My late mother-in-law Rhoda Kadalie, who passed away on April 16, fought hard for abortion rights in the new South Africa. She was instrumental to their inclusion in the new South African Constitution, in the form of a right to "bodily integrity":
*2. Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right
a. to make decisions concerning reproduction;
b. to security in and control over their body; and
c. not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their
informed consent.*
After moving to the U.S., however, she was shocked at what the pro-choice movement was doing -- namely, arguing for abortion through birth.
That was not what Rhoda signed up for.
In South Africa, the right to abortion typically applies in the early stages of pregnancy, prior to 13 weeks.
In other words, the right to abortion in the world's most liberal constitution is more restrictive than almost every state law on abortion in the U.S.
After 13 weeks, and up to 20 weeks, abortion is only provided for specific reasons. And after 20 weeks, it is only performed to save the life of the mother.
Rhoda didn't "become pro-life." She remained pro-choice. But she came to oppose the contemporary pro-choice movement in the U.S., especially Planned Parenthood, because it tried to ignore the moral question of what abortion meant for the potential human life at stake in late-term pregnancies.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/South_Africa_2012.pdf?lang=en
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
