It’s that time of the year again when we celebrate that joyful event built on the singularly uncommon occurrence of a virgin conceiving and giving birth to a child, an expression of God’s omnipotence and His affirmation of the sacred dignity of life.

It is not without relevance then to reflect that much of our time and energies this year were devoted to the great question of whether our laws should be amended or repealed to legalise abortion which, shed of all euphemistic overtones, is the destruction of life in the womb.

Although so many excellent minds have already been exercised over this issue, it is never too late to express oneself on a matter of such fundamental social and moral concern and so I ask, given the appropriateness of the season, to share some of my own thoughts with you.

Many and varied arguments have been advanced and theories propounded in support of and against abortion. In essence, pro-abortionists (pro-choicers) assert that it is a woman’s right to have an abortion if she so chooses and it is to that assertion that I turn my attention.

Our constitution recognises fundamental rights and freedoms but provides that the rights to life, liberty and security of the person as well as respect for family and private life are subject to “the rights and freedom of others and for the public interest”. The framers of our constitution clearly looked more deeply than pro-abortionists into the issue of fundamental rights and liberties: pro-abortionists are limited by considerations which vary from the conveniences of their bodies to social consequences, and I admit, in relatively few situations, the psychological trauma of rape. Our constitution, on the other hand, is concerned that as a society our rights do not exist in a vacuum, and in exercising them there must be respect for “the rights and freedom of others”.

Each one of us started life in a very dynamic human form called a foetus, floating in the amniotic fluid within our mother’s womb. It is God’s beautiful way of continuing the human race. Therefore, every question under discussion, every idea which is propounded and every reaction generated must boil down to the question: “How should the foetus be treated?” and all advocates and adversaries of abortion should at least be united in determining what the foetus is before considering how we should treat him, her or “it”. The marvels of science and medicine have rushed to our aid and we now know that life starts in the womb at the moment of conception. So back to the question: How should the foetus be treated? Does the foetus have rights to be protected?

The constitution subjects liberty and security of the person to “the rights and freedom of others”. Does the word “others” not embrace the foetus? To sustain otherwise pro-abortionists must argue that, despite the irresistible medical and scientific evidence the foetus, from which we all sprang, is devoid of human life and of human origin and therefore can be destroyed at will. If this is correct, then they are equating the human foetus to an animal which can be disposed of to suit our social necessities or conveniences. If we are now able to impose that same treatment on the foetus, are we not saying that an animal and the foetus are equals?

“Rights” is a convenient slogan which we attach in support of a wide range of human activities and causes. It is the universal cry in support of any and every cause – good, bad and indifferent, and used as much to promote peace as to create divisions. Rights which are claimed or advanced must therefore be subjected to the most severe examination to determine whether they are true rights. True rights belong to us because we are human beings created by God and they are valid and inalienable, even against society. The question posed by the committee set up by the minister of health contains within it an admission that we attach a “strong value to the sanctity of life”. Indeed we do, and in this issue it is founded on the truth that a woman’s body is a sacred vessel through which God fulfils His mystery of creation. It cannot be compromised to destroy life.

Many of the things which we allow as socially useful or convenient are really concessions and not true rights. A concession must never become superior to or even be placed on the same footing as a true right. There is no right to destroy human life and so we cannot grant a concession to destroy its existence in the womb. On the contrary, we have a sacred and legal duty to protect that life and we must not let anyone or any country, no matter how powerful, undermine our strong value in the sanctity of life. Let the powerful be the depositaries of wealth, but let us vigilantly remain the repository of truth and goodness. The energies and sacrifices of our great patriots who fought for freedom and truth will come to naught if we allow our principles to be subverted or compromised by the enticement of foreign aid. Let us stand up for what is right and leave the success to God. There are other just and moral approaches to the whole question of “unwanted” pregnancies. Let us examine them and put our resources to work in building up those which are beneficial.

During the season of Christmas, we ponder the mystery of the Word becoming flesh in the womb of Mary at the moment of her submission to being the handmaid of the Lord; we wonder along with her cousin Elizabeth “that the mother of my Lord should come to me” when on Mary visiting her in Judah, the child leapt in her womb at the presence of Jesus in Mary’s womb – the foetal communication between John the forerunner and the Saviour of the world “unfolding the mystery of love with the help of their mothers”. With that marvellous exchange, God hallowed and sanctified life in the womb; pro-abortionists assert a superior “right” to dishonour and desecrate that very life.

‘Tis the season of life. Let’s go celebrate that.

Peter Mais is attorney-at-law and co-founder of the Stella Maris Foundation.

pgmaislaw@gmail.com