Replicas of human foetuses are pictured in a display with literature and fund-raising materials at the 'Vote Yes For Life' anti-abortion campaign headquarters in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in 2006. Anti-abortion groups have been waging a campaign to uphold the state's abortion ban, which went before voters on November 7, 2006. - Reuters

The following article was submitted by the Public Theology Forum - an ecumenical grouping of ministers and theologians.

Debates over the decision to extract or expel a foetus from the womb is a decision to put an end to life and therefore deny that human being of his or her own right to life and make choices, are not new. Around the world, an overwhelming number of women and men are grappling with this issue. Some are tormented by the guilt of having gone through with one and others are in turmoil whether or not to have one done

However, the resurgence of the discussion at this time in Jamaica, is both timely and appropriate. It is being raised at a time when the country celebrates the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade, and when globally, the issues of crime, the high murder rate, war, and the legitimatisation of crime against humanity are areas of grave concern. These historical and social contexts form the backdrop against which we need to reconsider the abortion issue. Both contexts are crucibles of death and in this mix, the issues of life, the life of the unborn child, and that of the mother become factors for consideration.

Any discussion of this issue is confronted by the moral dilemma that any decision arrived at has the potential to produce tragic consequences: psychological, biological, and social, which are unavoidable.

Why then do people commit abortion? From statistical reports, the reasons fall in three groups - here we use coined terms:

1. Cosmetic Abortion - refers to 'girls' who 'just wanna have fun'. These include women who engage in intercourse for the pleasure of it or for economic gains. To them, giving birth to a child is not a desired option.

2. Panic Response Abortion - under-aged girls and consenting women who fear the social repercussions of being pregnant and giving birth. For example, the student in school whose education will be disrupted and whose parents are likely to be furious; the professional with bright prospects; a married woman who was impregnated by someone other than her spouse; the traumatised survivor of rape or incest.

3. Health risk abortion - the woman who is advised by her medical practitioner that her life or the life of her unborn child is jeopardised, that her health is at risk or that the child may be born with abnormalities.

The individual who presents either of these reasons is searching for a way out. The innate good that results from our likeness to God engages them in an anti-abortion struggle. In this situation, they are vulnerable and prone to rationalisations that could result in their decision to abort the unborn child.

During slavery, the abortion debate would not have been an arena for much, if any, discussion at al history records that women freely and willing abortedtheir pregnancy. The death of the unborn child was willingly embraced. Why this radical stance? Children of slaves born during slavery, faced the possibility of being separated from their family, of being sold to another slave master, and would themselves become slaves.

Freedom would be denied this child. So important was this factor that faced with the issue of life and the issue of freedom for her child, the slave mother chose freedom for the unborn child and to abort was acceptable. Our matriarchs were part of the resistance movement against bondage and oppression. Autonomy over their own body and full freedom were the goals. In celebrating the bicentenary, we implicitly celebrate this pathway of freedom.

As regards, the matter of war, and government-sanctioned crimes in the name of democracy, what occurs is the curtailing of human life. This deliberate aborting of the life of another leads to fear, oppression, bondage and the limitation of one's freedom of movement. In both cases, life is taken away, the one because of the desire for freedom, the other in order to demonstrate power. In this instance, the perpetrators of the crime against another human being must be placed in the same category as the masters during slavery.

In the celebration of the bicentenary the resolve is to remember those times lest we go that way again, and the determination not be subjected to such abuses. Ss, the issue is also timely as it places the focus on the issue of power and minority groups. What happens to the rights of powerless persons? What part does the issue of human rights play? Who has the power to take life, to determine the quality of life of another?

These historical and cultural issues have been highlighted, as the abortion debate has to be placed within a particular context, for oftentimes the advocates of a particular position are themselves guilty of the same crime and would seek to impose their standards on others.] Each context raises its own questions. Should Jamaica at this time legalise abortion?We struggle with the concerns of death and the rights of each human being. With the issue of freedom and the right of the individual, is the value of freedom and autonomy a priority? Which value takes precedence? Whose values (individual and community) become the norm, the standard by which society is regulated?

Absolute values are not highly valued in a society or era where absolutes are discarded, there being no objective standard. Traditionally, the Church has been the forerunner as it relates to the setting of values and standards by which laws were made and the society structured. This is no longer the case. Migration, globalisation, the multiplicity of religions and non-religious groups, the emphasis on the rights of each minority grouping for self-expression, has seen the church moving from the centre to the periphery. The values of the Church and the views of other religious groupings are not central in this new and dominant culture. Are there any absolute values? What is a given would be that in any society there are some commonly accepted values which may be termed 'core values'. The values of life and the values of freedom, freedom to choose, to be, to become, to act are upheld in the Jamaican context.

The issue of abortion is about these same values: the value of life and the value of freedom. And so the debate lies in two categories - pro-life and pro-choice. It hinges also on the status of the foetus: at what point does life begin, and when can the foetus be considered a human being. To abort or not depends on which value we choose between the conflicting values in this situation. When the values we hold dear are in conflict, a choice has to be made. Our history has shown that as a nation we place a high premium on freedom and the right to live. If we legalise both options are placed on the table and a choice can be made. If we do not legalise then an option is denied and a choice has already been made. This position would not be a 'carte blanche' for abortion on demand.

From a biblical point of view abortion is contrary to God's will because God declared humans as persons before conception and God, the Bible declared, decided who each one would become, even before the human being was born. We note Jeremiah 1:4-5, "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart". David wrote, "All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16). From my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

The Christian faith also speaks of God giving human beings the freedom of choice. (The creation stories in Genesis chapters one and two). Individuals have the right to choose, to choose life or death. It is hoped that in the exercise of this freedom life is chosen. But what is this life? Is the sum of it to exist, to survive, or to live? If it is more than just existing and struggling to survive what then is the quality of life that we all should experience? What are the fundamental principles which should shape this quality of life?

These 'core values' should include: Dignity of humanity; basic needs are supplied, Fundamental rights are upheld, and Respect accorded to each individual. Therefore, in choosing life the question now becomes whose life, life of the mother or that of the unborn child. Will either be able to experience this quality of life? What are the variables, social, economical, political, which would deny this from being realised? In each situation the variables may differ. How do we make the choice? Empathy, love and compassion should guide the action of those who seek to guide persons out of the turmoil that abortion brings.

1.Empathy enables us to be understanding, supportive and non-judgmental. We see as they see, feel as they feel and therefore condemn the act of abortion and not the person we are seeking to guide.

2.Love enables us to exercise patience and invest all the time needed to help them learn God's expectations, identify God's provisions, and support God's plans for the life of the unborn child and the continued well-being of the mother.

3.Compassion enables us to affirm God's likeness in this mother and give her support as well as encourage and perhaps teach her to pray and continually relying on God. Compassion also enables us to advance from spiritual and emotional support to helping with the physical resources that are required for maintaining the well-being of mother and child.

Carol Gilligan has put forward three categories in addressing ethical choices - ethic of care; ethic of responsibility; and the ethic of love. I suggest that care, responsibility and love be the guidelines we use as we seek to deal with the issues of the quality of life, the mother or unborn child will experience. What is the right thing to do might not necessarily be the responsible thing to do. Again what is just may not necessarily be fair. For law without care tends to lead to legalism and the ethic of care should be held in tandem with that of justice. The question then becomes what is the responsible and caring thing to do?

The issue now forces us into the arena to develop principles, not dogmas, as to how to make ethical decisions. In every situation in life we will be faced with choices, oftentimes these see the conflict between absolutes for example 'thou shall not kill' and 'truth telling'. Jesus advocates the principle of love, care, respect for the self and each other. In adopting this principle, the deciding factor would be what is the loving, caring, responsible thing to do, which would accord respect and dignity to the self and the other, after analysis of all the available data.

[Members of the Public Theology Forum are Revs. Neville Callam, Ernle Gordon, Roderick Hewitt, Stotrell Lowe, Marjorie Lewis, Richmond Nelson, Garnet Roper, Anna Perkins, Ashley Smith, Burchell Taylor, Karl Johnson, and Wayneford McFarlane.]