Nurturing Justice 2 (2008)
This continues the discussion from Part One. As you read these articles you might keep the following comments and questions in mind:
1. Note how an appeal to a pregnant woman's autonomy functions in the argument put forward and the reasons given for legislative changes. Do not the proposed mandated actions demonstrate that, in almost every respect, the pregnant woman is not autonomous? So what do we conclude about the appeal by these authors to her autonomy?
2. How will the law view action on the part of a pregnant woman to induce an abortion without the lawful mediation of a medical practitioner? How is such an act legally classified now and how will it be classified when the new legislation is passed?
3. How is a "natural" abortion currently defined in law and what is the legal role of the medical profession in such cases?
4. When will the law consider an abortion illegal? The three articles listed below, though trying to make definitive ethical judgments that affirm a woman's "total" right to an abortion if that is what she requests, are nevertheless completely silent on the possibility that she might be subject to "outside" pressure to assent to an abortion. In this case, note the social reductionism in the appeal to the pregnant woman's claim to autonomy. Once autonomy is claimed (trumps) can inter-dependence be relied upon?
5. What part does abortion play in the breakdown of (previously healthy) marriages?
6. How will the law view a medical or nursing (or family) concern that the procedure is being sought for other than genuinely medical reasons?
7. How are we to view the concern of the male involved that the procedure is being sought for other than medical reasons? Are such concerns treated as real by the articles? What if it is perceived that the request is made for self-destructive purposes? In this context the article of Dr Cannold makes no effort to examine the ethical complexity for the male involved and simply dismisses the issue as the male's need to avoid "arrogance"; this seems to endorse an unfounded a priori suspicion that such a concern must always be male arrogance seeking "control". The moral problem is entirely ignored - is it beyond the bounds of possibility that such a young man may be genuinely seeking to be accountable for his actions and what he knows?
8. Note the reduction of human knowledge to "information" and note how the articles try to normatively exclude the male from the doctor-pregnant woman relationship.
9. Note how despite appeals to the pregnant woman's "autonomy", these arguments actually endorse a further "medical domination" of pregnancy by attempting to re-define abortion as a "medical procedure" that "developed" people will just have to get used to. Note the "tough guy" image that the authors seek to project.
10. How is the role of the medical profession construed by these articles? Do they not attempt to redefine the situation as an isolated dyad, with the pregnant woman's doctor merely giving permission for a medical procedure?
11. How is "autonomy" defined in relation to accountability? Do the articles call upon men to be accountable for their actions? Is there any implicit ethical or medical call made to the males involved to face up to the situation in any other way than to accept the decision to terminate? Or has "equality" been re-defined in lowest common denominator terms as the corresponding ability to walk away from the consequences of one's actions that have resulted in fertilisation and conception? Is this then a new definition of "autonomy" for life within marriage - an equal ability to deny accountability to each other?
12. How does a pregnant woman's male partner, and their families, care for this pregnant woman when it is perceived by them that her desire for an abortion is wrong?
Men Show Moral Arrogance in Wanting Control of Abortion
Leslie Cannold, The Age August 22, 2008.
Note how Dr Cannold assumes that the male involved in the problem pregnancy will only be available to answer the questions of his own responsibility after the woman has become pregnant. The writer is a bio-ethicist and seems to have forgotten that she is dealing with an abstract case here - she may say that "the facts are simple" but she ignores the normative context in which the relationship between a woman and a man should be openly forged between them from the outset of their sexual bonding. The questions that will give "information" to the woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy should have been raised before the sexual bond was formed. Has not Dr Cannold ignored the situation that led to the pregnancy in the first place and why does she ignore this preconditioning circumstance? Where is marriage in her viewpoint, if it is not merely a subsidiary relationship to support a woman's autonomous desire to form a family? Isn't the sociological definition of family as " women's business" a part of the institutional and problematic background we are dealing with here?
Roger Short, Lachlan de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu The Age August 15, 2008
The subtitle of the article is "Every birth should be a wanted birth. That must be the aim in Victoria." When we are discussing abortion we should be developing public policies about care and not just grandstanding about how tough we can sound with appeals to the mythic presumptions of private rights. In opposing this viewpoint we ask: should not public policy be led by the commitment that every pregnancy should be a wanted pregnancy? Why pitch the medical ethics after conception? Would chastity and confining sexual responsibility to marriage be too much of a challenge to those who want to have sexual intercourse dissociated therefrom for the purposes of lucrative medical research? Why shouldn't medical scientists instead be advocating chastity and confining sexual responsibility to marriage as the key to healthy and sustainable marriages? Would that challenge the presumption that pregnancy is a matter between the woman and her doctor, perhaps? Why do these "tough ethicists" demand an approach to child-bearing that focuses exclusively on outcomes with their male-centred view of the child that emerges after the birth process? This seems to be based on nothing other than an attempt to make the chauvinistic view of the (male) obstetrician into the normative authority for child bearing. What place, other than a subsidiary role, does marriage have in the relationship of a pregnant woman and her doctor? By raising their banner so resolutely for female autonomy, they actually forget that such autonomous females could only have become pregnant by an "outside male". Their argument seems as if they are wanting to muscle in on a power game at the expense of the potential father who they seem to want to silence with their white-coated "tough talk." Their view is thoroughly positivist, absorbing any "shoulds" into the "facts" they assume give them their white-coated authority. Notice their quaint and thoroughly modern presumption that males have nothing to do with bringing a baby into the world. Family life is mother and children with an optional extra that the father might be, on occasion, husband to the mother. They take offence at the "outside" male but are oblivious to the fact that they have, in principle, excluded the father from the consultation - for them the truly important relationship is obviously the medical dominance between the doctor and his patient! They simply argue by ignoring their own "outside" status! The problem with this viewpoint and its pretentious title - "Giving women total control" - is that it is a purely mythical suggestion based on an ideological commitment to male medical autonomy. It turns abortion into a medical procedure and it advocates Model C which would give a pregnant woman the right to terminate at any time throughout the pregnancy. These "tough ethicists" then ask: "What right have any people, other than the woman and her doctor, to intervene in such an intensely personal matter?" They need to be reminded that it is not "her doctor" who is the father here. They then go on to condemn the Catholic Church's view as a wholly unwarranted intervention in the power game, but these three fellows are so sure of themselves in their white coats that they haven't noticed that they are also intervening in the public debate to counter the Church's views about such an intensely personal affair which they would transform into a professional (private) relationship dominated by their professional expertise. Howso? How can they intervene in a debate about such an intensely personal issue if, as they say, this is a matter for the woman and her doctor? If that is the principle, why are they using their public positions as medical scientists to advocate anything at all? In so doing, they intervene with a public contribution and effectively blow themselves out of the debate by telling us that we shouldn't listen to them! I'm not being funny. They are so intent on their "toughness" that they haven't understood the contradiction implicit in their white-coated "tough" stand.
Baby the Wrong Gender? - Abort It, says Expert
Caroline Overington, The Australian, September 1st, 2008
In the article by Short, de Crespigny and Savulescu above, one has to wonder what "Giving women total control" could actually mean. Are the authors trying to set a legal minimum standard that will, in some unanticipated way, bring about a change in young people's sexual habits and hence a reduction in teenage pregnancy? Maybe. But along the way to such a trend developing, we might also observe that such advice would be lucrative for the medical profession. Is that what these three white coated "tough ethicists" are trying to engineer? Professor Julian Savulescu, of Oxford University, certainly appears to take such an approach when he suggests that parents should not be forced by law to give birth to children of a type or a gender they do not want. His comments give no evidence of him being other than a "celebrity ethicist". This comes down to advocating more medical procedures that just so happen to line the pockets of medical practitioners. The question here for you to consider is this: has not Dr Savulescu gone beyond abortion as a technique of "family planning" to abortion as a means of allowing parents to give themselves the illusion that they are maintaining total control over any family that they bring into the world, when in fact we are being dished up yet another example of medical dominance.
Other material:
Dr Savulescu's On Line Opinion contribution "Doping true to the spirit of sport" and his lecture "The Ethics of New Science and Human Enhancement" at Sydney Ideas, a lecture series at the University of Sydney co-sponsored by the Centre for Independent Studies.
"Explaining the Anglican Abortion Submission" Alison Taylor The Melbourne Anglican 3rd March 2008. gives a measured explanation and defense of the "gradualist" position presented by the Melbourne Diocesan Submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission's inquiry into the law concerning abortion. Further discussion from within the Anglican communion can be found here.
For a forthright Christian political statement about the issues, I would refer readers to the forthright statement on the Government's calling to protect human life and to respect the life-generating process in "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".
These documents can help NJ readers reflect further upon this situation and why things are as they are.
Nurturing Justice seeks to make a 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.
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