By Dev Virahsawmy
Pro-life militants’ main argument is that human life begins at conception when the female egg is fertilized by a spermatozoon. They may be right although it may be argued that the zygote (microscopic fertilized egg) is not human life but has the potential of becoming so. A good analogy is the egg we consume as food. It has the potential of becoming a chicken but it would be absurd to call an egg a chicken. But that is not the issue.
Let us assume that pro-life militants are right. When a person’s life is threatened by another human life, what is the duty of the threatened person? Is it not their duty to remove the threat? In law this is called self-defence. To ward off the danger IS moral.
When an undesired zygote is developing into a threat to physical, mental and/or psychological life, should not the woman who has been forced into that situation and is not responsible, do her duty to God by removing the threat to her God-given life?
Can we amalgamate this with a zygote born out of love between two persons who want a child as an expression of their love? When our first-born child was leaving home for university studies, Loga held her and cried saying, “Mo vant pe brile, Saskia.” Loga had a difficult pregnancy and we did everything to save our child.
Can we expect that kind of relationship when there has been physical and psychological violence, brutality and rape?
Among those who are most vocal against the amendment to the Penal Code allowing termination of pregnancy in specific cases are MEN, advocates and arch-defenders of patriarchy and machismo. Have they ever carried a zygote, a foetus and a baby? Will they ever feel the burning pain women feel? Will they ever be forced to carry an undesired alien for nine months and look after it for years and years? Will they have to face the risk of death at childbirth? Will they ever have to face baby blues and other post-delivery trauma?
Ultimately only women should have the final say in the matter and men should support them. In this way maternal thinking (konpran feminen) will grow and democratic life in our Maritime Republic will be enhanced.
* * *
An Audit of Antidemocratic Hysteria
Whenever important issues are to be debated in mischievous moronic Mauritius be prepared for outrageously retrograde mind-boggling hysteria. In the fifties when the Labour Party was campaigning in favour of universal suffrage we even heard the then opposition claiming that one person one vote was tantamount to putting a sharp razor in the hand of a monkey (met razwar dan lame zako). In the sixties the campaign for independence was opposed by propaganda aimed at generating fear and hatred.
Fifty years later, when it comes to save human lives, help the poor and empower women, here they go again! Instead of forward progressive thinking we are forced to bear shallow crass stupidity. We are even told that the republic is not ready for the amendment of the Penal Code in order to decriminalize abortion in certain specific cases. That is not the truth. The Republic of Mauritius is ready. Only a few morons cannot accept change for they cannot see beyond the tip of their noses. Moreover they have their hidden agenda: they do not want women to have rights and the power to choose. We wonder how they manage to sneak into parliament.
Certain highly shocking remarks are heard. We are even told that trauma of rape prevents ovulation. (Is rape going to be proposed as an innovative birth control method?) Members of specific ethnic groups have proudly announced that their religious conviction prevents them from supporting the amendments. Some questions have to be asked. When they campaign for election, do they tell voters who belong to the other religious groups not to vote for them for in parliament they will defend and promote the rights of those who belong to their fold? Do elected members of parliament represent only one group of people or the whole constituency? Should not members of parliament, in their right mind, support legislation which benefits citizens most in need, irrespective of creed? Are not those who give priority to their religious belief practising communalism in parliament?
Outside parliament, some have written to Catholic MLA’s, Ministers and even the Acting President to lobby against the amendment to the Penal Code. Is this normal in a democracy? Is this not communalism in its most hideous form. The duty of a minister is to the Republic and not to a minority group. The Acting President represents the whole nation, not a small sectarian group. Is there not here an attempt to hijack democracy?
Worse O worse! There have been threats of hunger strike if the law is passed. Now a duly and democratically elected parliament is being denied the right to perform, to pass laws which respect to the Constitution. Government is being denied the right and duty to govern. Not only communalism is upheld. They also resort to blackmail to impose their will on the rest of the Republic.
How low can you get mischievous moronic Mauritius?
* Published in print edition on 8 June 2012