With the precocious (premature) diagnosis of the pregnant women, any indications of abnormalities, hereditary, genetic, chromosomal pathologies will lead to eugenic or selective abortion so long as the unborn baby is not a living person juridically recognized. The same denial will lead to medically assisted ways of fertilization which will ignore or replace the conjugal act, therefore separation between sexual union and procreation.
Reasons that do not allow completion of pregnancy may include pre-mature births (miscarriages), abortions and deaths. The argument that not all conceptions lead to birth will be a more vibrant reality when they allow discrimination of the unborn children. They (doctors) will be the ones to procure abortions or encourage women do so. When it comes to rape cases, we agree it’s a regrettable crime. Sincerely looking at it, who is the aggressor? The conceived child-no, but the man involved. Nature just takes its cause which the so called experts are trying to ignore or deny by saying life starts at birth. Sometimes the figures of these cases of rape or clandestine abortions are exaggerated for the purpose of influencing the public. There are options which the church allows in such cases of rape. In order to avoid that the sperm of the aggressor causes more harm to the woman’s body, she can immediately seek medical attention within the first few hours in order to have a virginal bath before the male gamete meets the female one. The other option could be to use a STRICTLY non abortive contraceptive which unfortunately could be difficult to get nowadays.
We are still at the right track so long as the draft is not yet approved. We have all the power now to make sure that no unjust law, against its own citizens will be approved. Legalization of abortion has not reduced abortion cases (even clandestine ones) in countries where it’s applied. The bishops are conscious of the divine mandate to defend life. Any society, (civil or not), which cannot defend life from its start, is against its own existence.
The state needs to acknowledge the right to life but has no mandate to create or abolish it since it exists in the natural moral law. Any law which does not respect the equal dignity of every single person regardless of their capabilities, age, gender, health, (….) has no reason at all of being recognized. The very fact that there is a human person in the play we should be cautious about it. None of the universal declarations (1948), conventions of rights of the child (1989) or charters denies that life begins at conception. That is an undeniable fact which when approved, puts all science and biology in a dilemma of their own lie. Science gives us the facts, which they themselves want to deny. We are called to go beyond the facts and arrive at the intelligence (truth) which only human beings are endowed with, to realise that truth about our existence cannot be hidden.
There word “rights” quoted often by lobby groups is misleading. We never have a right to possess or not to possess a child since she/he is not a property. The medical practitioners have no right too, despite their expertise to eliminate any life. Their conscience will never be at peace just like that of a mother who decides to abort for whatever reason. The post abortion trauma will be deeper than the crime of rape or its wound. The life of an unborn child is equally worthy of the same dignity to that of the born child, even in terms of medical health dangers. It’s a matter of fundamental rights (life) are highest goods (health) where none of the two lives (mother and child) can be foregone. A person is an end in him/herself and can’t be disposed of for the sake of the other for whatever reason. Thus, killing a baby to save the mother’s life is unthinkable.
The shortage of doctors (doctor-patient ration) is an issue of concern so long as they do what is expected of them. A medical act will be such when it’s geared towards the integral good of the person (to cure) or restore health. Abortion is not and will never be a medical act, since its objective is exclusively to eliminate life of an innocent human being. No doctor should be prohibited from assisting mothers in need of help even after a spontaneous abortion since this has nothing to do with voluntary or procured abortions, illegally called therapeutic.
The sanitary reforms going on in the US have spurred protests recently. The president of the priests for life, Fr Frank Pavone is actively involved. One of the issues in the just ended demonstrations was that rich countries should stop using tax payers’ money to kill unborn human beings in the poor and developing countries. Our leaders should be ready to lose economic support from these donors rather than be pressurized to legalize abortion as a condition for aid.
I pray and hope that we will put our efforts together in defending, protecting and promoting life of our innocent brothers and sisters. It’s not a matter of just changing the clause in the draft but a matter of saving lives of future generations.
*Fr Pascal Mwambi, Rome
YOUR SAY: Understanding the Silence of God in Haiti
Joseph Mwaniki, IMC*
Where was God when all these things happened? This is not only a Henry Makori question. There are very many Makoris who are asking themselves the same question. In these days, there are so many tragedies that are happening and leaving behind many unanswered questions. Some have even lost their faith amidst such terrifying situations, to the point of entering into ancient heresy of “deism” which considers God a watch maker whose work is only to make a watch and leave it to the buyer. In a word, some people today believe that God is the Creator but His work ends after creation, leaving man alone and unaided. Today, what is coming out more clearly is the silence of God amidst the many difficulties that humanity is facing.
Looking at what happened in Haiti on that dark night of 12th January, it is not only Makori whose first question is where God was. Haiti is a country whose history counts nothing else but suffering. The majority are descendants of millions of slaves who were carried off from Africa. The country is already poor enough even after many years of independence and the people are fed up with many sufferings and challenges. It is not that they don’t believe. They are Christians and pray every day like other believers.
Then comes this earthquake that turned centuries’ work to nothing. Thousands are dead and the poor now remain not only poorer but the poorest of the poor with no basic needs and a very dim future. Somebody then asks, “why is it that the poor are always the less privileged? I can understand this if it was done by man, but is this not a natural cause of which God knew and held power to prevent?”
Makori’s question is important to many. When Pope Benedict XVI visited Poland in 2006, during his second International journey, he visited Auschwitz Camp, a place that carries the memory of millions of human beings that were exterminated by the Nazis. The Pope opened his speech thus: “In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dead silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?” And later on, he continued: “How many questions arise in this place! Constantly, the question comes up: Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?”
These are really very difficult questions to answer. Some, in the confusion of these unanswerable questions have gone to the point of affirming that God is the author of all these sufferings while others have tried to burn the Bible in an attempt to eliminate this God who is the cause of suffering. And what is worse is that His silence remains for us a mere mystery. But what does this His silence tell us?
Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Laureate in 1986 and a Holocaust survivor at Auschwitz, is a writer of over 50 books and a professor at Boston University. When he was asked if we could force God to respond to the injustices of the world, he posed a question, “why do the innocent suffer and yet the Lord remains dumb?” Trying to answer his own question, Wiesel narrates, “I was brought up in an environment that would expect very little from men but all in God. Even today, God is still a deep thirst inside me.” Auschwitz did not quench this thirst; in fact, it gave him deep reasons to continue believing despite this silence of God’s while still holding this cry of protest. And he adds, “(in fact), most of my books try to express this faith in God, despite His silence”.
Wiesel’s argument can give us a point of departure: Faith in the providence of God, despite the darkness in our days and the silence of the All Powerful. God is God and we can’t understand Him fully. We can only try to raise our heart and mind to the level of His transcendence. Suffering in itself is not evil. We can even call it a blessing, though it is very difficult to accept. The earthquake of Haiti took only few minutes but its effects will remain with us for decades if not centuries. But what is more important is not to understand where God was, but what He wants to tell us with this incident.
For me, the Haiti incident makes me enter deep into myself, reflect on the deepest realities around me, the vanities in my life and above all, to think about my ultimate end of which I know not when, where or how. God does not want the suffering of His creatures. He is the giver and the sustainer of life, and always accompanies it against its different pains. God suffers with those who are suffering and the best assurance He gives us is that we are not alone. When the Haitians and the human world are suffering, God is neither in silence nor sleeping. He is always suffering with us and for us, sustaining us with His unseen love and transforming our pains into a joy of those who believe that alive or dead, they belong to Him. We can only conclude together with the pope and Auschwitz that despite all these, our hope remains in the Lord for He is our shepherd and there is nothing more that we shall want, even amidst the earthquake of Haiti and the many tragedies of our days.
*Joseph Mwaniki is a student at Urbaniana University in Rome
Where was God when all these things happened? This is not only a Henry Makori question. There are very many Makoris who are asking themselves the same question. In these days, there are so many tragedies that are happening and leaving behind many unanswered questions. Some have even lost their faith amidst such terrifying situations, to the point of entering into ancient heresy of “deism” which considers God a watch maker whose work is only to make a watch and leave it to the buyer. In a word, some people today believe that God is the Creator but His work ends after creation, leaving man alone and unaided. Today, what is coming out more clearly is the silence of God amidst the many difficulties that humanity is facing.
Looking at what happened in Haiti on that dark night of 12th January, it is not only Makori whose first question is where God was. Haiti is a country whose history counts nothing else but suffering. The majority are descendants of millions of slaves who were carried off from Africa. The country is already poor enough even after many years of independence and the people are fed up with many sufferings and challenges. It is not that they don’t believe. They are Christians and pray every day like other believers.
Then comes this earthquake that turned centuries’ work to nothing. Thousands are dead and the poor now remain not only poorer but the poorest of the poor with no basic needs and a very dim future. Somebody then asks, “why is it that the poor are always the less privileged? I can understand this if it was done by man, but is this not a natural cause of which God knew and held power to prevent?”
Makori’s question is important to many. When Pope Benedict XVI visited Poland in 2006, during his second International journey, he visited Auschwitz Camp, a place that carries the memory of millions of human beings that were exterminated by the Nazis. The Pope opened his speech thus: “In a place like this, words fail; in the end, there can only be a dead silence - a silence which is itself a heartfelt cry to God: Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?” And later on, he continued: “How many questions arise in this place! Constantly, the question comes up: Where was God in those days? Why was he silent? How could he permit this endless slaughter, this triumph of evil?”
These are really very difficult questions to answer. Some, in the confusion of these unanswerable questions have gone to the point of affirming that God is the author of all these sufferings while others have tried to burn the Bible in an attempt to eliminate this God who is the cause of suffering. And what is worse is that His silence remains for us a mere mystery. But what does this His silence tell us?
Elie Wiesel, a Nobel Peace Laureate in 1986 and a Holocaust survivor at Auschwitz, is a writer of over 50 books and a professor at Boston University. When he was asked if we could force God to respond to the injustices of the world, he posed a question, “why do the innocent suffer and yet the Lord remains dumb?” Trying to answer his own question, Wiesel narrates, “I was brought up in an environment that would expect very little from men but all in God. Even today, God is still a deep thirst inside me.” Auschwitz did not quench this thirst; in fact, it gave him deep reasons to continue believing despite this silence of God’s while still holding this cry of protest. And he adds, “(in fact), most of my books try to express this faith in God, despite His silence”.
Wiesel’s argument can give us a point of departure: Faith in the providence of God, despite the darkness in our days and the silence of the All Powerful. God is God and we can’t understand Him fully. We can only try to raise our heart and mind to the level of His transcendence. Suffering in itself is not evil. We can even call it a blessing, though it is very difficult to accept. The earthquake of Haiti took only few minutes but its effects will remain with us for decades if not centuries. But what is more important is not to understand where God was, but what He wants to tell us with this incident.
For me, the Haiti incident makes me enter deep into myself, reflect on the deepest realities around me, the vanities in my life and above all, to think about my ultimate end of which I know not when, where or how. God does not want the suffering of His creatures. He is the giver and the sustainer of life, and always accompanies it against its different pains. God suffers with those who are suffering and the best assurance He gives us is that we are not alone. When the Haitians and the human world are suffering, God is neither in silence nor sleeping. He is always suffering with us and for us, sustaining us with His unseen love and transforming our pains into a joy of those who believe that alive or dead, they belong to Him. We can only conclude together with the pope and Auschwitz that despite all these, our hope remains in the Lord for He is our shepherd and there is nothing more that we shall want, even amidst the earthquake of Haiti and the many tragedies of our days.
*Joseph Mwaniki is a student at Urbaniana University in Rome
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
OPINION: Nigeria: Not in Their Names*
Bunmi Aina-Craiq
The good people of Jos are once again being terrorized by a handful of their idle, disenfranchised and obviously ignorant brothers and sisters. They conveniently tag the mayhem and anarchy 'religious'. There is absolutely nothing religious about killing and maiming your own people.
They real problem is social injustice, lack of opportunities, corruption, lack of planning and total failure of government administration.
When you have a system that does not invest in education, health care, community centres, youth centres and other viable ventures for the proper development and sustainability of your people you are bound to have these kinds of sporadic violent outbursts of frustrations and hopelessness which are then conveniently labelled 'religious riots.'
|The truth is that the people are frustrated; no jobs, no food, no hope, nothing; they just exist one day at a time. In such situations, death is not feared; anything is better than everything and life is not worth living.
Before a budget is allocated for yet another panel (which most government sycophants will now be positioning themselves to be on) to be set up to 'investigate' this most recent unfortunate, though inevitable occurrence, let the people who hold the peoples resources on trust examine themselves, for they know why these so-called religious riots keep reccurring.
The peoples' trustees need to invest in good education for ALL our young people and ensure that nobody is left on the margins of life as they cruise around town in their tinted motorcades raising dust on the supposed beneficiaries of the trusts they hold.
Every Nigerian child must be guaranteed proper education from the age of five up to the age of eighteen; the schools and colleges must be properly equipped and staffed with teachers whose welfare must be guaranteed.
Money meant for schools should be spent to build decent structures, proper classrooms with windows and fans, well equipped science laboratories, sport facilities, arts and culture facilities; not the dilapidated aberrations and run down shacks as we currently have. Students should not have to provide their own chairs and tables which they often carry on their heads as they walk barefooted to and from school every day.
Books ought to be provided for all Nigerian students up to the age of eighteen. They must be taught how to read and write, the HISTORY of their country and civil responsibilities too. Our young people should be given proper education in a conducive environment by teachers who are adequately trained and empowered to do the job.
The welfare of our young people also demand that we invest in community centres where young people can go for leisure activities such as sport and social interactions, libraries and IT centres.
Even in the so-called developed societies such as Britain and America where these facilities are available, they still have incidents of sporadic violence such as stabbings among young people (often fuelled by the abuse of alcohol and drugs). The difference is that those young people are educated and enlightened enough not to be brainwashed into pretending that the violence they are engaging in is religiously motivated. Those young people are a very tiny minority, not enough to cause a riot of any kind.
The core message of the two main religions in Nigeria is PEACE. The other messages include love of one’s neighbour, generosity, tolerance, humility, kindness, forgiveness and truth. Neither the Bible nor the Koran prescribes hatred, violence, theft of public funds, corruption and strife.
Indeed, our young people have been so disenfranchised that they have become ready tools in the hands of sadistic elements who brainwash them and send them out to unleash violence and anarchy on the society.
Let the custodians of our common wealth have an urgent re-think and start investing our funds judiciously so that we will have educated, enlightened and empowered people with access to available standard infrastructure. Let them provide standard schools, roads, hospitals, jobs, security, houses, and other social amenities.
As a society, our problems are self inflicted, we allow people we have not voted for, people who are not qualified to be leaders, people who have no clue about what they are doing and who obviously do not give a damn about our welfare to govern us and loot our resources. Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him), never preached intolerance or violence, so this recent mayhem in Jos is not in their names.
Bunmi Aina-Craig Esq. Abuja FCT
*This opinion was first carried by the Vanguard on Jan 31 2010.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
The good people of Jos are once again being terrorized by a handful of their idle, disenfranchised and obviously ignorant brothers and sisters. They conveniently tag the mayhem and anarchy 'religious'. There is absolutely nothing religious about killing and maiming your own people.
They real problem is social injustice, lack of opportunities, corruption, lack of planning and total failure of government administration.
When you have a system that does not invest in education, health care, community centres, youth centres and other viable ventures for the proper development and sustainability of your people you are bound to have these kinds of sporadic violent outbursts of frustrations and hopelessness which are then conveniently labelled 'religious riots.'
|The truth is that the people are frustrated; no jobs, no food, no hope, nothing; they just exist one day at a time. In such situations, death is not feared; anything is better than everything and life is not worth living.
Before a budget is allocated for yet another panel (which most government sycophants will now be positioning themselves to be on) to be set up to 'investigate' this most recent unfortunate, though inevitable occurrence, let the people who hold the peoples resources on trust examine themselves, for they know why these so-called religious riots keep reccurring.
The peoples' trustees need to invest in good education for ALL our young people and ensure that nobody is left on the margins of life as they cruise around town in their tinted motorcades raising dust on the supposed beneficiaries of the trusts they hold.
Every Nigerian child must be guaranteed proper education from the age of five up to the age of eighteen; the schools and colleges must be properly equipped and staffed with teachers whose welfare must be guaranteed.
Money meant for schools should be spent to build decent structures, proper classrooms with windows and fans, well equipped science laboratories, sport facilities, arts and culture facilities; not the dilapidated aberrations and run down shacks as we currently have. Students should not have to provide their own chairs and tables which they often carry on their heads as they walk barefooted to and from school every day.
Books ought to be provided for all Nigerian students up to the age of eighteen. They must be taught how to read and write, the HISTORY of their country and civil responsibilities too. Our young people should be given proper education in a conducive environment by teachers who are adequately trained and empowered to do the job.
The welfare of our young people also demand that we invest in community centres where young people can go for leisure activities such as sport and social interactions, libraries and IT centres.
Even in the so-called developed societies such as Britain and America where these facilities are available, they still have incidents of sporadic violence such as stabbings among young people (often fuelled by the abuse of alcohol and drugs). The difference is that those young people are educated and enlightened enough not to be brainwashed into pretending that the violence they are engaging in is religiously motivated. Those young people are a very tiny minority, not enough to cause a riot of any kind.
The core message of the two main religions in Nigeria is PEACE. The other messages include love of one’s neighbour, generosity, tolerance, humility, kindness, forgiveness and truth. Neither the Bible nor the Koran prescribes hatred, violence, theft of public funds, corruption and strife.
Indeed, our young people have been so disenfranchised that they have become ready tools in the hands of sadistic elements who brainwash them and send them out to unleash violence and anarchy on the society.
Let the custodians of our common wealth have an urgent re-think and start investing our funds judiciously so that we will have educated, enlightened and empowered people with access to available standard infrastructure. Let them provide standard schools, roads, hospitals, jobs, security, houses, and other social amenities.
As a society, our problems are self inflicted, we allow people we have not voted for, people who are not qualified to be leaders, people who have no clue about what they are doing and who obviously do not give a damn about our welfare to govern us and loot our resources. Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him), never preached intolerance or violence, so this recent mayhem in Jos is not in their names.
Bunmi Aina-Craig Esq. Abuja FCT
*This opinion was first carried by the Vanguard on Jan 31 2010.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Monday, February 1, 2010
OPINION: Mediating Compassion for Haiti?
Michael O’maera*
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, tv and radio news are full of the devastation. Our tears well unexpectedly as we watch heart rending scenes of the few pulled out from crumpled buildings. Anxiety builds when we realise some will use force to get whatever they want in the chaos. Governments promise, armies mobilise and crisis teams are activated.
Do we care about Haiti? If we do, how long will that feeling last given that it is one of the poorest countries on earth and any solution, if indeed there is one, will be a long time coming? And what if our level of interest is, more or less, fuelled by what is shown on the national news? How will we justify out disinterest if we wake on some distant night and realise that unbeknownst to us, we have forgotten that Haiti exists because we have not been reminded?
That was the reality for this beleaguered nation a few days ago, before the earthquake rumbled. No-one except the United Nations employees based there and a range of other aid agencies were the slightest bit interested in Haiti or its people. Yet now, because the media have brought vivid images into our living rooms, we feel compelled to act in the manner which seems to be demanded of us.
Tragedies come and go; indeed countless tragedies are unfolding around the globe but because we know nothing about them, we feel nothing and do nothing. Why then do we respond to calls for help in this situation? Is it just because we can't escape the image or the request? If we peel back the layers, perhaps we might see that the appeals are emotional blackmail. Give and you will instantly feel better yourself. It is, more or less, a self absorbed donation.
What if we recognised that these tragedies unfold within a web of complex interactions that are invisible to us at first glance? Haiti, like so many other small, poverty stricken nations, suffers from a load of impossible debt repayments. If we refused to give and instead demanded that wealthy lending countries forgo the debts owed to them and continued to give more, Haiti may have a chance. Without that kind of input, the existing level of poverty will increase, fuelled by the high levels of disability brought about by this disaster.
But more than that, what if we addressed our emotional need to 'do something' by focusing attention on changing our own way of living? What if we were prepared to stop buying endless stuff we do not need, lowered our standard of living and instructed our governments to give away substantial amounts of money to poorer nations like Haiti so they could build an infrastructure that at least gives a minimum standard of living to its people? No? I thought not.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."
Compassion is about walking in the shoes of others, not biffing a few dollars at them when we are emotionally blackmailed. I suspect we do not care at all about Haiti, but a self preservation button has been activated by the media and aid agencies that are so practised at doing so. After all, targets are waiting to be met and audience numbers need to be maintained.
*[CISA Editor]
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, tv and radio news are full of the devastation. Our tears well unexpectedly as we watch heart rending scenes of the few pulled out from crumpled buildings. Anxiety builds when we realise some will use force to get whatever they want in the chaos. Governments promise, armies mobilise and crisis teams are activated.
Do we care about Haiti? If we do, how long will that feeling last given that it is one of the poorest countries on earth and any solution, if indeed there is one, will be a long time coming? And what if our level of interest is, more or less, fuelled by what is shown on the national news? How will we justify out disinterest if we wake on some distant night and realise that unbeknownst to us, we have forgotten that Haiti exists because we have not been reminded?
That was the reality for this beleaguered nation a few days ago, before the earthquake rumbled. No-one except the United Nations employees based there and a range of other aid agencies were the slightest bit interested in Haiti or its people. Yet now, because the media have brought vivid images into our living rooms, we feel compelled to act in the manner which seems to be demanded of us.
Tragedies come and go; indeed countless tragedies are unfolding around the globe but because we know nothing about them, we feel nothing and do nothing. Why then do we respond to calls for help in this situation? Is it just because we can't escape the image or the request? If we peel back the layers, perhaps we might see that the appeals are emotional blackmail. Give and you will instantly feel better yourself. It is, more or less, a self absorbed donation.
What if we recognised that these tragedies unfold within a web of complex interactions that are invisible to us at first glance? Haiti, like so many other small, poverty stricken nations, suffers from a load of impossible debt repayments. If we refused to give and instead demanded that wealthy lending countries forgo the debts owed to them and continued to give more, Haiti may have a chance. Without that kind of input, the existing level of poverty will increase, fuelled by the high levels of disability brought about by this disaster.
But more than that, what if we addressed our emotional need to 'do something' by focusing attention on changing our own way of living? What if we were prepared to stop buying endless stuff we do not need, lowered our standard of living and instructed our governments to give away substantial amounts of money to poorer nations like Haiti so they could build an infrastructure that at least gives a minimum standard of living to its people? No? I thought not.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, "I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."
Compassion is about walking in the shoes of others, not biffing a few dollars at them when we are emotionally blackmailed. I suspect we do not care at all about Haiti, but a self preservation button has been activated by the media and aid agencies that are so practised at doing so. After all, targets are waiting to be met and audience numbers need to be maintained.
*[CISA Editor]
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this section do not necessarily represent the opinions of CISA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)