Emil Hagamu

An inside view: abortion is foreign to Africa

Emil Hagamu
By Emil Hagamu
Image

October 10, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - So-called progressive organizations are attempting to paint a false picture of abortion in Africa. 

In a recent report written by Kapya John Kaoma for the “progressive” group Political Research Associates, the author personally attacks myself and the organization I represent, Human Life International (HLI), claiming we are using Christianity to “destroy innocent lives” and “colonize” African culture through our work to protect the sanctity of life and the sanctity of the family.

In the author’s warped view of Christianity and of African culture, we are led to believe that Africans have traditionally embraced abortion, and that those who rely on Christian teaching to show the immorality of abortion are attempting to subdue traditional values in Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The report claims that in Africa “abortion is widely accepted as a personal matter, even when viewed as morally wrong.” HLI is attacked for exposing an illegal abortion in Uganda because it is supposedly a “stark deviation from African culture” to make such things public. The author even charges HLI with making the apparently ridiculous claim that “birth control is a Western import,” and attacks our work against contraception when it is widely known that tens of millions of dollars’ worth of contraceptives are literally imported annually from Western nations. Western governments and NGOs boast of this fact in their annual reports and web sites. Why Mr. Kaoma would deny this is a question worth asking.

I think that most people realize that using the privacy of a matter to defend its morality is a questionable tactic. Female circumcision also happens in private and is widely practiced in some African nations. Is Mr. Kaoma suggesting that there should therefore be no laws against this cruel practice? Should this also be considered a “personal matter,” and thus be left unprosecuted by authorities?

In African communities, the death of a child is no small matter. We have never “accepted” abortion in African culture. Expanded legalization of abortion is being forced upon us by the traditional colonizing powers of the West, who are using their money and power to “destroy innocent lives.” Pro-life Christians are working, with limited sums, to protect our culture.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Growing up in a remote area of Tanzania, I attended my primary education in a rural setting. I never even left my village until I went to university, where I specialized in languages and African literature. Together with my studies in sociology, my perspective broadened greatly as I learned about African cultures through various literary works, and as I learned how the culture of people is embodied in its language. While investigating whether or not any African language has any word or phrase that would correspond to the English word “abortion,” I have yet to find a single example. You would think something so “widely accepted” in our culture would be named.

I speak two local languages, Kinyanja and Kimatengo, neither of which has a word for abortion. Among the Igbo in Nigeria, human life is widely respected and any attempt to kill unborn human life is regarded as an abomination. When I asked colleagues in Sudan two years ago if they have word for abortion, they laughed at me and said they have never heard of such a word. I have also asked the Sotho in Lesotho, the Swazi in Swaziland, the Shona in Zimbabwe, the Chewa in Malawi and the Baganda in Uganda – all of whom unequivocally said they do not have word for abortion. Instead, they told me, there is a word for miscarriage. There is also often a special rite to bury the body of a stillborn baby, usually only women were involved. In fact, the rite was done so respectfully and secretly that children were not allowed to know.

So the claim that “since abortion is widely accepted as a personal matter, even when viewed as morally wrong” is utterly false and is meant to whitewash the imposition of a foreign concept into an African cultural setting. Until recent years, there was little or no abortion practice in Africa – and it was certainly not considered acceptable if it was practiced. It has always been viewed as morally wrong, and that is why it cannot be treated as merely a personal matter, any more than any other morally offensive practice. This is why those who have tried to forcefully introduce abortion in Africa have in large part failed.

Indeed, those who are still trying to bring abortion into Africa have tried to sell the evil practice by calling it “safe abortion.” But with a few sad exceptions they have yet to succeed. In an obscure provision (Article 14 (2)(c)), the Maputo Protocol tried to introduce abortion by appealing to exceptions such as abortion for rape, incest, for the mother’s life or health, but has not succeeded either. In Tanzania, the abortion lobby, through the deceptively named “Safe Motherhood Bill,” included exceptions to allow abortion for the woman’s physical or mental health, in the case that the child would be physically or mentally disabled and even if the mother suffers from a mental disability.

By using the concept “safe motherhood” abortion proponents thought it would appeal to the African mind. It has not and it will never convince African fathers and mothers to kill their unborn children “safely.” For, in truth, there is no “safe abortion.” People in Africa know in every abortion one person is killed, one person is wounded and one person gets paid.

Sadly, this attempt to expand abortion access in Tanzania has been led by a development organization that until recently has enjoyed great respect in Africa, CARE International. When I held a press conference to condemn the hidden expansion of abortion in the “Safe Motherhood” bill, I was contacted by CARE representatives who apparently thought they could change my mind. Since my reply to them, I have not heard back.

The fact that CARE International is now a leading promoter of both abortion and contraception in Africa should give serious pause to any government or Christian organization who is thinking about working with them. Interestingly, even CARE does not seem to care for the word “abortion” very much either, since they only refer to it and to contraception under the name of “reproductive health,” which they now say is as essential as food, water and shelter in “helping” Africans who are in emergency situations.

So it is true that abortion, like contraception, is an import from the West into African countries; a “gift” from those who seem to think that there are too many Africans. And now after gaining the support of liberal members of our society – radical feminists and gender activists – through media and financial incentives, a number of women do undergo abortions. But this does not in any way mean that abortion is accepted by a majority of women. That is why any attempt to use the Parliament to enact abortion laws has been met with stiff resistance by life-loving parliamentarians who still faithfully represent their constituents.

Emil Hagamu is HLI’s Regional Coordinator for Anglophone Africa.

FREE pro-life news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

Two Congressmen confirm: National 20-week ban on abortion will come up for a vote shortly

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A bill to end abortion in the United States after 20 weeks will move forward, and it will have the strong support of two leading pro-life Congressmen, the two Republicans told LifeSiteNews.com at the eighth annual Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Summit on Thursday.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-NJ, told LifeSiteNews and the National Catholic Register that ongoing House discussions on H.R. 36, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act," will result in a pro-life bill moving forward.

"Very good language" is being put together, Smith told The Register. He told LifeSiteNews that he fully anticipated being able to support the final bill, because the House Republican caucus "wouldn't have something that would be unsupportable. Our leadership is genuinely pro-life."

In 2013, the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" easily passed through the House of Representatives, only to be stalled by a Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, an identical bill was halted by Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-NC, and other Republicans -- surprising and angering pro-life leaders who thought its passage was assured. That bill, H.R. 36, is now being rewritten so it can be voted on by the full House, though its final wording remains uncertain.

Some fear that the House leadership will modify the bill to mollify Ellmers. She and others objected that the bill allows women to abort a child after 20 weeks in the case of rape – but only if they report that rape to the authorities.

Pro-life activists say removing the reporting requirement would take abortionists at their word that the women whose children they abort claimed to be raped. Congresswoman Ellmers has publicly stated the House leadership is considering such a proposal.

Jill Stanek, who was recently arrested on Capitol Hill as part of a protest to encourage Republicans to pass H.R. 36, said that would be "a loophole big enough for a Mack truck."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Congressman Smith said the bill will come to the floor shortly. "The commitment to this bill is ironclad; we just have to work out some details," Smith said.

He also noted that, while a vote on the 20-week ban has been delayed for nearly three months, "we did get the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act passed, and that would have been in the queue now, so we just reversed" the order of the two bills.

Congressman Smith spoke to both outlets shortly after participating in a panel at the Summit.

Another speaker was Rep. Steve King, R-IA, who also supports the 20-week ban.

"I can't think of what” language that is actively under consideration could make him rethink his support for the bill, King said. He also told attendees that the nation was moving in a direction of supporting life.

The outspoken Congressman declined to answer further, noting "that's asking me to anticipate an unknown hypothetical."

The annual Campaign for Life Summit and its related gala drew other high-profile speakers, including presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul, potential presidential hopeful Senator Lindsay Graham, and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.  

Advertisement
Featured Image
"Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience."
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Pro-lifers are winning. So now they’re coming for our cupcakes?

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

As I travel across Canada (and at times the United States) speaking on abortion and various facets of the Culture of Death, one of the things I hear often is a hopelessness, a despair that the West is being flattened by the juggernaut of the Sexual Revolution. There is a feeling among many people that the restriction of religious liberty, the continued legality of abortion, and the redefinition of marriage are inevitable.

This is, of course, one of the most prominent and successful strategies of the Sexual Revolutionaries—create an aura of inevitability while concurrently demonizing all those who oppose their new and mangled “progress” as Neanderthals on the cusp of being left behind by History. That inevitability becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because many people don’t realize that the various battles in the Sexual Revolution actually all correlate to one another—that what we are seeing now is the end game of an incredibly vast and well-planned cultural project.

It is because we miss many of these connections that we often cannot see, with clarity, how the culture wars are actually unfolding. I read with great interest a recent column by Rev. Douglas Wilson, eloquently titled “With stirrups raised to Molech.”

“We are now much occupied with the issues swirling around same sex mirage,” he writes, “but we need to take great care not to get distracted. Why have the homosexual activists gone all in on this issue? Why is their prosecutorial zeal so adamant? We went, in just a matter of months, from ‘let’s let individual states’ decide on this, to federal judges striking down state statutes, followed up hard by official harassment of florists, bakers, and photographers. Why the anger, and why the savage over-reach? And do they really think we couldn’t remember all the things they were assuring us of this time last year?”

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

It’s a compelling question, and one that I’ve heard many Christians puzzling over recently. Why do the advocates of the Sexual Revolution despise those who disagree with them so viciously? It is partly because their cultural project does not, as they claim, consist of “living and let live.” It is about compulsory acceptance of any and all sexual behaviors, with tax-payer funding for the rubbers and pills they need to ensure all such behaviors remain sterile, and extermination crews to suction, poison, and dismember any inconvenient fetuses that may come into being as the result of casual coitus.

The ancient mantra “the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation” has long been abandoned—the emboldened Sexual Revolutionaries now demand that politicians show up at their exhibitionist parades of public indecency, force schools to impose their so-called “morally neutral” view of sexuality on children, and force into silence those who still hold to traditional values.

Rev. Wilson, however, thinks that this loud and vicious war on conscience may be about even more than that. The pro-life cause, he notes, has been very successful in the Unites States. The abortion rate is the lowest it has been since 1973. Hundreds of pro-life laws are passing on the state level. The abortion industry has been successfully stigmatized. True, the successes are, for pro-lifers, often too feeble and not nearly adequate enough in the face of such unrestrained bloodshed. Nevertheless, the momentum has turned against the Sexual Revolutionaries who have championed abortion for decades—their shock and anger at the strength of the pro-life movement evident in pro-abortion signs at rallies that read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this s**t.”

It is because of the pro-life movement’s success, Wilson muses, that the Sexual Revolutionaries may be coming at us with such fury. “If a nation has slaughtered 50 million infants,” he writes, “they are not going to suddenly get a sense of decency over you and your cupcakes. Now this explains their lack of proportion, and their refusal to acknowledge the rights of florists. Someone who doesn’t flinch at the dismemberment of babies is not going to flinch at the dismemberment of some evangelical baker’s conscience. This reveals their distorted priorities, of course, but it also might be revealing a strategy. Is the homosexual lobby doing this because they are freaking out over their losses on the pro-life front? And are they doing so in a way intended to distract us away from an issue where we are slowly, gradually, inexorably, winning?”

It’s a fascinating perspective. It’s true—and has always been true historically—that when one group of human beings is classified as nonhuman by a society as nonhuman and subsequently butchered, the whole of society is degraded. No nation and no culture can collectively and systematically kill so many human beings without a correlating hardening of the conscience. But on the pro-life front, there has been decades of fierce resistance, hundreds of incremental victories, and a renewed energy among the upcoming generation of activists. For the Sexual Revolutionaries who thought the battle was over when Roe v. Wade was announced in 1973, this must be a bitter pill to swallow indeed.

Follow Jonathon van Maren on Facebook

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

, ,

‘Prominent’ Catholics attacking Archbishop Cordileone are big donors to Pelosi and pro-abort Democrats

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

Note: To sign a petition supporting Archbishop Cordileone, click here

SAN FRANCISCO, CA, April 17, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Big donors to the Democrat Party and pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi are among those publicly harassing San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone for protecting Catholic identity in the area’s Catholic high schools.

A big-ticket full-page ad ran April 16 in the San Francisco Chronicle attacking the archbishop and calling Pope Francis to oust him for his efforts to reinforce Catholic principles in the schools.

A number of prominent San Francisco-area residents identifying as Catholic are signatories of the ad, and several are wealthy donors to Democrat entities and pro-abortion politicians, Catholic Vote reports.

Federal Election Commission records indicate Charles Geschke, Adobe Systems chairman and previous head of the Board of Trustees at the University of San Francisco, gave more than $240,000 to Democrat groups, as well as $2,300 to Nancy Pelosi and $4,000 to John Kerry, both politicians who claim to be Catholic but support abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Also on the list is political consultant and businessman Clint Reilly, who gave nearly $60,000 to Democrat organizations, along with $5,000 to Barack Obama, whose administration vehemently promotes abortion and homosexual “marriage” and has continually opposed religious liberty. Reilly gave $4,600 to Pelosi as well.

Another individual in the ad attacking the archbishop who also gave big campaign donations to California pro-abort Democrats was Lou Giraudo, a former city commissioner and business executive who contributed more than $24,000 to Nancy Pelosi, $6,000 to Dianne Feinstein and $4,300 to Barbara Boxer.

Nancy Pelosi herself challenged the archbishop for his stance on Catholic teaching last year when she tried to pressure him out of speaking at the March for Marriage in Washington D.C., claiming the event was “venom masquerading as virtue.”

The archbishop responded in a letter that he was obliged “as a bishop, to proclaim the truth—the whole truth—about the human person and God’s will for our flourishing ... especially the truth about marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.”

The April 16 ad attacking Archbishop Cordileone was the latest in an ongoing assault since the archbishop took steps in February to strengthen Catholic identity in the schools and clarify for faculty and staff in handbooks and contract language the long-standing expectation that they uphold Church principles. 

It said Archbishop Cordileone has “fostered an atmosphere of division and intolerance” and called on Pope Francis to remove him.

“Holy Father, Please Provide Us With a Leader True to Our Values and Your Namesake,” the ad said. “Please Replace Archbishop Cordileone.”

The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (CCC), a national association for priests and deacons, condemned Archbishop Cordileone’s harassers in a statement, saying the archbishop “teaches in conformity to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

“The character assassination and uncharitable venom being cast upon a bishop merely defending the doctrines of his religion is appalling and repugnant,” the CCC said. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

“It is totally inappropriate, improper and unjust for the media and others to vilify and brutally attack him when he is doing precisely what an ordained minister and pastor of souls is obligated to do,” the group stated, “namely, speak the truth in season and out of season.”

Those behind the attack ad said the proposed handbook language was mean-spirited, and that they were “committed Catholics inspired by Vatican II,” who “believe in the traditions of conscience, respect and inclusion upon which our Catholic faith was founded.”

The Archdiocese of San Francisco denounced the ad upon its release, saying it was a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching and the nature of the teacher contract, and a misrepresentation of the spirit of the Archbishop.

“The greatest misrepresentation of all is that the signers presume to speak for “the Catholic Community of San Francisco,” the archdiocese responded. “They do not.”

The CCC pointed out that just as physicians are expected to be faithful to the Hippocratic Oath, bishops, priests, and deacons are expected to be faithful to the Church, its teachings and its authority, “since their objective is the salvation of souls, not a popularity contest.” 

In openly declaring their support for Archbishop Cordileone, the group urged the media and others to show “prudence, civility, and fair-mindedness” toward those with whom they disagree.

“He took an oath to be faithful to the Gospel,” the Confraternity stated of Archbishop Cordileone, “and in the words of the disciples in the New Testament, ‘better to obey God than men.’”

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook