Reason and abortion in Zimbabwe

Sharon Hofisi Legal Letters
“I don’t need this baby. I can’t tell him that I am pregnant!”

“What if he abandons me if I tell him that I am a pregnant? I heard that there is an expert backstreet abortionist in our suburb. Do you know your girlfriend once aborted?” In some indigenous language systems you hear words like “akasvotora” to describe how the unborn baby was brutally aborted.

The above statements and questions help show how abortion is usually treated as a sensitive issue. Why risk arrest? After all, scarecrows don’t die often because they publicly display their fear. But then, these issues frequently stare at us and even knock at our family, school, church, mosque or heart’s doors.

As an author, abortion debates are no pillow talk, but we may learn one or two lessons from the three common pillow styles: the snore pillow, which vibrates to encourage the sleeper to change positions to limit snoring; the tunes pillow, which connects to one’s phone to play the music that supposedly only the sleeper can hear; and the tracker pillow, which has sensors meant to give a detailed reading on sleeping patterns and gives the sleeper some suggestions on improving sleep.

Zimbabwe is a society that hears a lot about backstreet abortions. We respect the right to life, but we also struggle to deal with many difficult issues attached to it: euthanasia or mercy-killing, which we haven’t legalised because it is largely considered un-African to kill.

Traditionally, old people had to be treated with cow dung (Kudzurwa nendove yemombe) or were allowed to use stones to immortalise themselves (kuteya riva) so that they would live over a century; abortion.

In some jurisdictions, however, abortion has been used to determine the suitability of a judge for confirmation.

Those in the legal fraternity perhaps know how Judge Clarence Thomas’ judicial fiat response on whether women can take the life of their unborn children under the liberty clause or right to privacy.

Do we see one day some aspiring judges in this jurisdiction being subjected to the same process?

In disbelief, you have perhaps heard about or seen someone who committed suicide related to pregnancy. You have sometimes stayed or talked to a renowned abortionist in your area, and you can’t choose to pretend like abortion is a “next door issue”.

Some have listened to anti-abortionists like Phil Keaggy, who in 1980 sang on behalf of unborn children using the following lines: “Who will speak up for the little ones; helpless and half abandoned. They’ve got a right to choose life; they don’t want to lose. I have to speak up, won’t you?”

We may even use the “Profile of Five Generations” from 1900 to date to determine what motivates the seniors, builders and baby boomers in our society to focus on building family relations whereas the other two generations, the busters and millennials may decide to support abortion.

To the first three generations the pregnant woman is advised to strive to find ways to look after the unborn baby, even in circumstances where the father would have denied responsibility.

Baravara hausiri mugariro, they are told, loosely encouraging the woman to acknowledge that “shaved hair is not equivalent to a bald head”.

Of course, there are some in this group who are regarded as bad apples who specialise in backstreet abortions. But times without number, seniors, builders and boomers do not hesitate to assume responsibility to look after the unwanted baby.

They even consider the baby “their” baby or gift from the heavens. They specialise in knowing what’s in a name! For Zimbabwe names like Musiiwa, Murambiwa and so forth are usually descriptively used to symbolise backgrounds of rejection. Some names like “Luckchild” are also given to children who were luck not to be aborted.

We largely call the three generations above our golden ladies and gentlemen. They know how to palliate injured hearts and souls. They don’t exude vitriol to the irresponsible relationship partner. They know love when they see it and see love because they know it. They don’t allow injured souls to focus on egg shells.

Some of them tell us how they witnessed the terrible effects of the two World Wars. Some were married off at tender ages. They gave birth to several children; did not have access to modern birth control methods and are masters of petal and sepal thoughts. Most of them are behind the statements used in family law such as “familiarity breeds contempt”, or the no pleasure without responsibility that is used in maintenance proceedings.

But for busters (Generation X) and the millennials (Generation Y), abortion seems to dominate their relationships. Their worldviews are greatly shaped by developments in some jurisdictions, largely known through technology. While busters generally enjoy technology, millennials employ technology.

Generation Y is a term that is used to describe those people who were born from the early 1980s to date. They are preceded by Generation X, which refers to those who were born from the 1960s to the late 1970s. Because, we may end up forgetting to define abortion, let go back to the essentials. Basically, the term abortion refers to induced miscarriage or the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks.

This act, also close to unlawful termination of pregnancy in our legal system, is sometimes regarded as lawful in some legal systems. For starters, a legal system is the sum total of a society’s laws. Our laws do not permit abortion, but provide some circumstances for termination of pregnancy such as threats to the mother’s life and so forth.

Because a society is made of different tribes, ethnic groups, religious groups, races, activists and so forth, debates on whether or not abortion should be legalised abounds and hinges on what can loosely be regarded as pro-life and anti-life arguments. Why are these arguments important? Well, they are the product of reflections of a diverse people who constitute the Zimbabwean society.

At the top of each camp is the right to life as protected in section 48 of the 2013 Constitution, which states that a law may be used to regulate issues relating to unborn babies. At the moment, we have laws that deal with circumstances of termination of children.

We also have criminal laws that are used to punish those who conceal their births and so on. Tensions usually mount when the subject of abortion is mentioned. The pro-life group will be defending the life of the unborn baby, which is not a bad thing. Questions that are usually asked by pro-life activists include, but are not limited to the following: Should parents who agree to enjoy their conjugal rights be allowed to abort? Isn’t it true that life begins at conception?

The anti-life camp is sometimes not “anti-life”. Questions asked in this camp include: is it not true that life begins somewhere at around three months after conception?

What if the baby is deformed or if the father would refuse to assume responsibility? What will happen to the victim’s career if she doesn’t abort?

What comes from the above is simply this: the law may criminalise certain issues, but we have acquaintances, friends, family members, and colleagues, who have aborted or have been affected by an abortion. We sometimes feel like revisiting the abortion issues. We forget or sometimes feel like, “Oh, people don’t forget history”.

At the end of the day, it’s a moral issue that is based on each group’s worldview. Being moral or moralising arguments, however, isn’t good enough, so laws had to be made to ensure that they fitted to the needs of both camps. This has been no easy task, because the drafters usually use either the tyranny of the majority or the “doable” approach to grief or gruesome injustices.

Drafters may want to produce something legitimate, possible, representative, largely virtuous, and good-looking but taxed with “we and them” ideals. In most low income countries, cultural particularism and relativism inform drafters. Their society becomes the measure because it wants children to be seen as assets, insurance policy in times of old age, symbols of social virility and so forth.

For high income countries, human rights are not usually linked to particularism or relativism. Individuals must be allowed to assert their sexual reproductive rights, marriage rights and so forth.

While the pro-life camp simply wants the pregnant woman to strive to deliver the baby, the anti-life group also defends the mother who must assert her sexual reproductive rights, which again is not a bad thing to them.

They use arguments such as prenatal and postnatal depression; threats to the mother’s or baby’s life; and other psychological effects to justify abortion. They want the morality of abortion to be considered from the perspective of the mother and the child.

At the middle are those who adopt a bystander perspective. They tick all the boxes above, but they consider other factors such as purely academic or learned experiences. They may focus on the ripple effects of anti-life arguments.

For instance, anti-life can produce the same results with pro-life steps. If a legal system criminalises abortion, people usually resort to underhand means of ending life such as hiring backstreet abortionists; committing suicide; brewing family feuds; or concealing the births of the babies with a view of destroying the baby.

We have perhaps heard about children who have been found in toilets, storm drains, thickets and some other secluded places. Should such emotive situations not inform our debates on whether or not we should legalise abortion? Which approach best suits the needs of the unborn baby?

The pro-abortion camp also looks at the brutality of depression. For them, it seems like sitting at a fireside chair to ignore issues like violent sexual encounters associated with gang rapes, aggravated robbery, and so forth. Imagine the effect of the following questions to someone who conceived under the above circumstances: who is my father? Why is it you avoid questions about my father? Do you know my father? Did you really love my father?

It seems like a simple wound from such an equally troubled offspring, but deep down the mother is grappling with excruciating pain and is suppressing a jeremiad lamentation. As you’ve possibly guessed by now, the mother had “forgotten” about the painful experience.

The old wound is opened by her “joy of motherhood”. This is why either the anti-life or bystander would view the mother’s pitiful experience as better avoided in abortion. But the pro-life would mount arguments ranging from religion, counselling and so forth.

Religion has been seen as a cement of society. Some religions teach forgiveness and so the mother is preached to and encouraged to look after her unborn baby in hope. The church or other groups may weigh in with the needed support. Good ticks: the mother is a strong woman; God fights our battles; vengeance is the lord is; the child would be a president, doctor, or some great professional; children are a gift from God; and the man will own up one day; forgive and forget.

Religious-wise, it’s exactly what one would expect from the spiritual side. But sometimes the religious issues are taken to the pulpit in an immature way. Names are avoided, but then the bomb is detonated at the pu-l-pi-t, “I helped a victim who wanted to abort . . . ” Pastors and church people are humans too. Sometimes they don’t realise the effect of their pulpit language.

For a country, which has many who profess to be Christians or religious, activists, liberals and conservatives, these issues are usually resolved at a conservative level. The professors of religion simply adopt a “let’s pray for a solution” stance. But what choice should the mother take?

Counselling sometimes works wonders. The family of the victim is usually advised not to open egg shells. The woman benefits from some role-reversal sessions. Even where the matter ends in a court of law, court-related counselling support at adult rape clinics or the victim friendly unit may be of immense benefit.

We choose the pillow we want at the end of the day. Let’s freely talk about abortion in churches, schools, street alleys, and decongest our minds of the many egg shells.