Department of Philosophy

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/56

Browse

Browsing Department of Philosophy by Subject "Abortion -- Moral and ethical aspects -- Mexico City (Mexico)"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Whose morality, whose burden : abortion, international development and grandstanding
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2020-03) Thetard, Rudolph Court Heinrich; Van Niekerk, Anton A.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Philosophy.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT : The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) by the American Supreme Court is a pivotal moment in American history when the onus of choice about abortion shifted to pregnant women. While this signified victory for one segment of the American population (the pro-choice group), it awoke strong resistance from others (the pro-life group) resulting in long-standing acrimonious conflict. Pro-choice groups affiliated themselves with like-minded groups, including the Democratic Party, who stood for the rights of women to exercise reproductive choices including abortion. Pro-life groups aligned themselves with conservative religious groupings from which emerged the Christian Right. The Christian Right coined the term ‘right-to-life’ which, as part of their anti-abortion ideology, became a rallying cry in pursuit of the establishment of fetal personhood from the moment of conception, a core anti-abortion strategy. They created strong networks with conservative Republicans and subsequently, as a movement, became influential in the national political process and the election of Republican Presidents including Reagan, the two Bush’s and Trump. The Christian Right, in addition, pursued a global effort to strengthen their anti-abortion cause. The combination of domestic and international agendas stimulated the development of a strong American anti-abortion push exemplified by the enactment of the Mexico City Policy (MCP) in 1984. Subsequently, this policy has been typically re-enacted by Republican administrations and rescinded by Democratic administrations. The MCP restricts American Government funding to international NGOs who commit not to provide or promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if funded through alternative sources. Funding to non-compliant institutions is cut. MCP enactment has a severe impact since the American Government is a major funder of development aid, including family planning, globally. Much of this aid in support of family planning service delivery is processed through international NGOs who are active in low resource settings. MCP restrictions on non-compliant NGOs leads to family planning service gaps associated with an increase in maternal morbidity and mortality following a greater burden of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions. In addition, service providers are restricted in the provision of information and services related to reproductive choices that they can provide to pregnant women while pregnant women are denied the option of autonomously exercising their choice about pregnancy options including abortion. The imposition that follows MCP enactment together with the associated injustice and harms calls for the evaluation of the policy to determine whether it is just toward those at the receiving end of the policy. The ethical evaluation assesses the internal consistency of the policy and turns to global health ethics to assess the global impact of the policy. The evaluation concludes that the MCP is internally incoherent which weakens the moral foundation for its global application while global health ethics confirms that the policy is unjust and deepens global inequality and inequity. Recommendations are formulated to address the impact of the MCP when enacted. Recommendations aim to mitigate injustice by encouraging compromise between opposing groups as a key mechanism for reducing the impact of the MCP.