Advocating youth responsibility

Peter Espeut, Contributor

Jaevion Nelson describes himself at the bottom of his column as a "youth development, HIV and human rights advocate". I wish he would advocate that people avoid actions that would lead to AIDS.

Jaevion Nelson's column last Thursday also makes him a death advocate. He believes that killing unborn babies should be legal in Jamaica, under various euphemisms: "reproductive rights", "abortion services", "fertility management".

Because Section 72 of the Offences Against the Person Act makes killing unborn human beings illegal, he calls it "archaic". Jaevion Nelson, the human rights advocate, is certainly not an advocate for the rights of unborn human beings; he is, in fact, an advocate for their death - by the thousands.

Whose rights, and what rights, is Jaevion Nelson defending? In his column, Nelson laments that his friend 'Whitney', "a student who was not financially or emotionally prepared for a child", had "to pay $25,000 to terminate the pregnancy she didn't plan for". Was 'Whitney' the student "financially or emotionally prepared" for an abortion?

Nelson informs us that Jamaican women who want an abortion can easily get one at "Ward 5, which deals exclusively with abortions at the Victoria Jubilee Hospital" or at the "Fertility Management Unit at the Glen Vincent Health Centre". [Here is another case where the Jamaican State shamelessly breaks its own laws]. Is his complaint that she had to pay $25,000 to have her unborn baby killed? Is he here advocating that 'Whitney' should have had her abortion at taxpayers' expense?

MORE BALANCE NEEDED

Young Jaevion needs to put a little more balance in his writing, and his editors should guide him. Was 'Whitney' the student "emotionally prepared" to be having sex? Does he advocate any form of self-control for young people? Is young Jaevion advocating for "sex rights", that young people have the human right to have sex as they choose? Is sexual restraint "archaic"? One of the consequences of having sex is pregnancy. Jaevion is advocating that young people who freely choose to have sex must be able to avoid the consequences by killing the child developing in their wombs.

I work with young people, and I try hard to assist them to develop a sense of responsibility: to make responsible choices, and to face up to the consequences of their choices. For every freedom, there is a duty, and responsibilities come with rights. Youth-development advocates should assist in the development of responsible young citizens of this country, not advocate how they can avoid the natural consequences of their actions.

The argument advanced in favour of abortion by Jaevion Nelson is unbalanced because it gives rights only to women with an inconvenient pregnancy, and denies any rights at all to the human being within her. Others who would justify abortion claim that "a woman must have rights over her own body", so she must have the right to terminate an inconvenient pregnancy. This is the greatest obfuscation, for the human being developing within the mother's body is not her body: the DNA of the child is different; the child has a 50 per cent chance to be a different gender; their blood system is quite separate, and they have a separate heartbeat.

SHOULD FACE CONSEQUENCES

Indeed, a woman must have rights over her own body! For example, she must choose carefully about indulging that body in sexual intercourse. Once having done so, she must be responsible enough to abide by the physical, emotional and financial consequences of her actions.

In 2005, the Ministry of Health set up an Abortion Policy Review Group, which, predictably, recommended widespread availability of abortions. Jaevion writes: "It's regrettable we have allowed Christian ideology to overrule technical guidance from the Abortion Policy Review Group." Here we have it: technical advice must always overrule morality. As long as something is technically feasible, we must do it. Moral restraint is "archaic".

According to Jaevion, "This has undoubtedly been to the misery of so many Jamaican women - the poor, especially - who are in desperate need of abortion services." The Church is responsible for the misery of poor Jamaican women, not the choices poor women make about how they use their bodies. People must be able to do whatever they feel like doing - without restraint. Laws and the State itself must help them to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Thank God Jaevion Nelson is not typical of Jamaican young people, or I would despair where our beloved country might end up.

Peter Espeut is a human rights advocate and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.