Editorialists and journalists of our broadsheets, correspondents and others have raised their heavenly voices to express the distress of the three women who made the news of the ?back alley? abortions. Some have condemned the injustice meted out to them at a time when they were dealing with their physical and psychological wounds. The debate they have raised is reminiscent of the debate held in many countries in the 1950s. We are no longer in the 1950s and in most countries of the world, the sovereignty of a woman?s body has become unquestionable; few governments require as a matter of law that a woman use the most private part of her reproductive anatomy to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will.

We are no longer in the 1950s but we can hardly hope to open our mouth to express our opinions about such taboo subjects without hurting the religious, social or political sensitivities of others. Yet, abortion transcends our separate religions, our social and political appurtenance and speaks to our very humanity.

We have heard enough about the right of life of the gamete, the zygote, the embryo and the foetus. We have heard enough preaching from the inside of comfortable stone buildings and air-conditioned lounges. We have heard the politically correct statements of those whose shoe heels have never been smeared by the impoverished mud of some parts of our island; those who have never been close enough to the children to see in what utter misery and helplessness they live; those I sincerely wish would never have to experience what is lived in the areas they think they are speaking on behalf of.

What we have not heard is the voice of those mostly concerned by these abortions; those who are, in fact, voiceless; those who are exposed to abuse by the very people they rely on for their own protection; their voices we shall never hear and their circumstances may vary, but their actions are more eloquent than any words. They prefer to risk their lives rather than accept an unwanted pregnancy as a fatality.

Decriminalizing abortion is therefore the only way to save lives and reduce traumas and distress; the industry of ?back alley? abortion will exist for as long as the demand is there. Closing one ?clinic? will result in the opening of another and the more efforts the police put into tracking down those who are feeding on a dysfunctional system, the higher the price will be for those who can least afford it.

Decriminalization does not mean trivialization. The guilt and anguish that most women have to live with after an abortion should not be underestimated. The psychological scars should not be trivialized either and abortion should not be used as a substitute for responsible sexual behaviour (though it is not our position to dictate what responsible sexual behaviour is. That should form part of our sex education programmes), but the choice to make an informed decision should be given to the individual concerned.

Decriminalization does not necessarily mean accepting something as morally or ethically right. It merely means that it can be dealt with more effectively using other means than the criminal justice system. It means that the right to make a personal choice about one?s behaviour should not be considered a crime as long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedom of others. The old saying goes, ?my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.? So, we have to keep our nose out of it.

Once abortion has been decriminalized, a proper and realistic sex education programme should be introduced in schools and elsewhere. The sex education dispensed in schools today is grossly inadequate. Information about menstruation and the use of sanitary towels might be helpful but is unlikely to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies. A uniformed police officer explaining to our youngsters that if they have sex before the age of 16, they will go to jail might do more harm than good. Why, officer, our children now know they should wait until they are 16 to have promiscuous, irresponsible, unprotected sex, catch STDs, fall pregnant or make other girls pregnant and live happily ever after!

?Decriminalizing abortion is therefore the only way to save lives and reduce traumas and distress.?

I have a great deal of respect for the law and the ones trying to enforce it, but I really think police officers should stick to what they have been trained to do: target REAL crime. I have a great deal of respect for all the religions of the world and the men of God, but I think our spiritual leaders should do what they do best: give us spiritual guidance when we seek it. Like everybody else, they are entitled to their opinions. If these are rooted in their religious conviction, that is fair enough. However, it would be unfair not to grant to others the right to hold whatever religion, religions or set of ethics they choose (if they choose) and therefore whatever teachings emanate from them.

As for the running of our secular Republic, we have elected people for that purpose. Mrs Indira Seebun has a chance to make her mark in our history books. I hope she takes it, undeterred by lobbies and unimpressed by the emotional smoke screen erected through terminology and semantics e.g. Pro-life. NOBODY is ANTI-life. We are all for the right to life; the right of a fully-fledged woman to lead a normal life unshackled by the burden of repeated, unwanted pregnancies, shame, stigma or prejudice. Pro-choice does not even mean ?pro-abortion?. Pro choice means giving the choice to the person most concerned to decide based on their circumstances. ?Pro-choice? or ?anti-choice?, Mrs Seebun has already chosen her camp. Let?s hope she has a loud enough voice in Parliament and colleagues sympathetic to the cause.

As for the three ladies we started off talking about, instead of being given psychological help to try and heal their traumas, they are being dragged back to the ?crime scene? for a ?reconstitution des faits? or to put it differently, to rub their nose in it. Their privacy has thankfully been respected by the press and our journalists have been responsible enough not to disclose their identity. Their names are Abok Alfa Akok. Remember the Sudanese woman whose petition you must have signed because you thought the laws in that far far away country were archaic and barbaric. I bet you did not know then what you arguably know now : just how close her country is to ours!

Touria PRAYAG