Gov't Sued over Decision to Ban Marie Stopes Clinic from Conducting Abortions in Kenya

claims that access to legalised abortion is part of the ‘right to life’ because it prevents women from being ‘forced’ to access unsafe abortions.

This completely ignores the right to life of the unborn child, who is no less a member of the human family than an infant, a prepubescent, pubescent, adolescent, or an adult. S/he forms part of the continuity of human life, and to ignore children in the womb is discriminatory. Article 26 of the International Covenant forbids discrimination in the application of rights, and article 16 mandates that everyone must be recognised before the law. This is applied most especially to children in article 24, and if the Human Rights Committee is to issue a new General Comment, it cannot ignore the rights of the smallest of children in the womb.

These rights possessed by the unborn child do not cease because they have been conceived in the brutality of sexual assault, or because they possess a life-limiting disability. In both cases, the child cannot be blamed for the actions of her father, and if she suffers from a serious impairment, then she and her mother must be given the help they need through perinatal hospice care, and every medical assistance possible so they can both live with the comfort and assistance they ought to receive as patients. To put it bluntly, to imply that a child’s life can be terminated for reasons that are outside of his or her control, such as the way s/he was conceived, constitutes discrimination of the worst kind.

Yet the claim that women have a right to access abortion on the grounds of ‘health’ ignores what can be done to help women in situations of unplanned pregnancy, and the support that can be put into place in solidarity with their situation. Everything from financial and medical support in prenatal situations, to counselling and practical help with housing or other material resources, to (in those rare cases where the mother will not want to continue caring for her child) adoption services are all viable alternatives to abortion, and unlike abortion do not involve the violation of the right to life of the child.

As so often, it is difficult not to conclude that the Human Rights Committee is imposing in this General Comment a view normal amongst certain Western States parties, and thus attempting to ideologically colonise countries in regions like Africa (not to mention South America, the Middle East, and Asia) who have values and approaches to questions of unplanned and problematic pregnancies that are radically different to those taken in Europe, North America, Australasia, and certain areas of the Pacific.

Whilst it might be normal in the West to apply an individualistic account of how to answer the problems associated with pregnancies in which a mother lacks social support, or faces health issues, in Africa our cultural default is one in which these issues are seen in the context of community. We also attach far greater value and importance to human life and unborn children, an approach which we see actually as more in keeping with the wording of the International Covenant. This includes mention of all “members of the human family”, and all “human beings” enjoying “inherent dignity” and the right to life. This has, if applied with consistency and reason, to include children in, as much as out, of the womb.

We therefore do not accept the wording of the General Comment draft as currently submitted. We believe it should respect the unborn child and her right to life in explicit terms, and that all language that tries to justify abortion on the grounds of the mother’s right to life should be removed, as it interprets the International Covenant in a manner that is incoherent with its plain meaning and implications.

Rather than impose an unnatural and Western-centred ideological approach to the issue of abortion, the Committee should instead apply the principles within the International Covenant, which reflect the consensus that classically has belonged to all humanity, and in doing so affirm the humanity, dignity, and rights of every human being. If it cannot do so, then it should certainly refrain from imposing ideologies that are foreign to African values and culture, and leave us to show the world how a more compassionate culture that works in solidarity with its most vulnerable members is the more humane and egalitarian model for the world to follow

It’s like saying, “If it’s my body, then I’m going to eat two packages of Skittles and deal with the consequences myself.” It may not be what’s best for you, but since you aren’t affecting somebody else by your actions, nobody has authority over that specific choice that you would make.

Another example of this logic would be, “since it’s my body, I want to remove my appendix.” Since nobody is affected except the person whose appendix would be removed, the argument of “my body, my choice” would make sense. When the only person that can be affected by a decision is the one making it, then that person can act on the basis of their own free will.

The logic stands on its own as rational and stable. However, the statement loses all credibility when applied to pregnancy. When the argument of “my body, my choice” is applied to the topic of abortion, it fails to acknowledge that there is actually someone else that is affected by the choice of an abortion: the child that is growing within that body.

There are so many signs that there is a new life that has begun from the first stages of pregnancy. From a zygote at the beginning, having a heartbeat at six weeks, and a plethora of different biological signs that life is within a uterus. This fact that a new and unique human life has begun is widely accepted by medical professionals and by scientists.

There are “official” scientific signs of life and from the moment of conception, that teeny-tiny baby has all the signs of that classify it as a new life. While that life might not look like the baby that will eventually get delivered, it’s still life nonetheless — a human life.

What the “My body, my choice” argument fails to take into account is that there is another life and another human, another body — with their own set of rights! It doesn’t work to claim bodily autonomy and freedom for oneself as your “rights” while at the same time denying another person’s rights — specifically the right to life.

Though dependant on the mother for safety and nutrients in order to grow, each human person is a separate person, with a separate set of their own rights, apart from the mother. If no one can take away the rights of the mother, then how can she take away the rights of the child?

The argument “my body, my choice” fails to recognize the baby is a separate human with their own body. The argument simply doesn’t apply when someone else is directly connected to those actions. “If it’s my body, then I get to punch the person next to me” is not an argument that sane people will find logical. There’s simply no justification to hurting somebody else just because you’re involved with it.

If the “choice” ends another, separate human life, than the argument simply has no ground to stand on.

The statement of “My body, my choice” is ultimately one that fails to acknowledge those around oneself, specifically the baby within the body.

@human, you have my full support. The west used the Church and the conical government to destroy our social structure and culture during colonization. This is modern day colonization, which is still using churches and court's through NGO's to destroy our cultures and values so they can continue planting their own. " Any education that does not take into consideration the inseparable unity between the Abrikan lineage and Abrikan thinking is based on false principals and must lead to alienation of the individual from his own self, his principals and his past". Let these so called NGO's explain the relationship between them and the Abrikan environment they are operating under. Let them not destroy our black population that they are so eager to corrupt in the name of "human rights". If the NGO's are so eager to assert human rights, why have they not fought for "language rights" which are first and foremost. Why have they not asked the most basic question: How can schools take a whole group of people who speak in one language (for example) Masaai and teach them in a foreign language. Who benefits? Let these NGO's close shop and stop new colonization of destroying our population in preparation for full blown colonization when they are left with only the weak as they did when they carried the strong to western countries as slaves. The operations of these western entities must be scrutinized because they are either helping our people or destroying them. They cannot do both.. ...

Good comments my fellow Kenyan but you all have missed the hidden agenda behind this abortion clinic's. Bush Jnr had abolished the use and study of Stem Cell which they and are using the fetus of unborn children. This NGO are American founded to harvest the cells they need to treat the who is who in America when they need it. Google Stem cell and see how famous it is in Houston Texas the medical Hub of the world then you will understand by the above NGO is going to court.Money is being exchanged for free African Stem cells.

Thank you anonymous UI and wambui it's a long road but together we can succeed. Protect life!