Kenya and the Abortion debate

Yesterday in one of our Dailies there was an "exposé" on abortion. The writer appeared amazed that this operation takes only a few minutes and it was "shocking" that in one case a woman had had six abortions and in one case she actually had it done over lunchtime and was back to class in the afternoon with nary a problem. There was also a claim that there are 29 abortions for every 100 live births. Abortion in Kenya is illegal, and many organizations are opting to educate Kenyan women, and men, on various family planning methods. Our religious organizations are pushing for the ineffective abstinence method, many corporations and NGOs are pushing for condom use while a small number (mainly religious) are pushing for faithfulness to a single partner. All of them are trying to put emphasis on prevention while, as usual in this country, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. The problem, I think, is not abortion but what leads one to abortion.

It is said that the replacement rate for a stable population is about 2.3 children per woman while in Kenya the rate is 4.38 children per woman (estimates as per 2011). This would imply that the population is growing at almost twice the replacement rate. As per 2011 estimate, Kenya is having 31.93 births per 1,000 persons and a 7.26 deaths per 1,000 persons an average increase of 24.67 per 1,000 persons. Our infant mortality rate is 43.61 per 1,000 live births, the maternal mortality rate of 5.3 per 1,000 and our HIV prevalence rate is about 6.3% with estimated deaths of about 80,000 per year.

Kenya also has a high religiosity index with over 98% of Kenyans professing some kind of deity. The three major religions (Christian Protestants, Roman Catholic and Islam) are estimated to be about 88% (though the figures for the Muslim population are disputed) while indigenous religions are about 10%. Some of these indigenous religions are an offshoot of Christianity. As of 2012 it is estimated that about 50% of Kenyans live below the poverty line. This figure has risen from 42% in 1992. The poverty rate is defined as living below 107 Kes (USD 1.25) per day. This is a country that has a health expenditure of 12% of GDP, 0.14 physicians per 1,000 persons and 1.4 hospital beds per 1,000 persons. The government spends about 20% of its budget on recurrent expenditure and only about 10% on development (2010. Sources KIPPRA).

Sex is a basic need, and all attempts to regulate and/or limit sexual activity only drives these activities underground. Kenya's highly religious and hypocritical society frowns upon sex outside of the "sacred" institution of marriage. Men are frequently frogmarched to police stations for "soiling" the marriage bed, women are stripped and beaten for straying, prostitution, casual sex and same sex liaisons are frowned upon, nay, forbidden. Women who give birth outside of marriage are frequently ostracised and considered loose. Society will shun the unmarried mother and women bear the brunt, and responsibilities, of single motherhood. For a strange reason the men who impregnated these women will frequently get off scot free or get an equivalent of a slap on the wrists. There are no social networks in place for taking care of extra children and there is a cultural folk tale that claims God provides for all children which absolves the general society the responsibility to taken care of them. Given the poverty levels it is also understandable that extra children might become an unbearable burden on the parents and society at large.

Given that the girl child will most likely drop out of school if she gets pregnant, with rapidly vanishing chances of continuing education after delivery, as well as the high chances of being thrown out of her parents home, it is actually more surprising that we do not have more abortion cases than are reported. In most cases the cost of maintenance and upkeep of the child will be borne by the woman, and even where the partner helps the income levels may severely limit the options available to the couple. With no safety net a couple facing the prospects of a child has to work out if they can realistically afford this child, not only in monetary terms, but also the social and health costs of maintaining this child.

Since women bear the brunt of this, and women also are the ones who carry this child I think it really should be in their interests to be given a choice whether, or not, to carry the child to term. A woman's choice should not be curtailed for religious and/or social reasons and since these same religious and social enforcers do not bear any of the costs of maintaining this child after delivery they should not be part of the decision whether, or not, a woman should carry a child to term. The choice ultimately is the woman's. She is the one who carries the child, she is the one who delivers the child and she is the one who will be required to take care of many aspects of that child. She thus should also be the one who decides whether, or not, the child is to be carried to term.

This, however, does not absolve the men of any responsibility towards the child. Inasmuch as a man has contributed to the conception he should also contribute to the discussion, advice, upkeep and maintenance of this child. Whereas the woman should, and must, have the ultimate choice whether to carry the child to term or not, the man, too, can state his preferences on the issue. He is an interested party, and while he may not, and should not be, the ultimate decision maker his opinion does count. He has, as our learned friends put it, locus standi.

Leaving abortion as illegal only drives the practice underground. Women, and men, will opt for an abortion for many reasons and they will procure one regardless as to its illegality. The only purpose making it illegal serves is to condemn many poor and uninformed women to premature deaths from botched or incompetently done abortions, or condemn many children, and mothers, to a lifetime of poverty and suffering with not much chance of escaping the poverty trap.

At this stage in my life I probably would not advise any woman who may have been impregnated by me to abort however if I had over my regulation 2.3 children the scenario would probably change. It is easy for one who is living in relative comfort with most of the basic necessities assured to say women should, and must, not abort, however one should have a level of empathy for other people. What do you expect a woman in school who knows her parents will disown her to do? What do you expect that woman in the slums who is already feeding 12 children to do? What do you expect that woman whose career and further prospects would be shattered by a pregnancy to do?

Religious groups cite the absolute sanctity of life in their opposition to abortion. This argument however falls flat when you consider the number of goats, cows, bacteria, chicken, viruses or even humans that are killed through human action, and inaction. It is hypocritical to claim sanctity of life when thousands of children are dying every say from preventable deceases, when thousands more are starving to death and when thousands of mothers are dying from childbirth and childbirth related complications. We seem to be more bothered about the rights of the unborn than we are about the rights of those living. We are moved more by the plight of an aborted foetus than we are by the face of a hungry child.

Perhaps let us first ban poverty, let us declare poverty a crime against the state and punish those who keep people in poverty with the same terms we punish those who procure an abortion. Let us ban social hypocrisy, let us ban hunger, let us ban ignorance and those practices that prevent us from enjoying our sex without guilt or shame. Let us make it easier and cheaper for us to control conception, let us educate our children on sex, let us ban our prejudiced views and make it easier for everyone to access information, services and satisfaction from our sexual activities. Then we can go on to ban abortion. I can assure you, though, you'll be banning an obsolete practice.

Crime and Punishment

I know I'll get in trouble for this but here goes.

Let's start by defining some of our terms.

Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction.

Legally

A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state as a felony or misdemeanor. A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more limited sense is confined to felony.

Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these include all offences against the moral law; or they are 'mala prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or indifferent.

There are significant differences between a misdemeanor and a felony offense. A felony is defined as a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or by death
Felonies are typically the most serious crimes in any system of criminal law. However, any crime that has a sentence of only a fine or confinement in the local jail does not necessarily qualify for a felony.

In comparison to felonies, misdemeanors are less-serious crimes. They are generally punishable by a fine or captivity in jail for less than one year. Often, misdemeanors are handled by special courts with abbreviated procedures.

Prostitution: The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses.
Performing for hire, or offering or agreeing to perform for hire where there is an exchange of value, any of the following acts: Sexual intercourse; sodomy, or; manual or other bodily contact stimulation of the genitals of any person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of the offender or another.
The common lewdness of a woman for gain.

Now lets look at some of our crimes. In the Penal code Cap. 63 Chapter 1
153: (1) Every male person who
(a)    knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution; or
(b)   in any public place persistently solicits or importunes for immoral purposes,
is guilty of a misdemeanour; and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section the court may, in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded, sentence the offender to corporal punishment.

154: Every woman who knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution, or who is proved to have, for the purpose of gain, exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that she is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution with any person, or generally, is guilty of a felony.

Firstly, what is the crime here? Getting payed for sexual favours. And exactly why is it a crime? Notice also that while a male person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution" commits a misdemeanor, it is considered a felony for a female person who "knowingly lives wholly or in part on the earnings of prostitution". Case of double standards, or is it gender discrimination?

The crime is a person willingly offering sexual services to another willing person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). If we removed the word sexual this would define almost any service that is offered. In cases where gratification is given, for example, cleaning a house, massage, running errands, driving one around, giving somebody a bath, offering butler services, secretarial services or even ushering, a person offers services to another wiling person (who is not a spouse) for some gain (usually monetary). Why then is the former treated different from the latter?

The Sexual Offences Act 2006 states in the preamble "An Act of Parliament to make provision about sexual offences, their definition, prevention and the protection of all persons from harm from unlawful sexual acts, and for connected purposes"

In the case of prostitution, willing that is, who is the person hurt? The client gets a service, the supplier gets due recompense and they both go away happy. The only entity that suffers here seems to be the government since it does not tax this illegal act that harms no one. And in this case the suffering is self inflicted.

Some objectors will point out that a number of these prostitutes are doing this job because of poverty, or lack of education, or even because they cannot get other jobs. However that argument is invalid because quite a lot of us are in other, legitimate, professions because of poverty, lack of education or simply because we cannot get other jobs. Any person claiming that all secretaries wanted to be secretaries, or that all drivers aspired to be drivers, all accountants wanted to be accountants, or even that all police-persons aspired to be so would be economical with the truth. Are we going to abandon these professions too just because a some people failed to have them as their dream careers? Why are we wasting security, legal and judicial resources prosecuting crimes that have no victim, or even a complainant that can justifiably say their rights, freedoms or property have been abrogated? Do we not have actual crimes to prosecute? Serious ones like serial murderers, grenade throwers and resource stealing MPs fail to be prosecuted because we have inadequate or indifferent resources and yet we regularly get sweeps in town to get rid of prostitutes while one street down some hapless Kenyan is getting "ngetaed" on the way home.