Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the arguments raised by the hon. member for Edenvale. I do not see the hon. member for Edenvale in his place today. I know that there have been substantial changes on the other side, so I shall have to look carefully. I wonder whether the hon. member for Edenvale, having moved from Stellenbosch to Edenvale, is perhaps unable to find his place here today.

What clause are you discussing now?

A United Party clause.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Edenvale will make a decision quickly and I trust that the hon. member for Yeoville will not hold his decision against him. I might as well continue in the absence of the hon. member for Edenvale.

I want to reply very briefly to the arguments raised by the Opposition to support their standpoint. I tried to state the position to them clearly yesterday. Actually I am sorry that the hon. member for Edenvale is not present because he asked very piously that we should please effect this change. I want to tell hon. members opposite that their amendments which they want me to adopt would cause all kinds of problems and are therefore entirely unacceptable to me. They dragged in the question of the Coloureds here and said that we should deal with the Bantu now in the same way. I want to put it very clearly that there is no analogy between our Coloured policy and the policy in respect of Black homelands. If it is a question of discussion or negotiation with them, then that takes place in an entirely different manner.

The second point is the question of a sharing of power, in that they asked us to include the Cabinet of the homeland. That we are totally unable to accept because it would amount to sharing of power. Also involved here is the matter of consultation and the meaning of the word as it stands in the Bill. I explained yesterday and I want to repeat it—there are some members opposite who apparently disagree— that “in consultation” means that there must be assent. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that after many wanderings the hon. member for Edenvale is now taking his place. It is a pity he was not present from the outset. I trust he is satisfied that he is now in the right place.

What clause are you dealing with now?

As I have said, I am now dealing with the matter of “in consultation” and “after consultation”. I want to put it very clearly that our approach in this matter is that “in consultation” means that assent must be obtained. If one were to involve the Cabinet or the Minister of Finance of a homeland, it would simply mean that the three persons consulting in that regard would have to achieve unanimity. It is very clear that in such a case we should be moving on very dangerous ground, quite apart from the fact that we should be involving these people in a way which would amount to sharing of power.

The next point I want to mention—and this is in reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South—concerns his statement that this is not a question of calculation, but of negotiation. I want to tell him that it is in fact a matter of calculation. This is a matter in regard to which the officials concerned with finance must make calculations to determine what amount must go to the homeland governments. This is very clearly not a matter that can be negotiated or in regard to which an amount of this kind can simply be determined at will.

I want to emphasize once again that adopting the amendments as proposed here would amount to the Government committing itself, nor would this be in respect of one homeland only. These amendments would commit the Government, in this piece of legislation, to consult all the homeland governments in this way. It is very clear that this would give rise to a protracted process.

In conclusion I want to emphasize once again that there are continual negotiations with the homeland governments concerning this matter. It is definitely unnecessary for us to provide in legislation, or for us to prescribe in legislation, that we should involve these people in a certain way, particularly not in the way that is proposed here. I want to repeat that the amendments are not acceptable to me. I also want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale what I said in his absence, namely that whereas yesterday he tried very piously to make out that it was not so bad, it definitely is so bad that we cannot accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister must not be afraid. I can only hit him with words. There is nothing physical involved in this. I do not know why he is afraid because I have another turn to speak. He knows that he has an unlimited number of occasions to speak while I only have three. So far I have spoken only twice. I also want to say that unfortunately the hon. member for Edenvale has already spoken three times so he cannot reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister on his own behalf. I also want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he need not concern himself about the loyalty of the hon. member for Edenvale. He is with us, he is going to stay with us … [Interjections.] I say he is going to stay with us much to the discomfort of that hon. Deputy Minister and all those noisy hon. members on that side of the House. However, on behalf of the hon. member for Edenvale, I do apologize for his late arrival in the Chamber this afternoon. I hope that satisfies the hon. Deputy Minister. Sir, I want to say this to the hon. the Deputy Minister: I believe he is running away from the issue in this clause. The hon. member for Edenvale put the position quite clearly: The hon. the Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will consult with the Coloured people when it comes to fixing the amount of money which the Coloured Representative Council is to receive. Why should the Black people be treated differently?

[Inaudible.]

Sir, the hon. the Minister is sitting there muttering to himself. Why does he not speak aloud so that we can hear what he is saying? I want to say, Sir, that this is merely a manifestation of the psychosis of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. How many times has he come to this House and said that he is the one who speaks on behalf of the Black people; that he is the only one here who can speak on behalf of them?

Name one such case. You are talking rubbish.

Sir, I could dig it out of Hansard, and the hon. the Minister knows it, so he is the one who is talking rubbish. He is running away from his past; he is ashamed of his past. Sir, is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in earnest? I challenge him now to show his bona fides by allowing the Black people to speak for themselves. Let him give them the opportunity to speak for themselves in this matter and to say what they believe they should get. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that this is simply a matter of calculation. If that is so, why then this lengthy formula which says that it shall be “an amount determined from time to time by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic and corresponding to the amount as calculated by the said Minister”? Why this lengthy formula? Why does he not have what we have earlier in the clause? Because we have a provision earlier in this clause that there is an amount which is to be paid, an amount approved by the Minister of Finance of the Republic after consultation with the Controller and Auditor-General? Sir, these definite figure can be ascertained by the Controller and Auditor-General, who merely advises the Minister of Finance, who then approves that figure. No, I am sorry. Sir, if this is a fixed figure, then that is the formula which should be applied. The Minister of Finance would then merely enquire from the Controller and Auditor-General what the amount is; the latter would advise the Minister of Finance, who would then make provision in the Budget for the Black homelands—in this case for the Transkei. I cannot accept the puerile argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister that “after consultation” means that there need not be consensus and that “in consultation” means that there must be consensus. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister heard my colleague, the hon. member for Green Point, yesterday afternoon on this matter, but it appears that he is not prepared to be convinced, he is not prepared to listen to reason; he is merely under the Whip. I want to repeat what I said before, Sir: Here is an opportunity for the hon. the Prime Minister to show the bona fides of the Nationalist Party towards the Black people of South Africa. He says that he wishes to have détente and entente with them, and yet in the first bit of legislation introduced here, after the hon. the Minister introduced his amendment, he runs away from it; he funks the issue because of the verkramptheid of people like the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Waterberg and the others who are sitting there with him. He has a problem with those verkramptes, so he did not dare put this in the legislation. I now want to challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept our amendment and to accept that there should be consultation with the Transkei in arriving at these amounts.

Sir, it is very clear that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South probably did not have enough opportunity to speak in the caucus this morning, and now he has come here and let off steam about things which he would probably very much have liked to have said in the caucus. But we know the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

You are afraid of him.

With him it is a case of empty pitchers make the most noise, as the old saying goes.

Who is afraid of him?

If one looks at his face, it seems as if, on the sides of his face …

Order!

Sir, that hon. member must not garb the concept under discussion here in sheeps’ clothing, because the concept under discussion here does not concern the argument between their side and the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, last night and this morning, particularly in view of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Green Point concerning the meaning of “in consultation” and “after consultation”, I consulted a few dictionaries. The legal dictionary and the ordinary dictionary tell me that “in oorleg” has a stronger connotation than “in consultation” would mean in English; it tends more towards “in agreement with”. But, Sir, what is very important is that in that part of our legislation in South Africa which specifically concerns negotiation and joint action between this Government and the Bantu governments in South Africa, pertinent use has been made of the term “in oorleg” (in consultation) throughout this legislation when we wanted to indicate assent, and we employed the term “na oorleg” (after consultation) when it was very clear that consultation was necessary, but when assent was not being conveyed, then this Government simply continued with what it wanted to do. Sir, this, again, deals with the entire question of the sum of money which this Government, the executive authority of this Parliament, must make available to the Bantu homelands—in this case to the Transkei. Sir, once we have properly mastered the meaning of these two terms it is impossible for us to accept that when we use the term “in oorleg” (in consultation)—consultation between two Ministers of this White Parliament—it means that we should still bring in the Transkeian Government as well, because then it would simply mean in practice that two Ministers of the executive authority of this White Parliament have to bring in the executive authority of a non-White Parliament and then decide in consultation. That would be nothing but sharing of power. What the hon. the Deputy Minister said, is 100% correct. But I want to put this question to the hon. member: If he insists so strongly that we should incorporate into the concept “in oorleg” (in consultation) that the Transkeian Government would have a say, what would the hon. member’s standpoint be if it were impossible to reach unanimity in this process of consultation between the South African executive authority and the Transkeian executive authority? What would we have then? It would then mean that the budget of the Transkeian Government could not be continued with. Surely that is very clear. After all, we know what the practical circumstances are. We have seen that it was even necessary for this House to pass legislation here concerning the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council when a deadlock occurred in regard to its budget; we had to pass special legislation in this House in order that that budget could be carried on with. When we use die term “in oorleg”, which means that a consensus must be achieved between two Minister representing the executive authority of this Parliament and the executive of the Transkeian Parliament, what, then, becomes of the budget of the Transkeian Government? Would we then be totally unable to continue with the administration of affairs in the Transkei? Sir, this also applies to clause 7, which is not under discussion now. These are the hard facts of the case. After all, this is not something we have dreamt up. I just want to draw attention once again to the fact that in our legislation concerning Bantu homeland governments we have always these two terms. When we use the term “in oorleg”, then it means that there must be consensus, and when we use the term “na oorleg”, then it merely means that this Parliament may continue with what we want to do, whether or not there is consensus. Sir, whether the Opposition likes it or not, the National Party is here to carry out its policy of separate development, and it shall do so. [Interjections.] Sir, that hon. member has now moved up a few places owing to circumstances and now he is becoming so long-winded that it is in fact irritating. He makes no contribution, Sir.

Answer the question.

I have already answered the question. The hon. member cannot hear. Now, the only question that is really of importance to us, as far as this clause is concerned, is whether we want to grant a say with regard to the amount of money paid by the executive authority from the resources of the budget of this Parliament, of this country, South Africa. Sir, we have already explained why we cannot allow anything of the kind.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to go back to these phrases “in the Transkei” which is relevant, I suggest, to clause 7. What, ultimately, the hon. the Deputy Minister intends to have implemented is, presumably, that we will have nine separate and definite homelands which will occupy 13% of the land of South Africa. But it is also important to know that outside of that there will be 5 million citizens of the homelands living in the urban areas of White South Africa and there will be of the order of 3 million citizens of the homelands living in what might be called the White rural areas. This come to 8 million, which is roughly 40% of that section of our population and a great deal higher of the working population. So, I do want to ask whether the hon. the Deputy Minister considers it equitable and, if not, whether he will agree that it is grossly inequitable, to leave in the words “in the Transkei” and “in the area concerned”.

First amendment negatived and second amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, we had a lengthy debate spread over two days over the principle which is contained in this clause when we discussed clause 1. Clause 1 provided for the granting of statutory amounts to the Transkei Government. This clause is identical, except that it allows for the granting of money to the other Bantu homelands in the Republic. I do not think that I must bore this Committee with al the arguments again. I do not believe that we need go through the whole thing again. I think we have made the attitude of this side of the House perfectly clear and I am glad that, for once, I am at one with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

I am glad that you are wise for once in your life.

Thank you very much. I appreciate those few kind words from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but I am not going to satisfy him entirely because I still intend moving the amendment. I therefore formally move the following amendments:

1. (1) On page 10, in line 29, after “in” to insert “joint”;
2. (2) on page 10, in line 30, after “republic” to insert “and the Government of the area concerned”;
3. (3) on page 10, in line 36, after “in” to insert “joint”;
4. (4) on page 10, in line 37, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the area concerned”;
5. (5) on page 10, in line 38, after “Ministers” to insert “and the said Government”;
6. (6) on page 10, in line 51, after “in” to insert “joint”;
7. (7) on page 10, in line 52, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the area concerned”;
8. (8) on page 10, in line 53, after “Ministers” to insert “and the said Government”;
9. (9) on page 10, in line 64, after “in” to insert “joint”; and
10. (10) on page 12, in line 1, after “Republic” to insert “and the Government of the area concerned”.

First amendment negatived and second amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Third amendment negatived and fourth and fifth amendments dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Sixth amendment negatived and seventh and eighth amendments dropped.

Ninth amendment negatived and tenth amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the word abortion is derived from the Latin word “aborire” which means “removed from its proper place”. It seems to me that some of the United Party supporters are now being removed to their proper place; it is therefore an abortion in reverse.

Order! the hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

When the House adjourned the night before last, I tried to approach these problems from a modern point of view. I believe that in order to form a proper opinion, it is necessary for us to know what is going on in the world and what arguments are being advanced. I do not say that we should do as the world or as the majority does—preserve us from that—but I say that we should take due cognizance of world tendencies. That is why I made an oblique reference to newspaper sensationalism. As regards sensationalism, I have before me a large newspaper headline which hon. members can probably all read: “New sex law for South Africa.” However, our people may rest assured. That is not our intention. I also referred to certain arguments advanced in favour of more liberal abortion laws and in favour of abortion on demand. I also started to make a brief survey of the state of affairs in the world today with regard to this matter. I said that as far as I had been able to ascertain, according to scientific estimates, about 55 million abortions were performed in the world in 1971. I should now like to expand a little on this world scene. In England, from 1968 to 1971, i.e. in the course of four years, the number of abortions for girls under the age of 16 years rose from 4 028 to 16 600. The total number of abortions rose from 25 000 to last year’s figure of about 200 000. I also said that in the U.S.A., in terms of the court decision I mentioned, the legislation was liberalized. I do not have the latest figures, but it is calculated that about a million abortions were done in America last year. I also referred to the situation in France where an Act passed in 1920 was changed last year. In spite of the fact that it is a Catholic country, and in spite of the fact that it has been said that President Giscard d’Estaing’s government could fall as a result of the new legislation, the new Act was promulgated in a Government Gazette on 20 January this year.

I just want to mention one final point with regard to the world scene. The situation in the world today is such that about 30 countries have liberal and free abortion laws. More than half of the world’s population lives in those 30 countries. In other words, liberal and free abortion is available today in those countries to more than half of the world’s population and is therefore available to rich people throughout the world.

What is the position in South Africa? There is some doubt about the legal position in South Africa. It is generally accepted that the common law allows therapeutic abortion when the woman’s life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy. Chiefly as the result of the judgments in the King and Van Druten cases, there are jurists who consider that one could perhaps stretch this law a little. Whatever the legal position may be—and there has been doubt concerning this position—the doctors have in the meanwhile, on very good moral grounds, continued to perform therapeutic abortions for certain other valid reasons as well. In my opinion these medical practitioners are entitled to the protection of the law when they do what the nation approves of and what is generally accepted. The grounds on which the doctors have performed so-called “illegal abortions” are covered in this very legislation. This is one of the main reasons for my supporting this legislation.

I have now sketched the world scene for hon. members and I have mentioned the arguments in favour of free abortion. I have also sketched the position in South Africa. What, then, are the arguments raised against abortion on demand or against abortion as a whole? In the first place there is religion. I do not want to go into the problem of religion very deeply; that has already been done by the hon. member for Berea. According to the Vaderland of 27 November, when the French decided to introduce the new Act, the Pope issued the following statement in the Vatican City (translation)—

I am not a member of that church, nor do I fully endorse that standpoint, but I have said that if we want to pass a balanced judgment, we must take due cognizance of what the world says. In the Western world the Catholic Church is a very strong factor. The hon. member for Berea also dwelt on the Protestant churches here. I do not want to add much to that, except just to make the following statement. I have said that there are popular newspaper headings concerning this matter. One very popular story that is often published—and I want to reply to that very story—auotes a certain person who said the following (translation)—

I am referring to a report in the Transvaler of 8 February 1975. I quote further (translation)—

I quote this in order to repudiate this state very strongly and pertinently and as loudly as I can that I do not hold that standpoint and that it is not the standpoint of this side of the House. I believe, too, that it is not the standpoint of any side of the House; in fact, it is not the standpoint of our public at large. I want to dissociate myself from it in the strongest possible terms. I say that religion is a genuine and real factor which we must bear in our hearts and take very careful note of when we want to reach a decision on this matter of abortion.

What do the doctors say about abortion? Previous speakers have referred to this and consequently I do not want to dwell on this at any length except to emphasize once again that doctors reject abortion on demand in South Africa, as is clearly apparent from the commission’s report and from the evidence. The Hippocratic Oath has become a little old-fashioned and is no longer so appropriate, and in September 1948— it is strange how many good things happened in 1948—the World Medical Association, of which the S.A. Medical Association is a member and consequently endorses the Statement, drafted the so-called “Statement of Geneva”. Our doctors in South Africa also endorse it. I should like to quote a paragraph from the statement. This statement is used by many universities. When students complete their studies, they sign this statement. I quote (translation)—

In my opinion, any doctor who belongs to the Medical Association and who therefore signs this statement by the World Medical Association, cannot approve of abortion on demand.

On balance, considering the reasons I have mentioned, I must say that I endorse this Bill. I cannot say that I wholeheartedly support each and every detail, but I do wholeheartedly support the Second Reading dealing with the principle of the Bill. I share the misgivings of the hon. member for Houghton with regard to the State psychiatrists. I, too, wonder whether it is really always practicable. I am even a little concerned about the fact that in all cases where the residue of the pregnancy is to be removed, certain forms have to be filled in. I am a little concerned that this is going to burden people who are in fact trained people, with an unnecessary amount of clerical work. Those, however, are minor details. As far as I am concerned, people who know more than I, say that it will work. I can see nothing wrong with our deciding to try it out, and if it does not work, I am quite convinced that the Minister will rectify any hitches that occur in practice. Let us give it a chance. I support the principle of the Bill wholeheartedly. Having made a thorough study of the arguments for and against it and having made a thorough study of the Commission’s report and the evidence submitted before the Commission, and having had 13 years of intensive experience of this problem in practice, I can only give this Bill my wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, certain members, including the hon. the Minister, have already spoken on this Bill and all except one have spoken of their support for the Bill. The Bill has a mere 13 clauses in it and virtually every aspect of the Bill has been covered by the previous speakers. You, Mr. Speaker, would be the first to drop on me like a ton of hot bricks if I was to repeat their arguments. Suffice it to say that I support the Bill in its entirety. It may be a small step forward in the eyes of those who have a more permissive view on abortion, but I maintain that this is a giant leap forward for the people of South Africa of all races and creeds. Make no mistake; the people, whether they are White, Coloured or Black, view abortion with abhorrence.

What is the position in South Africa at the moment? Let us face the facts. Abortion is illegal. I am not talking about miscarriages and suchlike, but abortion per se is illegal. This Bill has given us eight conditions under which abortions may be performed under prescribed circumstances. What are they? The first one is where the continued pregnancy endangers the life of the woman concerned. That is fair enough. The second is where the continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to her physical health. Surely that is wide enough for anybody who wants this to go through? The third one is where the continued pregnancy constitutes a serious threat to the mental health of the woman concerned. The fourth and fifth conditions relate to the situation where there exists a serious risk of a physical and mental defect of such a nature that she will be irreparably and seriously handicapped. The sixth, seventh and eighth conditions relate to the situation where the foetus is alleged to have been conceived in consequence of unlawful carnal intercourse, rape or incest or, under the Immorality Act, where the woman concerned is an idiot or an imbecile.

Let us be frank about this. This is surely a giant leap forward from the present situation. We have made vast strides in this direction. Of course, there are safeguards. Who asked for these safeguards and to whom are they given? First of all, they are there to protect the woman concerned. Secondly, the safeguards are there to protect medical practitioners who have been performing abortions with the threat of prosecution right down the years. The safeguard is also for the future of South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton opposes the Bill by saying that it fails to take cognizance of medical, humanitarian and social considerations which justify abortion. She also contends that the Bill is more repressive than the original Bill, which was more liberal. I am sorry to say that the hon. member for Houghton must have been naive. After all, a Select Committee was formed and when Parliament rose and the business of the Select Committee had not been concluded, the hon. the State President formed a commission to continue the investigation, and “to make recommendations regarding amendments to the said Bill which may be deemed necessary by the commission, having regard to the evidence obtained by the Select Committee appointed by the House of Assembly of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa to investigate and report upon the aforementioned Bill, and to such other information as the commission may obtain.” The commission did its work as it was commissioned to do. I make bold to say that it did a good job. It listened to the evidence that was given viva voce before it in a most sympathetic manner. It assiduously and studiously studied the memoranda which were placed before it. It came to its findings in an honest and fearless manner.

The composition of the Select Committee has been attacked. When you look at the names of the commissioners, of the 10 men there were four medical practitioners. There was one pharmacist, there was one ex-minister of religion; there were two legal practitioners; there was one social worker, who holds a doctorate in sociology, and of course there was one member of the Police Force who was there to see that they behaved themselves.

And how many women?

Not one woman.

Shame!

There were no women because the two women in Parliament at that time had at some time or other given notice in this House that they were not prepared to serve on any Select Committee.

And when the committee became a commission, what was there to prevent them from co-opting women?

The hon. member must ask the State President. Sir, that hon. member’s attack is nothing but irresponsible and frivolous. It is the type of attack which we expect from her.

Male stupidity.

Amongst the members of the Commission there were doctors who deal with sickness every day and from whom one would surely expect humanitarianism; there was a theologian as well as a social worker, in addition to a policeman and a pharmacist.

They should have arrested the lot of them.

The attitude of the hon. member is typical of some women; they like to have their cake but they are not prepared to bake it.

Order! The hon. member must not become frivolous himself.

Mr. Speaker, of course I would have preferred to have had a woman on the Select Committee, but that was the position. The hon. member for Houghton, with great glee, told us what happened in the case of the commission appointed in Britain, where the majority of the commissioners were women. Of course, we all know today what the position in Britain is. Here I want to quote from the oldest newspaper in South Africa, The Natal Witness, of 8 February 1975—

Note, Sir, the members will be drawn from political parties, not from outside. Then I want to quote from an article which appeared in Rapport of 9 February—

I would like to know this, Sir, and this is where I am speaking up for the women now because after all we have heard in this House that abortion has a traumatic effect on women. Why do those who call for abortion on demand not propagate vasectomy? What about the male of the species? Why should the woman sit with all the trauma? What about the man?

Shall we make it compulsory?

We are not making abortion compulsory. I agree that vasectomy should be propagated if it will aid family planning and stop this population explosion which all these people shout about. But here I have the Natal Mercury of 24 September last year in which there is an article saying—

What is wrong with South Africa? I know that there will be criticism in regard to the lack of privacy, because the poor girl has to be subjected to examination and so on, but that is the present procedure already in terms of the law where a person lays a complaint, whether it be in respect of abortion or rape or incest. These women have to be examined by the district surgeon and other doctors. Statements have to be taken by the Police. Thank goodness, we now have women Police who can take these statements from the women whereas in the past men had to do it. They still do it where there are no women Police. Once the stage is reached where people are helped by the doctors and are treated in State institutions, at State prices, what more do they want? Surely we are not going to go back to the days of savagery where, in the case of the Zulus in the old days, if a child was deformed it was thrown over a cliff to be food for the vultures, and where twins were born the one was killed in the same manner. Surely we are not going to start propagating euthanasia as the Zulus practised in their days of savagery when old and feeble people were “sent home” as they called it, where they gave the old people a pinch of snuff and said they could now “go home”. They chucked them out into the wilds and left them there to die, or else they buried them up to their necks in the sand and left them to die there. If we are going to start this free flood of abortions then we are heading for that, and that is why I support this Bill.

The hon. member for Umlazi was a valuable member of the Commission. Mention has been made, by the hon. member for Houghton, of the fact that only a small group of men served on this Commission, men, so I gather, who had an unsympathetic ear for the problem of the young girl. But I want to give the assurance that the hon. member for Umlazi; with his mature experience, revealed an exceptional approach, and the hon. member for Houghton would have done well to have given him a sympathetic hearing because that hon. member revealed an exceptional compassion precisely in respect of that unfortunate group of people. The hon. member for Houghton is the only member who has spoken against the Bill now before this House. The hon. member has moved an amendment the result of which, should it be accepted, will be that the present situation will be retained. What it amounts to is that if we do not accept this Bill, the present situation will be retained because, as far as I am concerned, she gave no indication, except in respect of one or two clauses, of what she would amend, and this would not take the matter any further. Therefore it is clear to me that the hon. member for Houghton is not acquainted with the Bill. There is also another group of people who are still sending representations to us in which they allege that we have taken this matter too far. They, and those who think like the hon. member for Houghton, have one thing in common, and that is that they do not understand what the contents of his Bill are.

Several speakers have already pointed out that we faced a dilemma when the Select Committee and Commission began its activities. The dilemma which preceded this was that our common law only accepted one indication which would legalize abortion, i.e. that the mother’s life had to be at stake. But that was a common law rule which was formulated in the 17th century. Since then we have had developments here in South Africa as has been sketched in certain court decisions. The South African Medical and Dental Council also took the initiative and stated that they would accept further indications for legal abortion, for example when the mother’s health was at stake.

We then had judgments by men such as Mr. Justice Hiemstra, who spoke of the lack of refinement of our judicature at that stage. He said that it had to be revised. Then there is the judgment pronounced by Magistrate Van Wyk in the Van Druten case, a monumental judgment, in which he indicates very clearly that our common law grounds for legal abortion have been expanded by evolution. He found the accused not guilty in that case. There was an appeal, but it was dropped in due course.

The fact of the matter is further that the hon. member for Rosettenville then introduced a motion in this House. In that motion we took stock of the entire situation. At that stage the hon. member for Houghton entered the debate and she accepted as an extension for valid and legal abortion those very grounds which are incorporated in this Bill today. She also made a fourth exception and asked what the position of the unwanted child was. And at the time she gave no indication at all that socio-economic reasons would make a child unwanted. Her amendment is indeed so phrased that it seems as if it centres around socio-economic considerations.

When the hon. Minister saw fit to appoint a Select Committee and in the course of time a Commission as well, it was obvious that the Select Committee and the Commission would be confronted by a very important question, viz. whether or not the common law should be amended. You know that this Parliament will not lightly amend the common law, and will, in any event, satisfy itself that a number of conditions have been met before the common law is amended. For this reason the Commission took those particular conditions for the amendment of the common law into account in the course of its activities. We asked ourselves whether we should keep pace with the ethical transition of the community. Should we follow it? To this we answered yes, but subject to limitations. We also accepted that the common law should be brought into line with the norms of the community as based on the religious principle of the State and the community. We also accepted that a law could be used to bring the common law into line with the practices which have become obsolete. We also took technological, medical and psychiatrict developments into account and asked ourselves to what extent these have an influence on this matter. We found—it is not necessary to go into the evidence—that they do indeed have an influence.

We had to take other statutory provisions into account as well, for example the Immorality Act. In this way we had to take our marriage laws into account and ask ourselves whether, the common law was in line with already existing statutory measures. We found that this was not the case and that these requirements would have to be satisfied first. We also had to pay attention to central policies. After all, we had to ask ourselves what, objectively seen, the community wanted. On this important question the Commission found by implication that" the community did not want abortion' oh demand. In the light of these factors, it was possible for the Commission to view these matters which were acceptable for the community and which would satisfy our religious basis objectively.

Finally we then accepted that the life, and physical and mental health of the mother were absolute and good indications for legal abortion. We also found ourselves faced with another question, viz. what of the unwanted child. The hon. member for Houghton also posed this question in her speech at the time, when we were discussing the motion of the hon. member for Rosettenville. Here I want to distinguish very clearly between the child which is unwanted as a result of socioeconomic conditions, in other words poverty, too many children, and so on.

We had to ask ourselves what the population policy of the Government was, as this was surely an interpretation of the will of the community. We had to ask whether the unwanted child, if the mother did not want to the child, was in fact rejected by society as well. We came to the conclusion that the child to which the mother does not want to give birth because she is unmarried or because she does not want another child in the family because there are too many children, does in fact have a place in society. Therefore we can give a fundamental justification for this Bill today and say that there is no case for abortion on demand. Those children do have a place in our community. When we deal with clauses 4 and 7, I shall indicate that that child does indeed have a place in our community in the light of existing measures.

The hon. member for Houghton said she did not accept this Bill. In her speech she said that she accepted the 1973 Bill which was served here, at the most as an evolutionary process. She then pointed out a number of differences. I can place on record that the hon. member for Houghton has no grounds whatsoever for not accepting this Bill, because it does not differ at all from the fundamental premises which she stated in this House in 1973. The differences which she now thinks to find, are prompted by small pressure groups which use her as a mouthpiece here. It is groups of eight or ten people who get a few thousand young people of the same address to sign a petition. It is these people for whom she is acting and whose case she is defending and for whose sake she is turning somersaults.

Now I want to deal with the differences. Clause 3(1 )(a) makes abortion a legal act when it is done for the protection and the safeguarding of the mother’s life. The keyword in this paragraph is “necessary”, in other words, it must be necessary in the opinion of the medical practitioners concerned. Surely that is not an extension of the previous situation. What does it have as a foundation? It merely recognizes our criminal law principle according to which one is entitled to take the life of another in an emergency. Here our common law recognizes the determining of priorities, viz. that preference is given to the life of a mother which is threatened as a result of a new life which is developing, and the other life may then be taken. The same applies in respect of physical health. Here we also have that keyword. The hon. member asked why he have separated mental health from physical health. We did it for very good reasons. We want to confirm here what we ascertained from scientists.

We also want to ensure in this way that what happened in England, will not happen here as well, viz. the abuse of psyciatric indications as legal grounds for abortions. For this reason we have written into this clause the requirement that the practitioners concerned must be satisfied that the mother’s mental health could be permanently damaged should the pregnancy be continued. We regarded this requirement as being necessary, and we have already dealt with this term. I just want to explain however what “permanent damage” means because it is one of the important aspects of this Bill. We spoke to the very best psychiatrists in the country and they told us that there are only two known conditions which are incurable, viz. endogenous depression and schizophrenia, conditions which could give rise to the total disintegration and the insanity of the mother. However they said that the despairing threat of suicide was something that could be cured. There is sufficient evidence that it is not necessary to make provision for such a case. In other words, only that which could be permanently harmful to the mental health of the mother, is a legal indication that abortion may take place.

I want to refer now to the child which is about to be born. The legislation provides that there must be clear signs of irreparable damage before birth. We have inserted this because we came to the conclusion that it is scientifically possible at present to determine whether or not there will be irreparable damage when the foetus is still in its initial stages. Once again science was the deciding factor here and gave us an indication of whether this could or could not be done. We did not merely take steps to make things stricter. We were objective, we were level-headed about the matter. I shall mention only clause 3(1 )(c), which deals with rape or incest. The medical practitioner must convince himself that the pregnancy was the result of rape or an incestuous act. The previous Bill—and the hon. member for Houghton did not even see this—spoke of “preponderance of probabilities”. The implication was that the medical practitioner had to be involved in an entire court case in order to determine whether the preponderance of probabilities indicated that the pregnancy was the result of this or that event. Therefore we inserted the words that the medical practitioners have to be of this opinion. Thus we made it easier for a patient here so that she does not have to give a lot of evidence in public.

Now I want to come to the question of the girl under 16 years of age. Had section 74 of the Act of 1973 remained unchanged, it would have been a blank cheque for any girl under 16 years of age to have an abortion. The implication is that a woman who is older than 16 years would be subject to this measure while a girl under 16 years of age could demand an abortion in her own right without any questions being asked about the case. We felt that a fundamental question had to be asked in this case as well, and that is: Does this concern the unwanted child or not? We thought that it was indeed the unwanted child which was at stake. However, we had satisfied ourselves that the unwanted child does have a place in our community and that he is accepted as such by implication. I shall tell hon. members why. We have orphanages and other institutions which adopt such children. They are not rejected but are given the best.

In the second place it is possible for such a girl who in a moment of indiscreet passion and emotion, finds herself in such a situation, to contract a legal marriage; in fact, two years ago we made it possible for a girl to marry at the age of 15 years without the need for ministerial permission.

Oh, fine!

The hon. member for Houghton can learn if she will only listen. I want to state very clearly that a girl of 16 years of age can obtain an abortion on all the other grounds which I have mentioned in any case—grounds of health, rape, incest, immorality, if she is an idiot or a lunatic. In other words, the door is not closed, although precautionary measures are taken.

You cannot have that with an ignorant child.

In conclusion the hon. member for Houghton said that we must think of the tremendous process which has to be gone through before it is possible to obtain such an abortion. The fact is that no medical treatment can be given without the medical practitioner or medical practitioners concerned having made a thorough investigation and carried out interviews. Sometimes a complete family history is necessary. However inconvenient that might be, why should we insert a deviation as far as this rule is concerned?

The hon. member for Krugersdorp also referred to clause 7(3). It deals with the keeping of a record of the residue of an abortion or the residue of a pregnancy.

The hon. member for Houghton said that this Bill will not keep the criminal abortionist in check. The fact of the matter is that nowhere have measures existed which enabled either the Secretary or any other person to get an indication that there had been a high incidence of incomplete abortions at, for instance, some or other remote place. We saw fit to put this measure in the hands of the Minister so that he can establish whether such things often happen at a certain time. Then these things could be looked into.

Like Excelsior.

It is very clear that the hon. member for Houghton is talking about something completely different at the moment. We have, in other words, given attention to what the hon. member has in mind, but we have done it in a very discreet way. We do not want to imply by this that we are in any way suspicious of medical science. However, I shall come to that again.

Furthermore, I want to point out that as far as sterilization is concerned, we have introduced a measure here which will ensure that it relates only to those who are not capable of giving permission. In respect of those people who have contractual capacity, and therefore have the right to give permission for sterilization, we have left the position open. That means that this is still in the hands of the private individual and that the common law still applies to him. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take note that although we have not put it on record, we have taken note that this is a field which should certainly be looked into. There are so many people involved in the sterilization of a man or a woman. In the first place, there is the other marriage partner who will have a possible claim. In the second place, there is the common law rule that, though the medical practitioner might sterilize a person with that person’s permission, technically he is still committing assault and rendering himself liable to a claim for damages. We felt that we could not do anything about this situation because it would have a bearing on possible sterilization with a view to a population plan or whatever might be the case. Therefore we felt that it did not fall within the terms of reference of this commission. I mention it to the hon. the Minister that this is surely a field which is still in doubt at the moment.

In conclusion I should like to say that nowhere in this Bill, have we laid down criteria according to which the mental health of the mother may be determined. We have not specified certain illnesses such as German measles or diseases of the heart, kidney and spine. We have left it open and the implication of this is very clear. The implication is that as far as the noms and criteria are concerned, the implementation of this Bill is after all in the hands of the medical profession. I want to pay tribute to that profession today, a profession which has given us tremendous guidance with this Bill and which has convinced us that they will protect the ethical norms of their profession with great jealousy and at the same time will give proper attention to the propagation or deterioration of humanity. Therefore it is my conviction that it is a good thing that we have not laid down any criteria, because the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, in its own particular way, will lay down norms, not by direction, but in their very neat and delicate way from time to time as matters develop.

I want to say that we were very fortunate to have served on this Commission. It was an interesting experience. I want to refer in particular to the ministerial assistance which we received as far as information, etc., was concerned, and then in particular to the officials who assisted us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein West must excuse me if I do not reply to him directly. I hope that, in the course of my speech, replies will emerge to some of the arguments he raised here. The hon. member referred to mouthpieces, and in this respect I should like to assure him that I am not the mouthpiece of anyone in this House, nor of anyone outside. In this respect I speak only for myself and for no one else. This will also emerge quite clearly in the course of my speech.

†At the outset I would like to state that I think that anyone who listens attentively to the debates in this House over a period of time, must be drawn irresistibly to the conclusion that we South Africans live in a nightmare world. Let me tell you why. If we are to take literally the views of a good cross-section of members of this House, not only is there a communist under every bed in South Africa; there is in fact on top of every bed a pregnant woman waiting for an abortion. That is bad enough, but then there is also a cross-section in this House who find a direct correlation between what is under the bed and what is on top of it. Their confusion goes much further than that because then they want to destroy what is under the bed and preserve what is on top of the bed. Sir, can you take it any further than that?

I would like to try to restore some perspective to the situation on top of the bed. This is an emotion-charged topic and one must respect the opinions of those who hold strong views on this. My proposition is a simple one. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West said: “Die gemeenskap wil nie aborsie op aanvraag hê nie.” I do not know whether he is right or wrong, but I accept that he is correct. My proposition is a very much simpler one. I do not know what the “gemeenskap daarbuite” or the “volk daarbuite” want in regard to this matter. Why do we not reduce this matter to something very much simpler than the “gemeenskap daarbuite” or anybody else? Why do we not leave it to the individual woman to decide what she wants in any individual case? [Interjections.] I believe that every woman has the right to decide for herself whether she wants to have a child or not.

You can’t just apply it subjectively.

Here is an issue of the most personal and the most intimate nature concerning one individual, but we do not leave it to that individual to decide. No, somebody else has got to decide. Why? For what earthly reason should a woman be denied the elementary and inalienable right to deciding whether she wants to have a child or not? Nobody has answered that question satisfactorily yet during this debate and for that reason alone I will not support this Bill.

I cannot possibly share the view of those people who maintain that all abortion is murder. One can but quote scientific opinion which is to the effect that medically an infant can be said to be viable or capable of independent life only from the 26th week of pregnancy. Therefore, in answer to this argument, abortion before the 26th week must surely provide a wider margin to those who are concerned about the question of extinguishing conscious life. Then, however, there are also those who argue that abortion before the 26th week is still murder. If that is the case, they must be logical and be prepared to go the whole hog. They must then come to this House and legislate against birth control in any form. Sir, I cannot wait for the day to see hon. members opposite trooping into that birth control lobby, led by whom? I leave you to guess!

My argument is quite simple. I say that if a woman is pregnant and that woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, she should be allowed to do so legally, safely and decently. Who is to say her nay?

By whom should it be done?

She must decide for herself and she must discuss it with her doctor. However, if she wants it, she is the one to decide. On what grounds can anyone take that decision away from her? I say that it amounts to insufferable arrogance on the part of any individual to want to dictate to a woman under those circumstances what should happen. I respect the views of those who differ from me and I hope that they will respect mine. I have here a circular from the Religious Defence League which I presume all of us have received. I have the greatest respect for people who feel strongly and sincerely on this subject but then I also ask them to respect my views. From some of the speeches that have been made here one would assume that people like the hon. member for Houghton were in favour of compulsory abortion. She is not and neither am I. All I ask is that this House respect the right of the individual, as I have said, to decide for herself. This is not ultra-liberalism, whatever that swear-word may mean. I am sorry that my friend the hon. member for Rosettenville had to resort to using this word. It is not ultra-liberalism; it is a question of simple, plain common sense and decency. That is all it is. It is simple justice to allow a woman who does not want a child the right not to have it. However, Sir, may main purpose in taking part in this debate is not to give my views, for what they may be worth. I am going to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton because it makes obvious sense. But I want to give the House the benefit of the views of somebody who really knows and who has had a great deal of experience of the subject and who feels very deeply on it, a woman doctor, a mother of four children, who, with her doctor husband, has spent the best years of her life working amongst the people of the Ciskei. This woman—and I repeat this because we have had a lot of talk here about pressure groups operating —to my knowledge does not belong to a pro-abortion or an anti-abortion movement. She is no special pleader. She bases her views simply on hard, practical experience and what she has seen in the Transkei, Sir, she is Dr. Trudi Thomas, of whom some hon. members may have heard. She runs, amongst other things, a comprehensive feeding scheme for 3 000 toddlers in the Ciskei and she established all kinds of undertakings to help the people in her vicinity. I want to emphasize that her main concern is not abortion. Her main concerns are poverty and malnutrition; this is what she is fighting and has spent years fighting. To give some more publicity to her work, she has produced a pamphlet called Their Doctor Speaks. This is a movement which has the backing of responsible people, as well as of the Quaker Service Fund. Sir, in this booklet Dr. Thomas has one short section on abortion. I mention this short section only to show that this is not an absession with this woman. These arguments of hers are a direct answer to many of the points raised in this debate. Sir, with your permission I wish to quote her views at some length. She starts from the assumption that practically all illegitimate children —and she is absolutely appalled at the rate of illegitimacy in this country—are unwanted children, and she says—

For this reason alone, she argues that abortion ought to be legalized and she explains why—

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, “What of the great men who would have been legally aborted if their mothers had been able to choose?”, Dr. Thomas has a terribly simple answer—

Sir, is that not what the argument is about?

It should be.

Then Dr. Thomas deals with one of the issues raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville who, you will recall, talked about the rich and the poor and about Rolls Royces. I had some difficulty in following it, but I think I know what he meant. Dr. Thomas deals with this terribly simply. She says—

This is the point, Sir—

She says—

Then, Sir, there is the personal aspect we have heard a good deal about. Dr. Thomas has a very telling argument as far as that is concerned. She says she herself has had four children and then she goes on to say—

I am quoting these things because I believe these are authoritative replies to so many of the arguments that have been raised here this afternoon. Dr. Thomas then comes back to this vitally important question of the unwanted child, which was another problem which worried the hon. member for Rosettenville. This is what she writes about it—

[Interjections.] If you do not understand, just be quiet—

Sir, those hon. members who are getting so touchy will be glad to hear that I have only one more quotation to prick their consciences. [Interjections.]

Yes, that is all right. It hurts, but you may as well resume your seat. Dot not cry about it. Here it is—

This is the answer to all this loose talk we have heard here about this subject—

That is the case, the hard, factual, unemotional case for legalized and controlled abortion, the case, I repeat, not of a crank but of somebody who still has the greatest reverence for life as well as for the quality of life, which seems to me to be so much more important, and of a person with deep compassion. What, I ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity, is the answer to the arguments which Dr. Thomas raises? I should like to repeat very briefly what I believe, viz. that the only adult and common sense approach to this problem of the unwanted child—and that, after all, in the final resort, is what abortion is all about— is to leave the decision to the good sense of the individual. To do anything else is to pass a motion of total no-confidence in women in general and, particularly, to deny to the individual the right to decide for herself in matters of the greatest personal concern.

I accept the argument of the hon. member for Houghton that you cannot, for practical reasons, move immediately from our present outmodedly verkrampte position to a situation where we allow the individual to decide. In other words, you cannot move to legalized abortion overnight, but I believe, no matter how unpopular it may be, that that is the direction in which we should move and that we should not move back into mediaeval darkness. One day we will have free choice; some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may still be around by then. I do not know. There will be freedom of choice because it is the only sensible attitude to take in a case of this nature. Until then, until that freedom of choice is restored to the individual, abortion, whether it is legal or otherwise, and whether we like it or not, will go on no matter how passionately we protest or what crocodile tears we shed for whatever reasons; spurious or sincere, I accept them both. May I in the meantime suggest that legislators should confine themselves to the making of laws and that they should leave morality to others who may be better equipped.

Mr. Speaker, I really did not expect the hon. member for Parktown to strike a note such as he did. In the beginning I thought that he, as a free man, would oppose the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. Now it seems, however, that he was loyal; loyalty is something which is very important these days. What does surprise me, is that he said in reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West that he did not know what the community outside thought of these things. Then he quoted one person here as though that person was the only authority. I shall tell the hon. member on what grounds I am participating in this debate. I want to mention four reasons to him. I am doing so, in the first place because I did social field work for 27 years and dealt with the products of this issue. My experience with the mothers and parents and often with the children as well, taught me what misery it brought in its wake. It is on these grounds, inter alia, that I speak. In the second place I know what the standpoint of my church is. As I shall prove shortly, my church does not take up a standpoint on old-fashioned points of view, but on scientifically based grounds. I know what the standpoint of a large part of the Protestant Church is. My third reason is that I had the opportunity of serving on this commission. Although I do not have any special knowledge of medical science, I had the opportunity to listen and to learn. I know of no single witness who appeared before the commission with well-founded facts who could tell me anything but what my own experience has taught me and what I know from experience. In the fourth place, I think, I also know something about the literature, more perhaps about the scientific aspect. I speak on these grounds and not just on the basis of one book. My hon. friend really disappointed me. He referred here to what a certain person had said with reference to what had happened in the Transkei. The commission heard various medical practitioners, experienced and responsible superintendents of hospitals. We confronted the superintendent of one of the biggest hospitals with the question of abortion on demand. He told us about all the misery and botched work of quacks and others he had to deal with. He asked us please not to allow abortion on demand. It is on the grounds of this evidence that we on this side of the House support the legislation before us.

The other day the hon. member for Houghton attacked the composition of the commission. Would such a commission have heard different evidence if politicians had not served on it, or if a clergyman or a sociologist had not served on it, or if women did serve on it? Would the Progressive Party have brought evidence which would have sounded different and which would have contradicted the scientific, social, theological and other evidence which we heard, just because a politician was not serving on it or because a woman was a member of that commission? That is too annoying and too childish to believe. Perhaps these people were influenced too much—the hon. member for Krugersdorp also referred to this—by the whole spirit which is prevalent at the moment in America, where a whole campaign has been launched by the Press and other bodies and persons in an attempt to create the impression that there is only one solution to this problem, viz. abortion on demand. I still cannot grasp the fact that the hon. member for Parktown agrees with the hon. member for Houghton. I want to quote what Mrs. Dolly Maister once said when she commented on this legislation. She is the head of the S.A. Abortion Law e-form League, and in this capacity she stated these people’s standpoint and said—

She went on to say—

We must take note of the opinion she expressed here, because I want to come back to it later. She said, “A woman’s body is her own”. Nowhere did she emphasize the spiritual, intellectual or moral aspects and everything that is involved. The emphasis falls on the body. I shall leave it at that for the present. Another comment appeared in the same report in The Cape Times of 24 February 1973 which contradicted this standpoint altogether, and it did not come from the Church. First I just want to point out an aspect of her standpoint. She also said—

This is also the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton. The emphasis falls on the physical comfort of the woman, her “body”, as Mrs. Maister put it here. She wanted to intimate the involvement of the Church because she referred to the “South African Churches”. After all, we know from experience that people who have less knowledge, can easily think that she was referring to the Afrikaans Churches, because she referred to the “South African Churches” and “the Government”. Here she was trying to create the idea that there were a group of people who were hand in glove with one another. In the same newspaper from which I have just quoted, we find the words of another expert, not a clergyman. I refer to Prof. Denis Davey. His standpoint is the opposite of that of this Reform League. He said, inter alia:

He went on to say:

This man, who is experienced in the medical field, tells us that it does not concern the physical exclusively. He referred here to an educational aspect, the task of the parents, and in another place he went still further.

He said—

On what grounds then can people support the standpoint of Mrs. Maister? We had a great deal of evidence before us contradicting Mrs. Maister. The sort of standpoint which she states, creates very great confusion among our people. It creates an altogether distorted picture, as if the commission worked entirely on its own without taking into account these things which the hon. member for Parktown said he did not know. He said he did not know what this was all about. The commission clearly took the Biblical and theological grounds into account, as well as the scientific grounds from all quarters and the legal grounds. In the various interim reports and in the evidence of the commission, there are many examples—other hon. members have quoted them—of who the people were who gave evidence and what the nature of their evidence was.

What I find interesting, is the fact that the Progressive Party has suppressed these facts in the presentation of this amendment. The important fact which Prof. Davey states for us, is that the woman is not only body. He says that the pregnant woman does not have a body only, but that she also has a mental condition. Here we are concerned with the scientific fact and the Biblical or theological acceptance that the impregnated ovum already recognizes in itself the quality of the person, viz. soul and body. One can distinguish between the two, but they cannot be separated from each other. Each can be described separately and their functions can be described. But one cannot separate them. Because this is so, the woman will always remain a woman in her adult life. Psychiatrists, psychologists, medical men, social workers, clergymen and others endorse this fact.

We know that a feeling of guilt develops in people who take a life, even if the hon. member for Parktown does not agree with that. There is so much scientific and other proof which has been mentioned here repeatedly. Abortion is murder. That is the point at issue. Because murder arouses a feeling of guilt in any person and especially in the woman, the psychiatrists draw our attention to the fact that a very strong connection exists between the feeling of guilt and a disrupted life in a later stage. The mental remorse and the mental disturbances which develop in the woman, are far worse than that physical discomfort which she would and could experience in giving birth to a child The birth of a child means the completion of a task, while abortion leaves the task half completed. Psychologists and social workers know this phenomenon and they tell you that incompleted tasks can create, neurotic conditions. Perhaps some politicians have experienced this or can even endorse it. Because it is so, the question is posed what we can actually solve with abortion, especially where we create a lot of other problems for that girl, mother or wife. One of the eminent ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church who is also a doctor in psychology. Dr. Andries Gouws, once said the following, and I quote from Hoofstad, of 23 August 1973 (translation)—

We had to hear the story of “the unwanted child”, and of the girl who wanted to get rid of her child because she did not want the child for some or other reason. The people who advocated this have no proof whatsoever which they can bring us that when an abortion such as this has taken place without well-founded reasons— now I am speaking of abortions which take place outside the framework of this Bill— that it has been a success in respect of the life of the mother. As against this, we can bring many examples today of young people we have put on the right road again with our social work. I am talking about young girls who expected a baby and who found themselves in an emergency and asked for medical help, and whatever else. With the necessary guidance and advice which came from social workers and medical practitioners, other roads were followed. Today I could mention to hon. members long lists of names of such women who have found happiness and have taken their rightful places in the community and still do, not to mention the children who have been similarly brought into a happy life by the mother herself, but more often through the process of adoption. On the basis of the experiences of the commission and the convincing evidence which we had before us from all quarters, I think this Bill provides all that is essential in all respects to people who would not like to have abortion on demand.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Westdene said at the end of his speech—I hope I misunderstood him—that he did not know of a single woman who had had an abortion and had subsequently made a success of her life. He ascribed it to a feeling of guilt on the part of the woman.

I was referring to cases of abortion outside the law.

It is a statement I definitely cannot accept. I do not want to mention names, but just recently we read in the newspapers of a prominent woman in South Africa who had had an abortion and who said that she really did not have any guilty feelings about it.

†I believe it was the hon. member for Brentwood who said that this Bill was based on what I think he called “Christian National principles”. While I do not know where one finds national principles in this particular Bill, I will concede that this Bill is, of course, based on Christian principles although it is only partly based on Christian principles. In part this Bill is also based on purely humanitarian principles The hon. members who believe they can justify this Bill strictly in religious terms, should read the memorandum submitted by the Dutch Reformed Church. There have been several attempts to justify this Bill in religious terms and if anyone should be against this particular piece of legislation, it would be because he could not justify it in terms of his Christian beliefs. In the memorandum submitted to the commission by the Dutch Reformed Church, one finds a total rejection of clause 3(l)(c) which provides for a legal abortion in the case “where there exists a serious risk that the child to be born will suffer from a physical or mental defect”. Let me just quote from this memorandum to indicate what the attitude of the Dutch Reformed Church is. It is stated—

If one accepts the validity of the argument of the Dutch Reformed Church, one must then concede that this clause was put into the Bill not on account of any religious reason, but purely on account of humanitarian reasons. I want to remind hon. members that if you should kill a physically or mentally handicapped person or a normal person you will be equally guilty of murder. There is no distinction drawn, but here in the Bill we have already drawn a distinction between a physically and mentally normal person and one who runs the risk of being physically or mentally handicapped. It therefore means that the Government is already prepared to make a distinction on humanitarian grounds.

It follows too that if we really look at the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, we will find that her amendment is not the “gogga” that hon. members think it is. I believe that her amendment is worthy of serious consideration. In fact, under the circumstances I am going to make use of the opportunity, in the absence of the Whip, to vote for that amendment. The hon. member for Parktown sees her amendment as being aimed purely at having abortion on request or on demand. I do not see it as such. If you read her amendment you will find that she refers to humanitarian and economic grounds. It is no longer a fight for the principle or for the recognition that you can have an abortion on humanitarian grounds. This principle is already established in this Bill. All that I would like to see is that we must extend that principle. We as legislators should ask ourselves if there are no other humanitarian reasons which also justify abortion, and whether it is our duty to create further categories for legal abortions.

When it comes to abortion, we must accept the fact that we are dealing with a social problem which demands our urgent attention. How do we approach this problem? We find that even the commission could not approach the problem on a strictly religious basis. It was forced to approach it on a humanitarian basis. I believe that when we approach this social problem—and it is in fact a problem—we have to adopt more of a humanitarian approach to it. Then we will be doing what I would like to call our Christian duty. No matter how hon. members argue, hundreds and thousands of back-street abortions are being performed annually. I agree that a further liberalization of the abortion laws of the country will never stop back-street operators. You will always have this, but I believe it is our duty to do something and drastically reduce this number. If we pass this Bill in its present form, we will not drastically reduce that number. What I am afraid of is that we will sit back and ease our consciences by saying, “Well, we have done something about it”. This is not justified because the categories which we now have in the Bill have in fact existed in the past. For example, in emergency cases where the bleeding has started these cases have been treated in the hospitals. We are not going to reduce this number at all; we seem to forget about this.

The argument of cost which is inevitably raised is, I believe, totally irrelevant. This should not be a consideration. But even if we take the cost factor into account, it is still an open question …

Do you support the Bill for economic reasons?

I will come to that. Is it not more expensive to continue as we are at the present moment, where you find that the hospitals in any case have to accept the failures of the back-street operators? It must cost the State a terrific amount of money, and in addition to this, as a result of the activities of back-street operators, the State is also burdened with further social welfare commitments on account of the high death rate amongst women who become the victims of illegal abortions. I think it was the hon. member for Krugersdorp who indicated that the death rate is about 20 times as high as under normal conditions. If we want to approach this question from the point of view of cost, it is an open question whether the present situation will cost us more than it will cost us to create further categories for legal abortion.

Sir, I also want to deal with the plight or, let us say, the tragedy of the unwanted child. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Westdene, and I want to say to him that unfortunately he completely underestimates the plight and the tragedy of the unwanted child and the social evils which flow from it. Sir, this is something which should give us cause for concern and which we should try to do something about. Sir, I wish I could agree with the statement made by, I think, the hon. member for Rosettenville, who said that there are no unwanted children. He mentioned the orphanages and the long lists of people who are prepared to adopt children. Sir, the problem is that the majority of unwanted children are not in orphanages or available for adoption; their families are not prepared to have them adopted. The real tragedy is that many of them have to face the ultimate penalty as battered babies, and then there is also this additional factor: Because they are unwanted, they are maimed mentally and physically for life. I know for a fact that in certain areas of every city today one comes across this particular phenomenon. That brings me to the point that one should also consider abortion from the socio-economic angle. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that I am against what is generally described as “abortion on request”. On the other hand, I am convinced of the necessity to allow abortions for socio-economic reasons.

That is on request.

You will have to set down certain norms or lay down certain regulations. I am aware of the fact that this is something which is open to abuse; I concede that. But, Sir, any restrictive measure is open to abuse. But I do not put it beyond the ingenuity of man to lay down the necessary guidelines. You will obviously have borderline cases, but I believe that where social welfare workers who have made a study of the socio-economic conditions of the family recommend abortion and the parents consent to abortion—I am not suggesting that parents should be forced to agree—an abortion should be allowed, because otherwise what would be the consequences? In many cases you find that the mother concerned is forced to go to a back-street abortionist and that she dies in the process. This throws a further burden on the State.

Sir, I am convinced that we will be doing the wrong thing at this particular stage if we just accept the Bill as it is without trying to create further categories which will allow us to tackle this problem, which, as I say, is to try to reduce, although you can never altogether eliminate, back-street abortions. Furthermore, we should also pay due attention to the tragedy and the plight of the unwanted child. I know that the argument of permissiveness is always advanced; it is said that this will encourage further permissiveness. Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I am not convinced that it is always the most permissive girl who gets into trouble. Sometimes it seems to be the most innocent people who get into trouble. In fact, the most permissive will have other means of contraception, like the pill, so this has nothing to do with encouraging permissiveness.

I want to conclude by asking hon. members to answer one question. Once this Bill has been passed, will we have alleviated the problems of a large number of the people who have become the victims of the back-street abortionists? This is the problem we must face, and the only way in which to face it will be through a further relaxation, but a relaxation purely on humanitarian grounds and also as the result of socio-economic considerations.

We have listened with interest to the hon. member for Durban Central, and it is evident that he has given serious thought to this rather complex and difficult problem which is facing the House today. I believe that, taking into consideration all aspects of this problem, the wisest thing to do would be to support the Second Reading of this Bill in view of the fact that it does provide the means whereby abortions can be carried out on medical grounds and under medical and hygienic conditions. I believe that it is a sound argument to provide for therapeutic abortions, by which I mean abortions which are performed clearly on the basis of medical grounds and for specific medical reasons. That is, I believe, a sound reason for this particular provision in the legislation. I do agree with speakers who have spoken earlier in this debate and who indicate the socio-economic problems and the humanitarian aspects that have to be taken into consideration when discussing this subject. This Bill now before us obviously only takes into account the medical grounds on which an abortion may be performed. I realize that the persons who served on the commission of inquiry and those of us in this House who have studied the reports of the Select Committee of last year and previous year, have seen that various aspects were taken into consideration. Various aspects have been raised by the hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Parktown really made a plea in this House for abortion on request, and it was quite obvious that the hon. member for Houghton in moving her amendment and in making her speech also agrees to a certain extent that abortion on request is desirable. I say that because a considerable portion of her speech consisted of quotations from the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee by the Abortion Reform League. However, one must also take into account the views and the very considered opinions of other women’s organizations such as the National Council of women of South Africa. Here we have one of the largest women’s organizations in the Republic and although the hon. member for Parktown has made a plea on behalf of the women of South Africa, their view is this—

I believe it is important for hon. members of this House to take into consideration the views of women’s organizations as well as those of the churches, including the various other other aspects which are involved. I have mentioned medical grounds, and I hope to suggest, at a later stage, certain amendments that could be adopted at the Committee Stage of the Bill to endeavour to widen the provisions slightly without leading to any abuse of the provisions that might be provided for in such legislation.

We know, in dealing with legislation of this type, that every precaution must be taken to ensure that there are no loopholes which could lead to abuse as far as this subject is concerned. However, I believe that some of the provisions contained in the Bill do make it over-difficult for a person who may really be in need and who may, though meeting the requirements, find that the provisions contained in the legislation make it over-difficult for an abortion to be performed.

The grounds on which an abortion may be performed are set out very clearly in the Bill. I feel that perhaps further thought and consideration should be given to the mental aspects which permit a person to have a legal abortion. The provisions of the Bill make it clear that an abortion may only be performed on the grounds that permanent mental damage would result if the person did not procure an abortion. I feel that it will be extremely difficult for psychiatrists to take the possibility of permanent mental damages into account because the interpretation of “permanent mental damage” may cause some difficulties. I feel that consideration should be given to the possibility of providing that if serious mental damage could be caused, the psychiatrist should take that into account.

When we consider the provisions as far as abuses are concerned and the overall principle involved in passing the second reading of the Bill, we must bear in mind that this is perhaps not the answer to the whole problem. We know that the problem has other facets that have to be dealt with. We know that the humanitarian aspect has to be taken fully into account. I believe other very important aspects are sex education and contraception for those people who need this most, particularly some of the Black people of South Africa.

I believe that even if abortion on request were granted, we would still be faced with the problems of back-street abortionists and over-population. I do not think that this Bill can in any way tackle the problems of over-population and back-street abortionists. I think every hon. member of this House should condemn, in the very strongest terms, the dangers and evils attached to back-street abortionists. I hope there will be some way for us to tackle this problem. It would appear that the legislation before us will still mean that we shall be faced with the problem of back-street abortionists. If we look at other countries which have granted abortion on request, we find that this problems still arises. If one looks at a document which was prepared by a Dr. Gardiner, a gynaecologist and an ordained minister of religion who made a very thorough investigation into this whole question, particularly the position in other countries, one finds that in the Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, where abortion laws have been liberalized for some time, the incidence of recourse to criminal abortion has not been reduced, having, in fact, increased since criminal abortion has seemed less criminal in the new situation. An investigation was also carried out in Japan. Their legislation is based on socio-economic grounds as well as on medical grounds, but the result of the investigation showed that the number of legal abortions had risen to one million per annum while the number of illegal abortions still stood at over one million per annum. The investigation also indicates that these countries that have introduced easy abortion laws, without fully appreciating the effects, have also had to face the problem of recurrent demands from the same woman. In Japan over 20% of the women on whom abortions were induced were pregnant again within six months, and 50% of them were pregnant again within 12 months. One can therefore see that even if one liberalizes the abortion laws to the extent of making abortion on request permissible, one will still be faced with this problems of the back-street abortionist and over-population.

I believe we must concentrate our efforts on sex education amongst the young people of all racial groups, incorporating in that sex education methods of contraception and sound family planning. The hon. the Minister of Health is to be commended for the steps he is taking to extend the family planning services in South Africa. I believe this is a vitally important step that has to be taken in the interest of South Africa and everyone in South Africa. More extensive investigation is required along the lines of sex education and contraception. This is perhaps the most important aspect that has to be dealt with.

If one considers the other humanitarian grounds that have been mentioned in this House, such as the unwanted child, one realizes that this is indeed a problem. We know that there are some 45 000 children in institutions in South Africa. Many of these children fall into the category of unwanted children. It is quite pitiful to see the large number of children in institutions who never see either parent. Their parents never visit them and take very little interest in their welfare. Unfortunately, many of these children are too old to be adopted. In Child Welfare the vast percentage of those wishing to adopt children wish to adopt babies, and it is not always easy for all requirements to be met in order to arrange such adoptions. It is easier as far as the White child is concerned, but it is certainly far more difficult as far as Black children are concerned. I mention the position of the Black woman and the Black child because at the King Edward VIII hospital in my constituency, where I have had the privilege to serve on the hospital board for some 20 years, this has always been one of the very live problems facing this hospital. The obstetrics and gynaecology departments of this hospital are under tremendous pressure. Twenty thousand or more Black babies are born every year. One also comes across the ravages of malnutrition, kwashiorkor and other diseases in the pediatric section of that hospital. Many of those children fall into the category of unwanted children. Indeed, from time to time there has been the problem of abandoned babies at that hospital. After a long process of investigation, the babies are eventually transferred to a place of safety at Umhlazi or to some other institution. A few of them are adopted, but a great number are not. These children fall into the category of unwanted children. As far as our Black people are concerned we have to concentrate on family planning instruction and education. At these hospitals it is necessary for the appointment of counsellors and people who will be able to assist, perferably their own people, with family planning and advice contraception. I know that some hospitals have sent nurses on family planning courses to assist such people with sex education. However, I feel very strongly on the point of the unwanted child, this being a very humanitarian aspect of family life. I believe in the concept, which is often quoted by persons who work in child welfare, that every child should be a wanted child. This must not just become a pious hope, but a principle which is widely accepted if the survival of the human family is to be ensured.

This is an aspect which should rank high in our priorities when dealing with this legislation. We know that there are often times when contraceptive facilities are not available. I believe that it is essential for contraception to be freely available in all circumstances so as to assist people. I also believe that the sterilization provisions in this Bill are restrictive, and that further consideration should perhaps be given to the sterilization of both males and females. To ensure that this legislation become effective, to ensure that it does receive the support and co-operation of the public at large, one tries to assess the practical application of the provisions of this Bill. I mentioned earlier the question of the mental health of the pregnant girl or pregnant woman. Here I believe there should be some relaxation of the situation in view of the tremendous shortage of doctors, and the shortage of psychiatrists in particular.

If one looks at figures that have been provided from time to time, one can see that there is certainly a tremendous shortage of psychiatrists in South Africa, in particular in Natal where there are large numbers of Black people. In some cases it is going to be extremely difficult to meet the requirements as laid down in this Bill. For instance, the Bill states that these psychiatrists shall be State-employed psychiatrists. Here I hope the hon. the Minister will give further clarification in regard to this particular portion of the Bill because it is obvious that tremendous pressure is going to be placed on these psychiatrists, particularly in a province where a large number of people will have to be dealt with from time to time on mental grounds. If one looks at figures one will see that there are only 140 registered psychiatrists in the country. If one bears in mind that this country has a population of more than 22 million, one can envisage the enormous task facing these psychiatrists. Figures show that there are only 12 psychiatrists in Natal, three in Durban in private practice, three in Pietermaritzburg in private practice, one in Newcastle in private practice and five psychiatrists in Pietermaritzburg attached to the two mental hospitals in that city. This means that it is going to be very difficult for the psychiatrists to meet the necessary requirements should there be a large number of persons requiring examination by qualified psychiatrists employed by the State. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister, in replying to the debate, could also indicate whether psychiatrists who are merely at a provincial hospital on a sessional basis will be classified as being employed by the State. The other problem, in dealing with this aspect of the mental health of the pregnant woman, is the question of language. The psychiatrists are going to deal with all language groups and all racial groups. When it comes to the Zulu people in Natal, for instance, it will be essential for the psychiatrists to have some knowledge of the Zulu language, particularly if they are going to assess the mental capabilities of these people. They will not be able to do this if they cannot communicate with these people and understand their language. I feel it is important to take these factors into consideration to ensure that this Bill does indeed have the desired effect. The object is to see that people who must have an abortion on medical grounds are provided for, and here, of course, one includes mental grounds.

I mentioned earlier that I intend to support the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do believe that it is necessary for a certain widening of these provisions, taking into account that they should not be widened so as to create an avenue for abuse. The provisions must, however, not be overburdensome, thus preventing the person who really needs help from receiving that help. As far as the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment is concerned, I believe that it is not desirable to see this legislation blocked at this stage. Since its publication in 1973, there has been a Select Committee which was converted into a commission of inquiry, and this matter has been thoroughly investigated. This, I believe, is the first step in legalizing an abortion, and I shall not support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Houghton, regardless of whether she considers it a miscarriage of justice as far as the womenfolk of South Africa are concerned.

I believe that it would be wise if the hon. the Minister would at a later stage review the practical application of this legislation and, if necessary at that stage—perhaps in two years’ time—appoint a commission that would consist of persons, other than the members of this House, so as to overcome the various objections that have been raised by various organizations because this commission consisted merely of members of this House. I believe that the hon. the Minister could then take into account all aspects that will then have arisen during that period of time. I believe that this legislation deserves the support and encouragement of all members of this House to see that this legislation has the desired effect.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to many of the matters he mentioned this afternoon, except where he said: “I would like to see in the Committee Stage that there should be a certain widening of the provisions of this Bill.” It is precisely in respect of legislation of this kind that it occurs that when certain provisions are too widely stated in legislation, they are abused. That has definitely been the experience of many countries which have handled legislation of a similar nature in the past, that there have always been people who tried to look for loopholes. In my opinion this would in fact be a step in the wrong direction.

The hon. member for Durban Central contests the fact that this legislation is based on Christian principles. Now I just want to ask him whether it is not the whole premise of this side of the House and of the Commission that this legislation is based on Christian principles. If this is not so, it would certainly have been approached from an entirely different angle. However we shall furnish more details concerning this particular point of view at a later stage.

We have heard a number of speeches this afternoon, and it is, in fact, very difficult to say anything really new at this stage, except to emphasize certain aspects of this legislation. There are members who are using this legislation and the debate to try and bring about some liberalization of the morals of our country. There are others who have stated their standpoints from a purely religious point of view, without bearing in mind certain hard, practical realities. We have also had the standpoints of hon. members who have served on the Commission and are acquainted with the background of the matter.

The last group, which I in fact resent, comprises the person of the hon. member for Houghton who tried to use this debate as a platform for her Women’s Lib. movement. When dealing with legislation in this House of Assembly, we must not lose sight of the fact that we may not place the individual above society. This is one of the things which many of us overlook and which the hon. member for Parktown overlooked entirely.

We do not see this problem in isolation or from a materialistic point of view. The problem is not whether we want to allow abortion or not. This is how many of those who have objected in the course of this debate as well as people who have made representations, have seen the problem. The problem which gave rise to this Bill was, in the first place, that we in South Africa—believe this is true of by far the majority of South Africans—believe that it is not a person’s right to take life, but that situations do arise which justify certain exceptions as contained in the provisions of this legislation. I should like to point out that Prof. V. N. de Villiers once wrote in the S.A. Medical Journal’. “It is clear that 28% of the therapeutic abortions openly performed in South African hospitals by respectable doctors are not covered by Roman Dutch law.” It is with the very aim of eliminating this anomaly that it has become so essential to place certain definitive provisions in the Statute Book concerning our standpoints on abortion in South Africa. There is no question of our renouncing, for socio-economic or demographic reasons, based on our religious conviction. To be specific, our religious conviction is: “God gives life and man may not take it.” This principle is also embodied in many other religions.

I do not think that even the agnostic thinkers and the atheists differ with us in this regard. I mention this merely by way of emphasis, because this is the premise of this legislation. There are of course certain exceptions in legislation in this regard where life can in fact be taken. Thus, for example, a Government can instruct its army to wage war. Life can also be taken in cases of treason and murder. In such cases it is the very person who has committed the offence who pays the ultimate price, while in the case of an unborn child it is this very unborn child, the innocent party, who has to pay the ultimate price. That is precisely where the difference lies. On a number of occasions a questionnaire has been circulated by people doing research in this regard. The Moslems replied:

Islam does not justify any form of killing for it preaches that life is a God-given gift and only God has the right to take back this gift.

The Hindus replied—

The Christians who replied to this, clearly stated the standpoint I have already stated before, namely—

A number of arguments have been advanced concerning the question of the standards that apply in other countries. I think that we should make a point of not always holding up other countries as an example when we have to decide on a specific matter, particularly as far as moral standards are concerned. Here in South Africa we have our own moral standards. The tendency to point to other countries arises, in the nature of the matter, from the fact that the various influences that apply throughout the world will also, to a certain degree, have an influence in South Africa. We cannot reason that away, because the structural and functional components of our social structure are also changing. However it is unnecessary for us to do anything that does not accord with our proven Christian values here in South Africa. Let us look at what is happening in other countries, but let us not necessarily determine our standards in South Africa in accordance therewith.

There are countries that have already had a great deal of experience in this field, but let us not make the mistake of thinking that they have not also experienced serious problems. In the Netherlands, which liberalized their legislation in this regard a long time ago, a serious political crisis or polemic concerning this very matter is in progress in their own Cabinet at the moment. We find, for example, that the Polyclinic in Amsterdam where as many as 90 abortions per day have been performed over a period of a number of years, has already begun to limit those activities. In another instance Minister Van Aght promised the Cabinet and the Government of the Netherlands in the Netherlands Parliament that he would take strong action against the Bloemenhove abortion clinic in Heemstede where a large number of cases of abortion had apparently been undertaken after the pregnancy period of three months prescribed in their legislation. Now it is true that there is a large variety of opinions with regard to age, as far as this matter is concerned.

I think the French legislation that has just come into operation, includes a provision of ten weeks. The fact remains that we cannot with certainty determine the point when life begins and ends. That is why we would prefer to say that life really begins at the fertilization process. One thing is certain, however, and that is that the experience of many other countries which have liberalized their legislation is that they have come to realize very quickly that it is virtually impossible to rescind any concessions. However, we must take into account that the legislation in England which also contained certain restrictions virtually degenerated into abortion on demand as a result of all the loopholes it contained. In my opinion, one of the aspects of that legislation that gave rise to the greatest difficulties was the very issue of abortion where mental disabilities were present. We in South Africa also have people who addressed representations to the Commission and to the House of Assembly and who went so far as to say that this legislation opens a loophole for abortion on demand, for reasons of mental health. This is a very serious charge and we must take due cognizance of it.

In fact, in most countries of the world this is the main reason advanced in respect of the abortions that are in fact performed. In England it is as much as 90% in certain cases and in Canada 98,2%, i.e. abortions for reasons of mental health. Dr. Sim maintained that the socio-economic reasons are concealed by pleading psychiatric reasons. Dr. Middleton of Unisa who has also made a study of this matter, mentions inter alia that in point of fact, reasons of mental health include a large number of social and economic reasons and cannot be divorced from the total environment of the patient. It is therefore essential for this Parliament, and the Minister and his department in particular, to interpret very closely the term “mental health” as contained in this Bill. I believe that this Bill succeeds in closing the loopholes, but we nevertheless request the Minister and his Department to allow the emphasis in sect on 3(l)(b) to fall on permanent damage to the patient’s mental health.

Sir, demographic reasons have repeatedly been advanced here. I do not believe that demographic reasons have a place in this discussion. After all, there are in fact far better methods of ensuring limitation of population growth. Generally speaking, I do not believe that abortions performed with a view to limitation of population growth will have a very great influence on the population explosion. New methods are being developed which, in my opinion, will, in fact, limit the need to perform abortions for this reason. As I have already mentioned, Sir, we cannot take socio-economic reasons into account. In fact I believe that many of us sitting here this afternoon would not have been here if socio-economic reasons had applied in respect of abortion when we were born. Many of us sitting here come from the poorest of families, families which had to struggle, and I believe that to a large extent it is in that very fact that our strength lies.

Mr. Speaker, we must take a brief look at the objections of certain of the organizations. I think that when we look at these objections we shall find that most of the objections are based on the directions as to the procedure that must be followed There are very few people who will not agree that legal abortion should only take place with the greatest circumspection, that the safety measures as contained in this Bill are essential, and that we cannot simply allow this to occur on a haphazard basis. However, I agree that greater provision should be made by the State for the care of the issue of unwanted pregnancies. I think that the State could perhaps give specific attention in the future to this extremely important point, which has also been mentioned by hon. members of the Opposition.

Sir, this afternoon I just want to dwell briefly on another aspect of this problem. I refer here to a matter raised across the floor by the hon. members for Houghton and Parktown, and that is the right of the woman to choose. Sir, here I am speaking from experience. I do not want to guess what the percentage is, but in the more than 13 years that I was practising, it was my experience that the reaction of dozens of women, as soon as they found out they were pregnant, was a feeling of deep depression and a desire to be rid of the pregnancy. It is a fact that one’s degree of depression is very closely connected with the working of one’s ductless glands. Not only is this reflected in women by a cyclic action, but if there is one specific period when the effect of the ductless gland system, the endocrine system of the body, has a specific effect on the moods and the power of judgment and the rationalization of thought, then it is during this very period, the first few weeks of pregnancy. I believe that under these circumstances, when a woman has to take a decision, she is in fact unable to take a sound decision. In many instances it is necessary to encourage the woman at that stage and to give her the necessary moral support, and when this is done, then within a few weeks she is completely happy again and her state of mind has changed entirely. Sir, it is at this stage that the hon. members for Houghton and Parktown want that woman to have the right to decide to have her child’s life taken. We cannot allow that situation in South Africa. I believe that those hon. members have not thought very clearly in regard to this matter. It would in fact be unfair to expect of a woman to take such a decision under any circumstances, quite apart from this specific period. I refer here to our basic premise that we receive life from God and that man may not take it. In any event I believe that there is justification for these arguments in the light of the evidence submitted to the Commission. I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us who were not members of the Commission, when I extend my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Health, the commission and the Department of Health on the drafting of this Bill. I want to tell you that I have evidence from people overseas who have seen the draft of this Bill and have considered that this Bill we are dealing with this afternoon is one of the best of its kind in the world.

Mr. Speaker it is to my great surprise that I find that I have to associate myself with the Government today, because I was elected by the people of Pinetown on the basis that I must be an effective member of the Opposition.

†Sir, when we approach abortion, as I see it, there are four views which we as a legislature can take. What I might call the two extreme views are, firstly, that there should be no law at all. Now in Rhodesia this is in fact the case, and in Britain until 1967 this was also the case. There has been some considerable legal argument by the jurisprudence experts that in fact a common law approach would be the best. The other extreme view is the view that there should be no abortion at all. Of course the Dutch Reformed Church’s memorandum and the point made by the hon. member for Durban Central are valid, that if in fact we hold to the Biblical view of life and of society, we should hold the view that there should be no abortion at all. Of course, even the Roman Catholics, who possibly have the most extreme view, do allow abortion in certain cases. They do, for example, allow an ectopic gestation to be removed when a baby is conceived in the fallopian tube. But most people will not go along with this, simply because we live and make laws in a broken society, and much as we may wish to live in a theocracy, we in fact live in a society composed of sinful men and women, as we know we all are. The third point of view is to have limited legal abortion, to which I will come back. The fourth point of view which has been put forward in this House is abortion on demand. Some people call it “abortion on request”, and others call it “enliehtened social services”. Now, the hon. member for Houghton would not reply to my question as to whether she supported it or not. She of course de facto did, but she is too clever a politician to say so. [interjections.] On this issue of abortion on demand, I believe we have had a lot more heat than light shed in these discussions, and most of the arguments we get are either emotional, statistical or refutable. We have had some classic examples of people speaking without having done their homework. I think especially of the members for Parktown and Durban Central and also, but to a lesser extent, since she did do her homework with the Abortion Reform Action Group, the member for Houghton.

The “hon.” member to you! [Interjections.]

We have had certain viewpoints which have come up in all the abortion liberalization claims. One of them is the number of illegal abortions. This is a very difficult figure to arrive at in any circumstances because of the nature of abortion, but in Britain they have done some interesting studies and Sir Dugald Baird, a well-known gynaecologist in Aberdeen in Scotland, estimates that on the basis of his study of the whole gynaecological and abortion situation in the city of Aberdeen, there were no more than about 20 000 illegal abortions in Britain before the 1967 Act. At the time that the Act was passed figures such as 100 000 and 200 000 were flung around as they have been in this House. It is almost impossible to arrive at any figure which is statistically meaningful for the number of abortions.

We have had another argument, the demographic argument that we have a population explosion in this country and that abortion should be used to reduce it. The only two areas of the world where abortion on demand has had some sort of demographic effect are Eastern Europe, in Hungary and particularly in Rumania, and Japan. The main reason why it had that effect is that they have decent medical facilities. I do not have to tell the House that an abortion is a serious operation. It can easily have complications. If abortions are to be done responsibly, there must be blood and plasma available. It is a difficult and technical operation which can easily go wrong. For that reason alone the possibilities of having abortion on demand in poor countries with limited medical services, and which have the worst population explosions, are extremely rare.

There is another reason why abortion on demand would never work as a demographic reduction factor. The reason is that in most primitive societies it is very difficult to get people to make use of contraceptive devices any way, and as a result this means that they will have to be persuaded to go for abortions as well. The chances are that they will not, simply because of religious and superstitious ideas.

Another point that has been nut forward is this idea of suicide threats. It has been said that these women are all going to commit suicide. This viewpoint has been put forward throughout the last 25 years. In Sweden they did a survey of 13 500 women who were refused abortions between 1938 and 1958. Only three committed suicide; that is 0,2 in 1 000. Furthermore, in California they did studies of women who had psychiatric problems. They found that women who had psychiatric problems were expected to commit suicide in this particular measurement group at the rate of approximately 17,2 per 1 000. Amongst pregnant women with similar psychiatric disturbances the rate was three per 1 000. In fact, the suggestion is that being pregnant assists women with psychiatric problems.

We have also had the “battered baby” story. If anybody cares to study this position, he will find that battered babies are essentially a phenomenon of small families and amongst women in the 20 to 30 age group living mostly in difficult circumstances, in flats and crowded areas. Women with large families do not batter babies. It is certainly a much more complicated matter than simply ascribing it to abortion would suggest.

We have dealt with the issue of wanted children. This again is a value judgment. The hon. member for Newcastle made an important point, viz. that for the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy she is, medically speaking, hormonally drugged. Her hormone level is so high as to make it very difficult for her to come to a rational and sensible solution. When does a woman want a baby? Does she want it when she is conceiving it, does she want it at two months when she is sick and the other babies are also sick, does she want it at six months, does she want it when it is lying in her arms or does she want it when it is a toddler? This is a very difficult thing to decide. They did a study in Denmark of 151 women who had their babies because they were refused abortions. Of these women. 13 said they had no affection for the baby, 31 said they were very happy with the baby, while the remainder said they were moderately happy. Many such surveys have been made. How does one decide whether a baby is wanted or not? Many women will tell you that they did not want the baby at first but that afterwards they were very pleased to have it.

What is a doctor’s view on abortion? I want to quote from a letter by a Durban gynaecologist in which, replying to requests from the Gynaecological Association, he wrote as follows:

This the hon. member for Umbilo has also been pleading for.

The experience in Britain and in other countries is that the gynaecological and obstetric departments of hospitals are flooded with abortions and are incapable of getting on with their normal work and as a result the proper work which gynaecologists and obstetricians feel they are called to do, cannot go on. I am pleased to see that this Bill contains a conscience clause, because the experience in Britain now is that many nurses and doctors do not want to do abortions. They start off in the abortion section of a hospital, but they are so sickened after months and months of dealing with this type of operation that they refuse to continue. In Birmingham they attempted recently to open a special abortion clinic to deal with this problem, but found that only 20% of the doctors in Birmingham and of the gynaecologists more particularly, were prepared to serve on this abortion clinic. They were not interested from a professional point of view in spending their whole day performing abortions.

The socio-economic reason is a very interesting one to me. What determines the socio-economic condition of a person? Are they to go and live in a flat in Killarney to be socio-economically happy or are they to grow up on a “brandarm-bywoners-plaas”? Let us just look at one or two examples. Do not forget that the Prime Minister, for example is the 13th child in a family. For socio-economic reasons the hon. the Prime Minister could easily have been aborted. Furthermore, we have many more examples among our Black people. Recently a man from the hon. member for Newcastle’s constituency, a very prominent South African, Prof. Vilakazi, came back from America to visit South Africa and the great news was that he was once a garden boy and a herd boy in Dannhauser. This man has made a great contribution, but he might well have been aborted for socio-economic reasons. What is the basic thinking behind something like a socio-economic reason? The concept is that man is formed by his environment, that man is environmentally prepared for his life. By the same argument a person who commits murder might do so because he was not potty-trained properly. This is nonsense. Just because you give people decent houses and decent money, it does not make them good. This brings us to the nub of this abortion on demand issue. We can quote statistics back and forth across the floor and the hon. member for Houghton and I can go “wah-wah-wah” at each other, but that does not assist the debate. The point at issue with abortion on demand is not the statistics, but what your world view is, what your view of life and of society is. Lord Keyner, the great economist said that ideas, not people, are the things that change the world. The hon. for Umbilo quoted from Prof. Gardiner’s book. I also wish to quote from that book. Prof. Gardner is a gynaecologist. He says:

As I see it, this is the real issue: what is our view of life and of people? In this Parliament we stand essentially in a Western democratic tradition which has it origins fundamentally in Judae-Christianity. The fundamental right embodied in our justice and way of life is the fact that we believe in a God, an absolute and almighty God, because without that, justice has no meaning, we have no frame of reference. From a Christian point of view, Lord George McCleod, a Scottish nobleman, put it this way:

It is these two factors which I believe have had the most important influence on our Western democratic system. The individual has certain rights because he is God’s creation and because God sent His Son to die for him. Therefore we care about individuals and have, in our society, orphanages, hospitals and leprosy settlements. This is an expression of our fundamental caring for people which is a feature of Christian and Jewish societies. We have to fight for this principle, because if we do not do so, we are going to have a struggle to keep any of our principles above water. In every society there are pressures to water down these great principles. We hear a lot about “Christelik-nasionaal.”, and I have a lot of sympathy with that point of view, but have the older members in this House considered how many of their children, for example, are having abortions, shot-gun marriages or divorces, or how many of them are living lives which are not for one minute “Christelik-nasionaal”? If we want to preserve a certain view of life we have to evangelize every generation, we have to fight every battle anew in each generation. This is something the members of the Reform Action Group know very well, and that is why they are fighting the battle to win this round.

I wish to suggest that this whole issue of abortion and the value of human life is closely tied up with habeas corpus which is fundamental to our whole Western civilization. Habeas corpus and the importance of human life are the signs of a civilized society. Habeas corpus can also be undermined. For example, one would like to know why section 4 of the Terrorism Act and not section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act is invoked. The reason is that the Minister of Justice and his department, like all of us, have a tendency to do what is easiest and most comfortable.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, I am aware of that. Abortion on demand, as I see it, is a fundamentally materialistic view of life. What is it saying? It is saying that the child has no value and therefore I believe that if we admit the principle that human life is expendable, we open the sluice gates to gas chambers, the Stalin purges, Communism and the worst forms of totalitarianism. I do not believe that we must be conned into this view of life which people are propagating and which intelligent and sensitive people like the hon. members for Parktown and Houghton seem to accept without thinking seriously about it. To have a decent quality of life in our Western society we must have respect for the sanctity of life.

I wish to look briefly at one or two of the groups which are pushing the situation. In Britain they have made a careful study of one of the associations for abortion reform, A.L.R.A. This association had approximately 1 000 members at the height of the abortion controversy in England and 74% of those members were athiests and agnostics. I do not mind if people are athiests or agnostics—they are quite at liberty to be that—but the point is that it is a good indication of their view of life and of their view of society and of the fact that, witlessly, they are undermining the whole basis of our civilized society. Furthermore, Mrs. Simms who was the head of this Abortion Law Reform Association in Britain is now the head of the Eugenic Society. Let me just tell hon. members what eugenics is. I quote from Sir Julian Huxley who says—

Positive genetics he feels to be the more important, and this will rely largely on what he calls E.I.D., which is eugenic insemination by deliberately preferred donors—

The implications of the abortion on demand issue cannot, I believe, be discussed statistically. It has to be discussed morally. What is our moral approach to this whole matter? If we went into the implications of having abortion on demand, the number of doctors that would be required, the way our hospitals would be swamped, we would find that we could not do it practically. But I do not believe that that is the issue. The issue is the same issue of habeas corpus, namely what value do we place on human life? One finds the same person who objects violently to capital punishment or to a policeman thrashing a lout for doing something wrong, happily supporting abortion on demand. This is quite inconsistent but it is because they have been intellectually conned.

Let us have a look at this limited legal abortion. I believe that this is a good Bill because it gives us the right emphasis. Essentially, however, it is a matter of priorities. There is no easy solution to abortion. Anybody who takes some trouble and does some homework and who talks to people who have studied the subject will recognize that this is a terribly complicated and sensitive matter. It is something which requires tremendous compassion and which is very difficult to decide upon. It depends where your emphasis lies. We in this House must decide whether our priorities are going to be on the side of sanctity of life and on the preservation of life or whether they are going to be on the slippery slope which leads to dialectical materialism and all the horrors which Nazism, Communism and totalitarianism produce.

Back-street abortions are still going to occur in spite of this Bill; we all know that. They will occur even if abortion on demand is allowed. But what we are going to do to prevent this kind of back-street abortion? We had a suggestion from the hon. member for Umbilo and another from the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Durban Central said that in order to stop back-street abortions we should have proper abortions. With respect, he does not know what he is talking about because he has not gone into the medical problems associated with abortions. [Interjections.] The way to stop back-street abortions is to have an increased family planning programme. This is tied up with the socio-economic problems of South Africa. If this Government wants to talk about Christian National responsibilities, and if this Government—all the deacons and elders—want to appear very pious and want to say what they are going to do for the people, then they must remember that this coin has two sides to it. There is another side to the coin. What about the biggest cause of unwanted children and of children who find themselves in difficult situations? I refer to this ghastly system of migratory labour. The socioeconomic position of most of our Black people is completely shameful to any Christian conscience.

Furthermore, the hon. member for Umbilo says there are 45 000 unwanted children in homes.

No, I just said there are children in homes.

With respect, the hon. member quoted the figure 45 000 because I wrote it down. When he looks at his Hansard tomorrow, he will see it.

I did not say they were all unwanted.

Oh, I am sorry, he did not say they were all unwanted. Nevertheless he implied that those 45 000 children would not have been in those homes if we had had abortion on demand.

I did not say that.

That was the implication. The real point is that he quotes this figure of 45 000 children as though that represents the whole of South Africa, but what he forgot to say was that those are 45 000 White children; and if there are 45 000 White children in homes, there ought to be approximately 350 000 Black children in homes. This Abortion Bill is going to be crass hypocrisy if this Government does not make a huge effort to improve the socio-economic position of our Black people and, more particularly, to deal with this awful business of migratory labour. It is a blot on the conscience if this Bill …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? According to the Abortion Reform League Group’s newsletter: “Mr. Graham McIntosh (United Party, Pinetown) has said that mothers of three children could be entitled to abortion on request.” Can the hon. member indicate whether he is in favour of abortion on request?

That is quite correct. I wrote because I feel the only case in which abortion on request could be considered was when a woman already had three living children and if because of population reasons she wished to have an abortion. [Interjections.] It is interesting that in Communist China, for instance, that is the rule.

I want to have a look at the issue of family planning too. If we have to uplift our people from a socio-economic point of view by means of this Bill, I believe that this Bill will smack of complete hypocrisy if the Department of Health, which I believe has a good Bill here, does not do something about family planning as well. To spend R4 million per year in a country which is experiencing a population explosion such as we are, is irresponsible to put it mildly, and that is closely tied up with the whole issue of abortion. The emphasis of this Bill is that this House and this Government place a Christian value on every person in this country and if the Government wants this Bill to go through, it must be prepared to take the other side of the coin into account in this Bill. In other words, it must not only pass a good Abortion Bill but it must create decent living conditions for all our people in South Africa.

There are one or two minor things in the Bill that I am not too happy about. I think the rape clause is perhaps too wide but as a concession to Women’s Lib I think this could be allowed. Furthermore, in the conscience clause there is nothing to say that the woman may refuse to have an abortion. I believe that should be allowed for.

The conscience clause?

Yes, there is nothing to say that a woman need not have an abortion. Futhermore, I believe that sterilization should be encouraged for men as well. I believe that every member of this House should consider it his patriotic duty to have a vasectomy as soon as his children have reached their teenage years and that he should be photographed leaving the hospital. [Interjections.]

I believe there is another omission in this Bill in that there are occasions, which I admit are very rare, when a woman urgently needs an abortion to save her life and it may be difficult to get the necessary permission for an urgent operation. I would like to know if that woman will be protected under common law, because it seems as if this ought to be allowed. I have much pleasure on behalf of myself in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate in the full knowledge that we on this side of the House are free of our Whips and have a free vote. The tragedy is that the Government has not emulated the pattern set by the Opposition. I believe that if ever there has been a need for a full and free discussion on a bill it is in connection with this one. The mere fact that a Select Committee and a commission have given serious attention to the matter provided for in this Bill and have reported their findings, and the fact that the Bill has received considerable support from both parties, is in itself sufficient reason for a full debate across the floor of this House. Because there were no women on the commission and because it is Women’s Year, this debate should be carried on by each and every member of the House who should also state his or her position in this regard. I believe that the contributions that have been made by the hon. members for Durban Central, Parktown and Houghton have been valuable if simply to indicate that this matter is not cut and dried.

I believe that those who have adopted their standpoint because of religious or moral scruples or because of the desire for antipermissiveness are failing to recognize —and I disagree with the hon. member who said that we should not be influenced by overseas and world trends—that in the very Western civilization to which my hon. friend behind me has referred, the need for abortion under certain circumstances has been seriously debated by highly civilized countries such as Germany, France, Britain and America. Two years ago in Germany, in the Bundestag in Bonn, after a public debate which was carried on in great earnestness and with much publicity, the voting was in favour of abortion at an early stage of pregnancy. The voting in the Assembly was as close as 290 to 260 and abortion was legalized.

I am speaking as a Christian and the father of two adult children of whom one is a doctor. I am also speaking as the grandfather of five grandchildren and my attitude is clear. I think that the need for the early termination of pregnancy, brought about by any circumstances, is sad and tragic.

We cannot get away from certain facts. One of them is that abortions are taking place in all countries throughout the world as well as in our own country. In fact, no less a person than the head of the Department of Obstetrics, Prof. D. A. Davey is on record as having said that the Abortion and Sterilization Bill would probably not reduce, in his words, “the astronomical number of illegal abortions procured annually.” I am not speaking on behalf of a clique or pressure group. I want to say in all seriousness that in the Cape Town Gardens, which I have the honour to represent, there are women, Afrikaans-speaking women, Nationalist-supporting women, who have come to me and made it plain to me that they hoped that in debating this Bill members of the Nationalist Party would at least consider the problems they face when they look at their own consciences. Pressure groups will not help. It is not groups of persons which can make a decision; it is the individual who is involved in the need for an abortion. That individual, multiplied by tens of thousands, is not present in this House. Now, Sir, I want to deal with the question of the right of a woman to decide whether on physical, mental or spiritual grounds she should have an abortion performed. It is interesting to note that two years ago in America, which is not an uncivilized country and which has not got uncivilized courts, the Supreme Court of America took a decision affirming a woman’s right to obtain an abortion in early pregnancy. Sir, let us not hide behind an iron curtain of prejudice. We are no longer living in a world where heresay was condemned with the burning of witches. We as legislators and as public representatives must examine this situation ourselves, and we must not, because a Select Committee has come to a certain conclusion, say that we are absolved from the mental exercise of examining the position of the people in our constituencies. I believe that we in South Africa have high moral codes, but we are not the only people who have high moral codes. I think in America, Germany, Japan, France and Britain there are also people with high moral codes. We are not the only religious people in the world. I always think of the problem that I had during the last war, when the churches were praying that we would be victorious and that our enemies would be damned to death and damnation. When I landed up as a prisoner of war in Germany I found that millions of Germans were praying that God would save their lives and that the enemy would be damned to death and damnation. As I say, Sir, we in South Africa are not the only religious people; we are not the only moral people in the world. This subject has been debated earnestly and seriously by the peoples and legislatures of civilized countries throughout the world. Sir, I say this because it has also been said by Professor Davey that this Bill does not go far enough. The point I want to make is that in America there were over 900 000 legal abortions in 1973. In this country there may perhaps be 1 000 abortions a year, and we are now passing a Bill which merely makes abortion illegal; it does not eliminate the reasons for these abortions; it does not give relief to those 1000 or 100 000 girls and women who find themselves in the situation that they have to face the terrors, the ignominy and the distress of abortion. This legislation does not take into account the root causes of abortions. I say again, Sir, that in this country of ours we should consider the position of those women, girls and often children who have to resort to abortion. I think we should in all sincerity apply our minds to this matter, not as men for whom the necessity of making a decision in this regard ever arises, but we should recognize that in the society for which we as legislators are responsible there is the tragic fact that abortions, in astronomical numbers, are in fact taking place at the moment. Sir, I repeat what Prof. Davey says, that this Bill does not go far enough and that essentially it only legalizes what is at present being done and what he himself and many doctors in obeying their consciences have been doing for some time. Sir, this talk of life and death and murder does not hold water in the eyes of many excellent doctors and in the eyes of many women who make their own decisions. I say again, Sir, that I speak as a Christian and as a father, and not as a permissive individual, but this subject warrants such serious consideration that every individual in this House should examine the details of the Bill and satisfy himself that it goes far enough.

Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to this debate yesterday and today. It was particularly interesting to listen to the hon. young member for Pinetown. I want to congratulate him today on all but the last part of his speech. Up to then he had been making the best speech he had ever made in this House, but once he began to get emotional and to drag in things which have nothing to do with this Bill, he caused his whole speech to fall flat, in spite of an interesting argument between him and the hon. members for Durban Central and Umbilo. Perhaps a young member may tend to overreach himself if he sees that he has the attention of the House. Then he runs out of ammunition. He made a few points which constitute the crux of this whole matter. He made the point that in this Act one must be led by one’s conscience. We have heard statistics. I had some as well, but these have been mentioned twice by hon. members in this House this afternoon, statistics to prove that we are not going to get rid of criminal abortion at this stage. They were quoted by the hon. member for Umbilo. In Japan we find that abortion is freely available, and there they have a million a year. It is said that many more are performed, but for income tax purposes the doctors do not report the figures. In that country a quarter of those cases are still criminal abortions. Consequently one is not going to get rid of this situation by supplying abortion on demand, as it was called by the hon. member for Houghton.

I never said that.

But I think the point made by the hon. member for Pinetown is correct, namely that one has to be led here by one’s Christian conscience. One has to be led by one’s own view of life, and this will tell one how to vote on this Bill. I want to make a few points. They may have been mentioned by the hon. member or by other hon. members, but I want to tell you that any people has a conscience, and that conscience lies in the citizens of that country, and it is the duty of the Government, when necessary, and after having sounded the conscience of the nation, to introduce legislation to ensure that the conscience of the nation is properly protected. This is the responsibility of the State towards the community. Women are not the only ones who have a responsibility in regard to abortion. The hon. member for Houghton is completely mistaken. I can forgive her, because she is the only member of this House who is a woman, but then she must not abuse her sex and her presence here to raise a hue and cry on behalf of the women of South Africa. I want to point out to her that a committee was appointed here by a responsible House. You, Sir, appointed a Select Committee. It is not necessary for women to serve on a committee if we want to sound the consience of the nation. One need not have women on a committee in order to determine what is right or wrong. Sir, if one wanted to abolish capital punishment today, surely one would not appoint a bunch of murderers to go into the matter and to see whether it should be abolished. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton made many statements. She wants to give out, and I take exception to that, that merely because she is a woman she would have been a better member of this commission than the members who did serve on it.

I would have been just as good, anyway.

If one had to go merely according to sex, any legislation would lose some of its value. Why then should a certain number of ladies not be included on any Select Committee? And at one stage the hon. member did not want to serve. But, Sir, I want to tell you that there is a principle at stake, and that principle has nothing specifically to do with women. The hon. member believes that because a woman carries the foetus, she alone has he say over her own body. Sir, a pregnancy does not affect the mother only. I want to state today: A pregnancy affects the mother and it affects the foetus and it affects the father and it affects the doctors who are involved in the case; it affects the State, and it affects the very being of the nation—in fact, it affects the soul of the nation, because it determines whether the nation will survive or whether it will deteriorate and disappear. Sir, it affects other things as well. It affects its moral strength, and it is the duty of the State to see to it that it makes laws to keep the morals of the nation as strong and as sound as possible, as those of our nation are at the moment. The hon. member for Pinetown made very good points, and he was not the only one; there are other members too who have made good speeches this afternoon. But I want to congratulate him on the fact that the stated the standpoint of an ordinary Christian individual in this country. He made the point that you may be an atheist if you wish; that has nothing to do with us, but then you must not try to govern the country through the eyes of an atheist; then you must view it through the eyes of the Government and the party and the supporters it has.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West also spoke this afternoon, and if the hon. member for Parktown had listened to him, he would not have made the speech which he made here this afternoon. I have known the member for many years. He use to be the editor of a big newspaper and I often came into contact with him. I use to have great respect for him. But this goes to show you that one’s estimate of a person can be completely destroyed within a few moments by that person himself. The hon. member said certain things at the beginning of his speech which I considered to be banal in regard to legislation such as this. For such things to be said on a measure which affects the essence of a nation or its conscience—as was done here this afternoon—does not do credit to this House.

I want to turn for a moment to the hon. member for Houghton.

†I want to make the point that it is not necessary to become emotional when you talk about emotional matters. Nobody will disagree with me when I say that, when it comes to abortion and sterilization, these are indeed emotional matters. You have people who are intimately touched and concerned and people in all walks of life, from the highest to the lowest, can be affected. But we must not regard the term “abortion” as something which ought to be whispered round corners and behind doors as has unfortunately been the case through the years.

If one looks at the various types of abortion, for example therapeutic abortion, we find that so little has been said about it this afternoon. According to the records of Groote Schuur Hospital one finds that 15 000 people who had been treated last year had babies either at its satellites or at Groote Schuur itself. Only 50 therapeutic abortions were done. The hon. member for Pinetown is rather quick at working out percentages; he can work out for himself how much that is. The whole aim and object of a medical man in this world—and the medical people are people with integrity—is to save life. That is where the problem arises. That is why a law is needed. Sometimes you are placed before the terrible choice of having to choose either the foetus or the mother. I do not think that there is any medical man in this country or in this House that has never been placed before that choice. I think that, fortunately enough, we have been covered by the common law because the mother has been chosen in most cases. Now we have a law here that actually ratifies this position.

*This legalizes the whole position. We cannot say that this legislation is not necessary because there has never been such a law and that we can continue to rely on common law. Every medical man has had a finger pointed at him with the implication that he would have to appear in court if someone were to have him prosecuted, and this because he had to make the choice. This is not right.

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton something else. This House is not the place for her to drag the non-Whites into a debate every time she gets a chance to do so. This hon. member spoke with great authority of the non-White and of the young Bantu girls in Soweto, the conditions in the Transkei where, as she always keeps harping on, 50% of the children die of marasmus, which she called a disease, but which is not really a disease.

†it is not an illness; it is a condition, a state. It happens to be malnutrition and emancipation and they all die of some other diseases. The hon. member speaks about medical matters—she speaks about incomplete pregnancy—but, when one talks in a debate, one should please make sure that your advisers give you the right terms to use. There is no such term as “incomplete pregnancy”. I am pointing it out because by pointing out mistakes, the hon. member might realize that she is treading in very deep water.

I made no mistake.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Bantu. I have practised within two miles of the Transkei for 12 years. I saw a hundred or more Bantu every day. During those 12 years I did not receive a single request from a father or mother or from a daughter who wanted me to terminate a pregnancy.

They knew what you were like.

Surely the hon. member for Houghton is not talking on behalf of the Bantu. When the hon. member realized that she was no longer talking on behalf of the Bantu and the Coloured people in this House, she resorted to raising a hue and cry on behalf of the women. Even then she is only speaking on behalf of eight of them. We had their memorandum before the commission.

It has nothing to do with the memorandum. I am putting across my own views.

That hon. member must not regard abortion—this was made very clear by the hon. member for Umbilo—as a substitute for family planning and similar methods. She should rather go and talk to homeland leaders about family planning. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop making interjections.

Her interjections do show that she is interested. That is a good thing for I want to deal with some more things that were said by here. I want to address a challenge to her: If she is able to produce evidence to the effect that one homeland leader or Coloured leader wants her to proceed with this amendment and to ask for abortion on demand, then I shall vote for her amendment.

I am interested in the women, not the men.

We are not here to argue about women’s lib; we are here to argue about the principles contained in this Bill. As I said at the beginning, we are here to argue about the soul of a nation. The soul of a nation is protected by its leaders. They need not be men only. It was proved today by the leader of the Tory party in England that if the hon. member for Houghton had gone there, she might have had a better chance of making progress in politics. Abortion should not be seen as a substitute for family planning. The hon. member does not know what is happening in other countries. We must go into the history of other countries and see what happened there. By allowing abortions to be performed freely in England, proper family planning was dealt a heavy blow. Because people could simply request abortions, they no longer attend clinics in order to practise proper family planning. If one wants to start at the wrong end one begins with abortion, and if one wants to start at the right end of the scale, one begins with sound family planning. At this stage I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department in this connection. We shall never get the problem under control if we do not see to it, with good family planning and good contraception, that these people are helped in time and do not wait until they are in trouble. Abortion is not without its dangers, after all. The greatest danger with abortion is that the person on whom it is performed may die. The hon. member for Houghton says this is rubbish; but surely she must not be frivolous in this House. Does she not know that the greatest risk entailed by abortion is death, whether it is performed in a State hospital or in a back street or whether it happens by accident? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to the hon. member for Houghton to stop making interjections continuously.

In a lighter mood—the hon. member for Houghton is always complaining that women are discriminated against, but this has been going on for a long time. As far back as the 12th century the Catholic Church decided to allow abortions. An interesting condition was that in the case of a male child it had to happen within 80 days and in the case of a female child within 40 days of conception! So discrimination has been with us for a long time. We are not discriminating now; we have left the 12th century behind. We are now discussing as adults a matter which is of vital importance, not only for this House, but for every inhabitant of South Africa. This is equally important throughout all Africa. Instead of preaching their party’s policy in Africa, the hon. member and the leader of the Progressive Party would do well to talk to those people about family planning. In that way they would be doing the world a great favour. Then we would not have problems with food that is no longer sufficient for the number of people, nor would we be likely to experience the problem of having to perform abortions right and left.

Let us look at one or two other aspects as well. The hon. member made very frequent reference to the law which was passed in England a few years ago. She said that England had set the right example and that we were many years behind. That is recorded in her speech, but time does not allow me to look it up now. She said that we were lagging very far behind as usual. However, England has a very long history. Before 1803 abortion was freely available. Only after 1803 were there certain laws. Legislation was also passed in 1861. I do not want to go into this in detail. In 1929 there was again legislation which laid down certain principles. An interesting aspect I should like to mention is the 1936 Act, which was proposed by the Abortion Law Reform Association. In this measure certain principles were defined. [Interjections.]

†Talking about reform, in view of the happenings of the past few days, reform happens to be closely linked to abortion. It so happens that reform has taken place politically in South Africa while this Bill on abortion and sterilization was being introduced in this House, but I am afraid we shall have to leave it to the historians to decide who was aborted and who was sterilized. Considering the reform relating to abortion over the years, we find that in 1938 Sweden had its laws liberalized. In 1946 they had them further liberalized. Japan came along in 1948 with a very liberal outlook indeed. Britain, on the other hand, tried in 1952 when a private Bill was rejected. It was rejected again in 1954. Only in 1961 was it again debated and once again it was rejected. Here we had the voice of a people’s conscience. The Bill was rejected on one occasion after another. In 1964 the legislation was again rejected in England. It was in 1966 that something happened that brought public opinion to a standstill. The world was shocked by the disaster of thalomide babies.

Thalidomide.

Hon members will remember that that was the time when babies were born without limbs, some in fact in a terrible physical condition. That was an event which actually broke the hearts of many people. It was that which gave a stimulus to those people who wanted reform of the abortion laws in Britain. A private Bill was introduced that same year, a Bill which was accepted and which be-’ came law in 1967. Let us look at a few points that were included in that Bill. The first one was:

That is one of the clauses in our Bill as well. And also:

That is also included in our Bill.

That is far broader.

Now I come to the important one:

If the pregnant woman’s capacity as a mother would be severely overstrained by the care of the child or another child.

This was called the “social clause”. It is very interesting to note that the social clause is not the clause that is used the most in England at the moment. It is the second clause involving the physical or mental effect on the mother which is used the most. In England, however, it is only necessary to have the signatures of two doctors who have seen the patient. Abortion clinics were started and they are so full, as the hon. member for Pinetown mentioned people are coming from all over the Continent. In fact, one of our most experienced professors tells me that when he was waiting at Heathrow Airport some time ago, he saw people streaming off the plane. There were other people standing with signboards giving the name of a clinic. The passengers were taken by car to the clinic and brought back the next morning after they had had their abortions. What has been the effect of this liberalization of abortion in England? One of the most serious effects—this I was told by a professor who has just been there for a year—is that the medical men, and this was also mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown, are getting fed up with this whole set-up. One of their biggest problems is that the students who are being taught to save lives are becoming more and more disgusted with this set-up. The numbers of the people who are supposed to be specializing in gynaecology and obstetrics have dropped because all they do all day is to do dilatations and curettages for abortions. This is what is happening in England. Apart from the fact that their moral fibre must have been affected over this period, one finds that the medical people themselves have suffered because the students are now confused whether they must save or destroy life. Another interesting point about that Bill is that when it was introduced in England it was passed by the House of Commons and sent on its normal course to the House of Lords where most of the clauses were rejected. The Bill was not unanimously accepted in Britain; it was not even unanimously accepted by the two Houses. Because the House of Lords was worried that the amended Bill would be defeated by the Commons and because their status was at stake, they decided to send it back unchanged. That is how that Bill became law in England.

I feel that there are other important things which hon. members should know. If one looks at what can go wrong and at what can happen to the patient who has had an abortion, one must look at the physical effects on the patient. One of the problems in Britain—this has already been mentioned by one hon. member—is that some of the females have turned up three, four or five times to have an abortion. It is a medical fact that every time a person has an abortion the chances of having a full time pregnancy decreases by a certain percentage. Often some people who have had a spontaneous abortion, an abortion they did not ask for, found a year or two later that they could not become pregnant and that they abort every time. The hon. member for Houghton wants to give abortion on demand. What is the experience in Japan where abortion was liberalized already in 1948? The people are now beginning to change their minds for one big reason and that is that one only finds older people in Japan today. One finds that the generation that should be coming up has been aborted. They find that the nation is beginning to drag its feet because the younger generation is not of the numbers that they should be. What is happening in England? There has been quite a reaction against their legislation. They have had Gallup polls during the past two years—I think the hon. members on that side of the House are quite aware of opinion polls. These Gallup polls have all indicated that the people were against abortion on demand. One of the important newspapers in Britain, The Daily Telegraph, published an article a little while ago in which it stated that the public is now overwhelmingly against abortion on demand.

*Let us look at another country, Bulgaria. Bulgaria was the first country to liberalize its laws considerably. It first did so years ago, and again in 1950 and in 1960. In Bulgaria abortions are freely available under good circumstances. What has happened there? The Government there is reconsidering the whole matter. A movement has been started for the introduction of stricter measures. What is the reason for these stricter measures? They say that abortion on demand has broken down the morality of the Bulgarian nation and that the Government must do something to remedy this. They have also found that effective means of contraception and family planning have been neglected, as in the case of Japan, where there is no proper family planning. I want to refer to the mental and physical effect on the patient. The hon. member is concerned with one thing only, and that is the foetus. She suggests that the woman's greatest desire is to get rid of this. If this hon. member could only have seen patients who had had abortions —I am referring now to legal abortions or abortions which, as she said, took place under common law—she would have found that one has much greater problems. The hon. member for Newcastle referred to the cases which all medical men encounter, namely the emotional woman who goes through an extremely difficult time during the first few months of her pregnancy. It is our task as doctors to talk to them and to visit them every day and every week. When that person has passed through this emotional state or mental condition and the baby has been born, one often finds that the mother and baby form part of the happiest family one could find. This is the baby who, according to the hon. member for Houghton, should have been aborted because the mother was supposed to be mentally affected. Then there are also cases where, because a woman has had an illegal abortion, she is unable to fall pregnant again. This is a matter which the hon. members cannot dismiss here by making slick statements and by railing at the Government as was unfortunately done by the hon. young member for Pinetown. Things with which they are not satisfied in South Africa can be discussed in other debates. Let us deal in this debate not only with the reasons why we have such a great need for this legislation, but let us deal with what we are told in this regard by our conscience and by the people. It is in that regard that we are the legislators in this matter.

I want to put in a good word for the medical practitioners. I want to say at once that when we have passed this legislation, we as legislators may have the fullest confidence that the medical practitioners in South Africa will see to it that they do their share properly. We have written certain restrictions into the legislation. We require that two medical practitioners as well as a specialist or a psychiatrist should recommend the abortion in a particular case. We do this to protect the medical practitioner and not to bind him. It is only to protect the medical practitioner that he has to call in another medical practitioner and that he has to record his finding in writing. As far as the psychiatrists are concerned, it is foolish to produce figures and to say that we have only 100 or 200 psychiatrists in the country. People who are mentally affected during pregnancy are not found at every turn. That is the first point. The second point is that when a person is referred to a psychiatrist, that psychiatrist has to admit the person to a State institution. No psychiatrist is going to say across the table, after the person has stated or not stated her case, that he thinks she qualifies for an abortion, and then sign a form and send the person back to the gynaecologist. Those people will be admitted to an institution. The hon. member said that the poor Bantu in the Transkei did not have a psychiatrist. White people from Matatiele up to Bloemfontein and from Aliwal North up to Kimberley have no psychiatrist either.

That is correct; the whole of the northern Transvaal is without a psychiatrist.

The White people between Kimberley and Cape Town do not have a psychiatrist either. So the Bantu are not the only ones in the country who do not have a psychiatrist. However, I want to say that where we have institutions which tall under the Department of Health and where psychiatrists are employed, it will in fact be possible for the Bantu and the Whites to be examined. I think the hon. member also fears that they will not be dealt with in their own language. That is a difficult problem and I concede that the hon. member has a point there, but I am sure that psychiatrists will only be called in in extreme cases. They will not be called in when the woman merely feels depressed and cries about her pregnancy. Nor will they be called in when the woman is suffering mental anxiety. Cases such as these we as doctors are able to handle. They will only be called in in cases where it would really make a big difference to the particular family. In view of the experience they have had in Bulgaria, I want to tell you that it is extremely important for South Africa to act conservatively in this regard. If one allows abortion on demand one is murdering one’s nation. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton, who is so concerned about the Black people, that only a very irresponsible Government would think only of one part of the population, such as the Black people.

I ask the hon. member to lend her assistance in regard to family planning. Let her keep harping on that.

I have always spoken in favour of it.

Then the hon. member should raise her voice about it, for it seems to me, in view of the experience she has gained with this legislation, that it has not worked too well. She should help, Sir.

I have always been in favour of family planning.

I just want to raise an interesting point in regard to America. America has largely the same laws as England. But as far back as 1950 America found that those laws were not working too well. Then spokesmen of their hospitals met and formed committees. Now I just want to read from the book Legal Abortion: The English Experience, by Anthony Hordern. This is one of the latest books dealing with this matter. He says—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Caledon would have been well advised to have given attention to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton instead of making a constant personal attack on her.

As usual.

It seems, Sir, that together with many of his colleagues, the hon. member is most sensitive when anyone utters a word for the Black people of the country. [Interjections.]

All of us in this House have the responsibility to speak for all the people of this country as long as they do not have that right themselves.

The hon. member for Umbilo in his usual reasonable and well thought out manner very carefully stated the dilemma in which we find ourselves in regard to this Bill. This dilemma is that for the first time we have a Bill which legalizes abortion, and for that reason one welcomes this Bill. However, the problem is that the Bill is so restricted in its terms that one has difficulty in supporting it in its present form. What we are discussing at the moment is the Bill itself plus the amendment that has been moved, an amendment which does not call for abortion on demand or request. Unfortunately, again and again hon. members have raised straw men simply in order to knock them down. I want to make my own position very clear. I support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I support this amendment although I do not support the question of abortion on demand or request.

Once again during this debate we have unfortunately had the position where many members have argued that the Bill has been drafted from a Christian point of view. I say this is unfortunate because very often it is not the case at all. It is merely a rationalization. Who is to say which Christian view or interpretation is the correct one? For example, the hon. member for Pinetown m a very long and searing sermon stated that those of us who in any way support abortion have no reverence for life, and that this is based on the Christian point of view. We are indebted to the hon. member for Umbilo who then asked the hon. member a question. He asked the hon. member for Pinetown: “Did you or did you not say that a woman who has three or four children can have an abortion on request?”, to which the hon. member for Pinetown replied: “Yes.”

It is a question of priority.

Mr. Speaker, how can one take that sort of argument seriously? For 25 minutes we were castigated on the grounds of the Christian point of view. Where on earth does one find in any Christian Bible that a mother with three or more children can have an abortion? Nowhere. The hon. member for Pinetown also referred in his speech to the hon. the Prime Minister and pointed out that he was the 13th child of his parents. Where would the hon. the Prime Minister be if his parents had followed the advice of the hon. member for Pinetown? This kind of illogic does not help this debate one iota.

Well lets hear yours then.

Allright. We also have, across the way, the hon. member for Newcastle who quoted to us that only God has given life and therefore only God can take away life. I assume, therefore, that he is opposed to capital punishment.

A specious argument, man.

We also had the hon. member for Westdene tell us that abortion is murder. If he really means that then he cannot support this Bill because this Bill allows for abortion under certain circumstances. [Interjections.] If, for example, you are going to have the problem of rape, you must meet that with murder. That is the logic in that kind of argument. Whatever else is true—and there have been many arguments advanced during this very, very long debate—one thing is clear, and that is that the most important person in this whole drama of pregnancy, the whole drama of abortion, is the woman herself. Of course there are other factors; of course there are other people involved, but the most important person is surely the woman herself, and this is the point which seems to have been missed again and again, and this is the point which seems to me to underline the need for an amendment to the present Bill. Mr. Speaker, there will be those who disagree on the grounds of conscience, on grounds of experience, on grounds of philosophy and on grounds of religion and believe that the most important person in the whole matter is the unborn child. But, Mr. Speaker, if we argue in this way, then I suggest that in order to be consistent those who hold this position should really in the final analysis oppose all forms of birth control and family planning. If the argument is seriously advanced in this House that because we have many orphanages we do not have to worry too much because there will always be somebody to care for the children, then we should say, “Don’t worry about birth control; don’t worry about family planning; we have plenty of orphanages; we have plenty of people who will care for the people concerned.” Sir, it just does not add up. The most important person, I wish to reiterate, is the woman concerned, and this has been overlooked in the drafting of this Bill. Whilst one welcomes the fact that at last abortion under certain conditions is legalized, the limitations are so severe, the qualifications are so difficult, except in the case of rape, incest and danger to the woman’s life, that abortion is impossible; there is no other way in which you can spell it out; it is illegal. But very little thought seems to have been given to the woman who simply cannot afford to feed and clothe yet another child, perhaps the sixth or seventh child. I would agree with the hon. member for Pinetown if he did not base his whole argument on the fact that because you believe in the whole quality of life, therefore you cannot have any exceptions to this rule.

I did not say that.

Sir, the problem is this: Take, for example, a woman who comes to see a councillor, be he a minister or a doctor or a friend or anybody else; she is married to a man who can only be described as a bully and a drunkard. She has in effect been raped by her own husband because he is a drunkard and a bully. He does not care at all about the consequences of his act, and there is that woman; she is perfectly healthy; she has six or more children—the one I am thinking of now has seven children—and she is now pregnant once again.

Why did she not take the Pill?

She desperately needs help. She comes from a very backward sociological situation. She is poor; she has not had the advantages which so many other people have. It is no good condemning her and saying, “Why did you not take the Pill?” There is no compassion in that kind of argument at all. Let us deal with the facts in so far as this woman is concerned. According to this Bill, anybody who gives her the kind of help which she so desperately needs in terms of abortion is breaking the law, and there is no way at all to assist her. Very little thought seems to have been given to the single woman who falls pregnant, overwhelmed by the consequences involved in deep mental stress which, though serious, cannot necessarily be regarded as permanent or as permanently endangering her mental health. Very little thought seems to have been given to the girl who is at school, who is 13 or 14 years old, and who does not fall under any of the provisions of this Bill. Sir, the hon. member for Houghton tried to challenge hon. members of this House regarding their own teen-age children, and I as a father and as a Christian want to say very carefully that if my child, who is 13 years old, had the desperate misfortune to fall into this kind of situation, as so many people do from every kind of background, I would listen very carefully indeed to her plea and I would hope very much that there was a law which made it possible for this innocent child to be assisted. No one suggests that abortion should be compulsory. The decision should rest with the parties concerned. I say again the most important person concerned is the woman, and the second most important person may well be not the father but the medical practitioner. But here again his hands have been tied by the Bill in so many ways. It is no good having a Bill and then surrounding it with what we can only describe as barbed wire so that it is impossible for the doctor himself, in consultation with his patient, to reach the right decision. No one is suggesting abortion on demand; certainly I am not. No one is suggesting that abortion should take place anywhere and everywhere. It should only be under very careful medical supervision and in direct liaison with the doctor concerned—'between the woman and that medical practitioner, [interjections.] Sir, when we see the restrictions, the definitions and the qualifications embodied in this Bill, I can only assume that even though many doctors were involved in framing it, they hold their own profession in very low regard indeed. They are actually calling the medical profession into disrepute by suggesting in the provisions of this Bill that doctors are not able to make the kind of decision which is necessary to bring healing and relief to people who need it. I am speaking about the medical aspect which involves both the physical and mental health of the person concerned, but again and again several doctors and State psychiatrists have to be involved.

The hon. member for Caledon jeered at the hon. member for Houghton for daring to mention that there are thousands of Black people who cannot get near a psychiatrist because there are so few in the country. Of course that is true, and, of course, his point is well taken. He was actually supporting the hon. member for Houghton by stressing the fact that there are thousands of White people too who do not have this facility. [Interjections.] That is absolutely right, and he should not support the Bill in its present form. If a medical doctor is acting in good faith, then I think he and the most important person involved, the woman concerned, should be given the legal possibility to make the decisions in regard to the actual case. There is no doubt in my mind that tying the hands of the doctors as we are, shows that we simply do not want to trust the medical profession in South Africa. I do not share that lack of confidence. For years, as a counsellor to young people of all races at universities and schools in many parts of the country, again and again I came across the desperate need for the advice of a medical practitioner, and call him in. He did not immediately say there should be an abortion. Not at all. He listened, together with myself, very carefully to all the facts concerned and then gave his judgment, which was always human and often extremely firm. In its present form the Bill does not take seriously enough the feelings and the needs of the most important person concerned, the woman with an unwanted pregnancy. The Bill calls into question the integrity of the medical profession and imposes impossible restrictions on the profession, and for that reason I cannot support it in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker I move—