Your columnist Cat’s Eye’s outburst at George Bush’s alleged "war against women" (The Island February 5, 2003) is hysterical and confused. It is quite absurd to run together the US government’s military build-up against Iraq and its policy of not supporting those UN family planning programmes that do not distinguish between abortion and contraception. It is an emotive argument, as if opposition to one entailed opposition to the other. I oppose the Bush administration on almost every policy issue, but on their stand against abortion they command my respect.

What is most disturbing is the way Cat’s Eye invokes a dubious notion of "reproductive rights" to obscure the difference between the prevention of conception (family planning/contraception) and the deliberate act of destruction of a human foetus (abortion). Where do these rights come from?

They cannot be grounded in a notion of personal autonomy, for this would entail that the woman also has a right to infanticide. (Morally-speaking, what is the difference between an inconvenient child after birth and an inconvenient child before birth, if the mother’s "right to choose" is all that matters?).

This is where the language of "pro-choice" is inconsistent and confused. The real issue is whether the foetus has any moral status in the human community. If it does, then it comes to us as a bearer of legitimate moral claims. The right to life is the most basic of all rights and is what we are bound to protect above all else. The law and civil society have a duty to protect the vulnerable members of the human community, and there is no more vulnerable member than the human foetus.

It is ironic to find feminists (with some prominent exceptions) arguing a "pro-choice" position. In nations such as India and China where abortion is virtually on demand, the numbers of girls has seriously declined with potentially devastating social consequences. What moral arguments can the pro-choice lobby muster against such selective abortions on the basis of gender?

And what if the selection were based on skin colour, ethnicity or economic class as is happening clandestinely in many other nations? This is the logical consequence of arguments based purely on a morally dubious concept of personal "choice"- as if the embryo/fetus had no more moral status than a hair cell or a finger-nail. Moreover, as all the statistics in the US and UK have demonstrated, the vast majority of abortions take place not because of rape or because the woman’s life is endangered (for which cases, an enlightened judicial system will make provision), but under the dubious category of safeguarding the woman’s "emotional health". This is a catch all that usually masks pressure from irresponsible male partners or husbands. Abortion is a "quickfix", reflecting a consumerist society where personal responsibility for one’s choices is divorced from the choice itself.

Cats Eye will surely know how women’s "choices" are often manipulated by men! I know several women in these countries who have experienced deep emotional trauma after abortion, and wish that the full nature of the act had been explained to them beforehand.

Irresponsible doctors (usually male) have used misleading terminology such "pregnancy termination" or even "a medical operation" to cover-up an act of killing. I suggest that the expression "reproductive rights", if used as a cover-up for abortion, is an abuse of the human rights discourse.

A responsible and effective family planning programme obviates the need for abortions. There are also other alternatives to abortion. There are many churches and NGOs around the world who offer counselling and financial services, help with adoption of "unwanted"’babies, and teach youngsters responsibility in sexual (and other) relationships. These are what government agencies should support and encourage.
Dr. Vinoth Ramachandra
Colombo 3