Nurturing Justice 2 (2008) Part Two
The Victorian Law Reform Commission's recommendation that in Victoria abortion should no longer be listed in the Criminal Code has now come to a parliamentary debate about legislative changes. It is anticipated that significant changes will be made to the law, and discussion of these proposed changes have repeatedly referred to this action as a "decriminalising of abortion". One report in The Australian states that the Premier, Mr Brumby, favours the so-called Model B, in which changes would allow abortion to be available on request until the 24th week. After that it would be legal only with the permission of two medical experts. So, even with this significant change, the "decriminalising" does not place abortion outside a legal framework in which some abortions are deemed legal and others not.
One of the major hurdles to knowing what to do in relation to these issues, let alone think, is with the public debate. Abortion is not only a "legal minefield" but we are also confronted by concerted efforts by competing groups to redefine various public issues, some of the most prominent of which seek to privilege a new-found right to "private choice" that nevertheless demands public recognition! And so we also confront the view that it is the public-legal order itself which has the task of defining and redefining reality in order to resolve the moral complexities in society. Such a view of the role of law and law-making should not be allowed to pass without critical examination of its presuppositions. We will notice in this debate, again and again, the appeal to human autonomy - translated into politics and jurisprudence this comes down to: we are never subject to a law we haven't made ourselves. A Christian approach to law and legal processes can only accommodate itself with this thoroughly humanistic and pagan view if it has decided to abandon its profession of the Jesus Christ whom God has made the ruler of the kings of the earth. We therefore stand in need of a distinctively Christian jurisprudence, not only for this pressing issue, but also in regards to abortion law reform.
This edition of Nurturing Justice cannot aim to cover all the problems - legal, moral and social - associated with this tragic and completely regrettable situation. According to estimates put forward by former Federal Health Minister, Tony Abbott, 80,000 abortions are performed every year in Australia. When we try to conceptualise the complex social situation that pertains to each one of those medical procedures, and to calculate the numbers of people thereby impacted, we begin to sense the magnitude of the moral problem we have - not just in national terms, but also in terms of the delicate situation of which we are often completely unaware, when we raise the issue in the classroom, the lecture theatre or among our friends. And thus we may begin to appreciate the difficulties faced by medical ethicists who aim to discuss the issue in terms of key principles that should govern our public policy. But then the abstract nature of the resultant public debate at times seems oblivious to the deep-down moral problem that gnaws away at our consciences. How deep, exactly, is this problem? How is it to be tackled in a way that is true to our calling to pursue justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly Coram Deo?
Once again, as with previous editions, I would base my comments on a selection of newspaper articles that are available on the internet. Here I draw attention to some taken-for-granted assumptions in the ongoing public debate and by so doing I hope to encourage readers to become better informed about the law and the highly problematic changes that are being proposed.
Some advocates of this change to the law imply that the legal and moral problems will be finally resolved by such (drastic) legislation. But the issue is not going to go away once this legislation is formulated and (presumably) passed with various amendments. This is a many-layered issue and the latest legislative efforts to de-criminalise abortion will add yet another layer that will subsequently have to be dealt with. Finding the way out requires sustained and wise research. Ways must be found and we should take every opportunity to inform ourselves of the arguments that are being put forward. We need to know more about the current state of affairs - to what degree has this reform been brought about because the medical and nursing professions require greater clarity about the profound and ambiguous legal situation in which they must do their work? No amount of rhetoric and posturing is going to resolve the issues that arise from conscience. Despite what those advocating these changes may say, abortion is not merely a medical procedure. That reductionistic view must have an impact upon the practise of medicine and nursing and gratuitously implies the ethical problems will be resolved for ever when we have robots to perform the procedure at the behest of the one presenting herself. We need to develop a critical ear for the brave new rights talk!
Clearly we are faced with a delicate and ambiguous situation for those called upon to assist in the procedure. Our efforts to discover and support policies that will begin the long and hard road of restoring just protection for the unborn, cannot ignore those upon whom the medical and nursing responsibilities now fall. This is where the talk and rhetoric about a pregnant woman's "autonomy" is shown to be vacuous.
There are many organisations seeking to develop well-rounded perspectives and policies in their day-to-day service of families. But such are the complexities, opposition to such law reform can not be sufficient on its own, if the unborn are to be protected and the life-generating processes that are part of our humanity are to be justly supported. We need to acquaint ourselves with the history of abortion law reform and to understand the underlying commitments that have sustained the movement for abortion law reform. If Australia's unmarried teen-age pregnancy and abortion rates are far too high we will need a better understanding of why, despite increased education and availability of contraceptives, this number continues to rise and what is driving it. It would stretch the credibility of the advocates of this new legislation even further if they were to suggest that this is due to the statute that has prevailed up until this time.
To continue this discussion you might consider the 3 articles listed in Part Two, and as you do so consider the points which precede them and the comments I have formulated after each listed article link.
For a mature statement about the issues from a Christian political standpoint, let me refer readers to "Guidelines for Government and Citizenship" of the Center for Public Justice, Washington DC USA. The statement, with special reference to the American legal situation, is further discussed in James W Skillen's "Upholding Life". Maybe these documents will help NJ readers reflect upon this issue and clarify for themselves why things are as they are.
Nurturing Justice seeks to encourage a sustained Christian political contribution by affirming our God-given calling to build sustainable human communities which will promote life and strengthen our interdependence - the way of public justice will help us avoid the myths and contradictions of human autonomy. But a Christian understanding of the myths and contradictions of human autonomy, as they are accepted and enshrined in changes to the law, requires a comprehensive political philosophy, one that finds its point departure for seeking justice in the gentle and merciful rule of Jesus Christ, the ruler over all of the earth's political regimes.
Nurturing Justice
September 2008
© The contents of this email are copyright. Documents may be photocopied or retransmitted
in their entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted without
permission. "Nurturing Justice" is a project to encourage Christian
political reflection based upon wise and loving civic participation. Comments
are welcome and should be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au