Of Kenya, the Church, Abortion and the Law

This is hard to write about. Questions going through my mind as I begin this daunting task are “am I compromised? Is this how God sees it? Am I right? Is Pragmatism a desirable philosophical position? What is the Ideal?” etc.

A brief background to this would suffice. About two years ago I was poised to take my place as a fellow with a conservative think-tank in Washington DC. As I prepared to leave my beloved motherland I was more than elated. I was not merely flying out just to take another MBA or a Degree Course like “many others!” No! With undue pride – of which I am deeply in repentance – I was convinced, and still am, that I was out to acquire the necessary expertise and experience necessary to address the emerging trends in my beloved country. In other words, I was confidant that upon return home, I would be apt to offer professional guidance on significant issues affecting Kenya and beyond.

Before I left Kenya I made a case for my intended sojourn in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Notice my quotation marks. One day I will explain my dilemma on the quoted statement. I urged the Church to pray with/for me as I engage in this noble task and as I prepare to “save Kenya.” You must not help noticing this audacious Messiah complex – neither do I. Yes, I was optimistic about SAVING KENYA but not any more. No amount of Politics or structural adjustments and changes can save a nation. I was wrong and I say so with regret.

Some of the issues that I mentioned that needed address and still do include: the abortion industry, the emergence of same sex marriage, pornography, sperm donation and in-vitro-fertilization, illicit sex trade (which my Proposed MTheol – Applied Ethics was about) etc. Not so many questions were asked but so many applauses came my way which only went a long way in cementing my then growing pharisaic mentality. Feelings like, what are they doing about these issues, good-for-nothing Christians filled my heart.

But one medical student did not let my words in Church go unchallenged. Teresa Bonyo calmly asked me whether I was right in totally rejecting abortion. My answer was but of course! Or how else would you interpret the sixth commandment – Do not commit murder? At this point I must say that this position has not changed even an inch. I must add though that my position was not as well researched as I had previously assumed. This is the background upon which I left my beloved motherland as I prepared to engage in public policy “the Christian way!”

Studying and working at an influential think-tank at the centre of the World’s political capital is no mean achievement. I was housed just one block from the Senate offices and two blocks from the nation’s capital, and the library of Congress. I also had the rare opportunity to engage with some of the finest minds in both liberal and conservative ideologies. I witnessed the first hand debates on the issues then closer to my heart – abortion, war, homosexuality and stem cell research. So much about the glamour of DC – did I mention my two visits to the White House? As if that is important at all!

Well, among many other issues I studied and debated on the Capitol Hill was the issue of abortion. Soon the debate intensified, not just from mere abortion to abortion on demand. I noted that even though there were genuine citizens out there who are genuinely concerned about the sanctity of life – both of the mother and the unborn baby, the strongest and most influential forces on this debate are people with political, economic and shear ideological agenda. There is the social conservative wing that is irked by the liberal money making machine called the Planned Parenthood – the very one that is also said to be funding the activities of Marie Stopes Clinic in Kenya. Marie Stopes, it is rumoured, silently advocates for abortion under the guise of female reproductive health. I have no credible evidence – just stating what I have heard from the walls.

The other political force is the liberal group whose cause is to daunt people with “impressive” scholarship as well as sound messianic. They are of course heavily funded by the money minting Planned Parenthood. So don’t lose the sight on the economics of this debate. Then there are the general perverts of the society who want to have sex without responsibility. This group argues that people can do what they want with themselves and this includes termination of pregnancy. Closely supported by this group is the feminist movement that seeks to “empower” the womenfolk. Honestly, I think they are dis-empowered by such movements – but that is a debate for another day.

Finally, there are the religious zealots. This is the category in which I fall under. This group’s inspiration is an idealistic philosophy that claims that truth is absolute. Fundamentally, they draw their ideology from Scripture – the true word of God. Key to this position is the word imperative, which is indeed a command. Thus “thou shall not commit murder” is not a suggestion but a command which comes with consequences. To cement this position, we have also argued convincingly from history that nations on decline have always shown their imminent demise by the way they have treated their unborn. Citing the experiences of ancient Greece and Rome, I could not agree more.

But also amongst this group are the moralists who seek to legislate individual morality. This section of people I view as legalists who don’t understand the fallen as well as transient nature of mankind. They also miss the distinctive role of the cross and ultimate redemptive agenda of the Messiah. Unfortunately, from my reading of a greater section of the Kenyan Church, this is where they belong in the current debate. The other group of course understand that the Bible commands purity in all spheres of life and that our purity is a response to grace. That the regenerate soul responds to what the triune Godhead has declared as good. This view therefore sees man as inherently depraved and utterly in need of salvation.

Heavily influenced by both Platonic idealism and Kant’s categorical imperative, I have oscillated between the two groups before finally settling on the latter. When I erroneously held the former, I misled myself to believe that if people cannot individually seek their salvation then they can be saved from themselves. Thus legislating morality is their only solution. Since decisively moving from that complicated pharisaic attitude, I have found it noble to preach the grace of God and His righteousness – that through the sufficiency of the death of Christ, salvation comes to those who will believe. A concise understanding of this fundamental truth will easily blot the abortion debate out of our daily menu.

Ironically, some of the groups that decampaigns abortion ostensibly on the grounds of the sixth commandment also defend the just war theory citing the same Bible and seeing no contradiction. On the other hand, the liberal group that massages the abortionists’ ego are way up in opposing the just war theory arguing that the universal human right to life must be upheld. What they fail to answer is why then do they find it appealing to advocate for abortion on demand – the unnecessary taking away of the unborn. I find an audacious contradiction in this school of thought as well.

I must admit that there is merit in the argument that the helpless in the society needs to be defended. The unborn, like the widows, orphans and other marginalised persons deserve our support by all means. What I don’t buy is that this should be done through legislation. I believe that individual conscience and convictions on the sanctity of human life would go a long way in defending the rights of the unborn than the endless war and debates on its legislation. Debates that are heavily influenced by forces that be and they that use the common man as pawns and fodder for their hidden war carefully concealed as attractive well-meaning legislative agenda.

Christ declared that adultery did not only constitute of the act but also the premeditation of it thereof. Thus we have all largely agreed that we cannot help people or even ourselves from being adulterous if the conditions of their hearts do not want that help. I mean, I can be confined in a Monastery but will still be as lustful. Lessons from St Anthony and St Augustine come handy in this. St Augustine confessed his struggle with lust – he couldn’t let go of his mistress. Upon comprehending the gist of the Gospel message from Bishop Ambrose of Milan, this great theologian and scholar – to be struggled with embracing the Gospel because the practical implication was a change of attitude and behaviour – something he wasn’t quite yet ready for then.

By implication, I argue that if a woman, in her heart desires to take away the life of her unborn – even with a legislative barrier, as a Christian, I will not have helped the condition of her heart. We may detain her in some place until safe delivery of the baby but in her heart murder has been committed. Well, according to Jesus’ moral philosophy she who premeditates murder has murdered just like he who premeditates adultery. What Christian leaders need to address more strongly is the condition of the human heart in response to post modernism and its ideologies and not on legislative imperatives, whether hypothetical or categorical.

Then there is the case of the medical practitioner. I think they are put in the most awkward positions. What should they do when they are not in a position to save the life of both the unborn and the mother without risking the life of either? Should professional discretion be allowed in determining which of the two should be saved? Where is murder in this case? What about a legislation compelling a doctor to aid in abortion against his/her conscience?

Let us take a hypothetical scenario. Assuming that conditional abortion, as stipulated in the proposed Kenyan constitution is effected. Then a doctor, who by religious convictions or otherwise does not accept abortion of any kind as legitimate practice, is on duty. Assuming also that the mother’s life is in danger and this doctor is the only surgeon who is able to save the situation (saving here implying an administering abortion). Should the doctor maintain that his conscience would not allow him to perform the duty and in so doing let the woman die? If he does so, should he prosecuted for negligence and consequent murder? Or should he defy his conscience, save the mother and live to regret having killed the helpless child?

What if the draft is amended to forbid abortion for whatever reason and we are faced with the same scenario where a woman’s life is in danger. What should the doctor do? Should he save the woman and face prosecution for securing an abortion? Should he allow the woman to die because abortion is impermissible? If this happens and the woman dies, how will the doctor live with his conscience knowing that he could have saved her life? Should the doctor face prosecution for negligence?

I don’t have answers for these questions. I am however inclined to argue that some professional discretion should be upheld in the law. These hypothetical situations are real life issues that the advocating Kenyan clergy cannot ignore. As they say no to abortion – which I do too, they must say also give reasonable answers to these demanding questions.

I think it is easier for a Catholic priest like Arch-bishop Njue to insist on no abortion legislative policy and feel nothing since they don’t have spouses – at least legitimate ones, neither do they create life. Perhaps, God should put the wife of one of those people at the NCCK into a situation as hypothesised above so that we can see how the husband practically deals with the situation – whether to let the wife or the baby or both to die if only either or only the wife could be saved. God forbid but wouldn’t it be more practical than calling endless press conferences on No reforms if abortion is permitted.

I think the entire draft has significant flows but not significant enough to deny the people a “good” governing document. In any case, it is comparatively better than what we have today. It is therefore my proposal that it is passed and that necessary amendments are made later on. Maybe the abortion clause can be removed and provisions made for in an act of parliament. Otherwise, denying the citizens this vital document just for trivial dogmatic and ideological as well as political conveniences is chasing the wind.

Two years ago, I would have argued like John Njue et al but the only thing that does not change is change itself.

Thus, I conclude – abortion is a violation of the sixth commandment, it is sinful and will ultimately be punished by a just and righteous God who abhors evil. However, I will not compel anybody against their will not to sin. I will also not cheer them into sin but will also not embrace their sin. I will lovingly but categorically summon them to a life of righteousness and allow them to make their decisions. However, those who argue with me along this line must find a convincing reason why murderers should be apprehended while abortionists set free… Hard nut eh!