Posted by: Dr. Jereth Kok on Tuesday 3 March 2008 at 01:50pm

An important clarification needs to be made.

It has been asserted that the gradualist ethic is "of ancient origin" and had among its proponents St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. This claim is incorrect and misleading, being based upon a serious misunderstanding of ancient and mediaeval thinking on the subject of foetal life.

Many of the early church Fathers (such as Augustine) and virtually all mediaeval theologians (such as Aquinas) held to a dualistic Greek view of human nature, inherited from philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, which regarded a human as the union of fleshy being and immaterial soul. The rational soul is what was thought to separate humans from the animals and other lower life forms. It was thought that at some point during foetal development, God instilled the soul into the developing child. Once a foetus received a soul, it was considered human and to abort it would be equivalent to homicide.

The point in time at which the soul was instilled was a matter of educated guesswork. Some (including perhaps Augustine) considered that ensoulment occured once a foetus took a recognisably human form (perhaps based on their interpretation of the septuagint of Exodus 21:22-23). Others pointed to the time of "quickening" (foetal movement). Often an arbritrary date was used, such as 40 or 90 days post-conception. Regardless, it is crucial to note that ensoulment was thought to occur at a discrete point in time. A foetus either had a rational soul or it did not; the soul was not imparted gradually or incrementally.

In the 19th century scientific advances led to the recognition that there is no discrete point in time at which one can say that a foetus transforms from an animal-like creature into a human. An embryo is genetically human from the day of conception, he/she takes a human shape from as early as 4-5 weeks, and quickening is a highly subjective and imprecise measure. The process of development, in terms of both anatomy and physiology, is a continuum. In addition, there was a shift from the Greek dichotomous view of human nature towards anthropological holism. As a result, the church determined that the "soul" (if you can still call it that) must be present from conception since this is the only point in time at which a radical and virtually instantaneous biological change occurs, where a new individual comes into being. Some modern thinkers (such as those in the Church of England) depart marginally from this position and posit the moment of implantation at roughly 14 days.

In summary, then, a confusion of philosophical categories is involved in the claim that Augustine and Aquinas were gradualists. They were not gradualists, and their views about ensoulment bear no resemblance to the Melbourne Diocese's gradualist view, which is that the "moral significance and value" of a foetus increases "in parallel with physical development". Augustine and Aquinas' position is far more similar to the contemporary "absolutist" view -- that is, there is a discrete moment in time after which a developing foetus must be considered truly human, and after which abortion of the foetus is homicide. The only difference is that for them this moment occurred somewhat later than conception (or implantation) -- an opinion that owes to the scientific and philosphical naivety of their day.

Posted by: Angry of Mayfair on Tuesday 3 March 2008 at 09:26pm

I think you've somewhat missed the point, Jereth. The issue is that the idea of gradually aquired status is not unique, or new. Science has nothing to say about the moral status of an embryo, or about the philosophical understanding of what it is to be "fully human". Yes, science has shown us that an embryo is made of live human material. The rest is theology, really. And that's hardly objective.

Still, it's nice to hear someone articulate the idea that we need to allow our ethical stances on many issues be informed by an increasing scientific understanding of our world, rather than accepting the verbatim edicts of people who lived in an era quite unfit to determine complex scientific issues.

Posted by: Luke Isham on Wednesday 3 March 2008 at 03:26pm

'Angry of Mayfair' are you implying that Biblical theology has nothing to say about Abortion and that it is solely a question for science to answer?

Posted by: Jereth Kok on Wednesday 3 March 2008 at 05:31pm

In addition to her misleading comments about church tradition, Archdeacon Taylor has in my view misrepresented the Church of England when she writes:
"The Church of England subsequently adopted Baron Habgood’s formulation of the gradualist position, which it has maintained ever since..."

People who are interested in this debate should look into the Church of England's position for themselves, rather than taking Taylor's assertions at face value. When they do so, they will find that the CofE has a far more conservative stance on abortion and human life than Taylor would have us believe.

Taylor's URL in fact links not to a CofE document, but to a UK House of Commons site which quotes the CofE very briefly and selectively. Actual CofE documents are available online here:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/abortion.pdf
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/embryos_research_-_mpa_council.doc
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/smte.html

I also want to draw attention to paragraphs 18 and 19 of "Embryo Research: Some Christian Perspectives" (the second link above), which interpret and apply the Christian tradition rather differently from the manner in which Taylor and the Melbourne Diocese's submission do. Additionally, this same paper highlights key biblical texts which were completely ignored in the Melbourne submission.

Some more pertinent CofE comments are below. When the CofE documents are read in their entirety, it can easily be perceived that there is a significant discrepancy between the CofE's position and that recently espoused by Melbourne.

"The Church of England combines strong opposition to abortion with a recognition that there can be - strictly limited - conditions under which it may be morally preferable to any available alternative." (Briefing paper, 2005)

"direct abortion is 'gravely contrary to the moral law'. The Church of England shares this general opposition to abortion." (ibid)

"The abortion law needs to be applied more strictly and the number of abortions carried out drastically reduced." (ibid)

[We] "affirm the sanctity of the human embryo and therefore the need to treat it with profound respect" (Synod, 2003)

"That this Synod, being gravely concerned with the fact that in England there are currently 500 abortions every day of the year, call upon Her Majesty’s Government to bring in urgent legislation to restrict the abuses of the Abortion Act" (Synod, 2002)

[Synod] "reaffirms the General Synod Resolutoin of July 1983, "that all human life, including life developing in the womb, is created by God in his own image and is therefore to be nurtured, supported and protected" (Synod, 1998)

"The number of abortions carried out since the passage of the Abortion Act 1967 is unacceptably high." (Synod, 1993)

"In the light of our conviction that the foetus has the right to live and develop as a member of the human family, we see abortion, the termination of that life by the act of man, as a great moral evil. We do not believe that the right to life, as a right pertaining to persons, admits of no exceptions whatever; but the right of the innocent to life admits surely of few exceptions indeed." (BSR, 1980; cited in Briefing paper, 2005)

Posted by: Angry of Mayfair on Thursday 3 March 2008 at 09:28am

No, I don't believe I am.

Posted by: Luke Isham on Thursday 3 March 2008 at 11:47am

Then what did you mean by this sentence?

"...rather than accepting the verbatim edicts of people who lived in an era quite unfit to determine complex scientific issues."

Who are the people living in what era? What are the 'verbatim edicts'?

Posted by: Angry of Mayfair on Thursday 3 March 2008 at 12:33pm

I was merely reflecting my approval of the principle from Dr Kok's initial argument (his last line), that sometimes ethical decisions and teachings are based on a naive understanding of the science. It was somewhat tongue in cheek. It can't really be logically deduced from that that I therefore believe the Bible has nothing to say on abortion. It's rather a long bow to draw :) I'm not going to be drawn into a tit for tat exchange, but thank you for your responses.

Posted by: (Dr) Leon Prentice on Monday 3 March 2008 at 09:06pm

It looks a little like Archdeacon Taylor and the Working Group are working hard to prevent decriminalisation of late-term abortions, and they should be commended for this. However, it looks like they've given up the fight everywhere else, and even here aren't expecting to win.
The gradualist approach looks like a poor way of drawing the line somewhere - perhaps so the Working Group feels it has something to add to the discussion in Victoria - and I think it's flawed, Biblically and rationally. I'm in the middle of preparing a home group study on Ps 139, reminding me that God 'knit me together in my mother's womb'. No lines, no gradations of moral significance. Just life, precious to God from conception.
Archdeacon Taylor calls on our support for more stringent regulation of late-term abortion. Sure, but go further: argue for life at every stage. Argue for life at 28 weeks (when my daughter was born), argue for it at 21, and keep going.
Sure, it's complex - my wife's the bioethics expert, not me - but we should be speaking truth, and protecting the innocent, no matter how unlikely it may be accepted in Victorian parliament.

Posted by: Andrew Stagg (Mont Albert North) on Tuesday 3 March 2008 at 09:37pm

A recurring theme in both the submission and in Alison Taylor’s letter is both that the submission has been grounded in scripture – and that the bible doesn’t have very much to say on the topic of abortion because we live in a modern world. This has been highlighted in Allison’s statement that “The assertions ][ that this line of argument has no biblical warrant and only reflects very modern and secular thinking are both inaccurate and offensive”

Alison – I understand your distress – however it is inevitable that a finding of such magnitude would raise controversy and it is entirely right and appropriate for church members to ask tough questions of a committee that was entrusted to represent the views of the diocese.

My own view on this topic – well I my own views are largely irrelevant – what REALLY matters is what scripture has to say;

1) The Bible clearly teaches that life begins in the womb and that God knits us together.

2) The Bible clearly teaches that babies in the womb are more than just fetuses – it teaches that they are children.

3) The Bible clearly teaches that children are a blessing from God

4) The Bible clearly teaches that child sacrifice is abhorrent to God

5) The Bible clearly teaches that human life – even in a sinful world - is valuable since it is created in the image of God.

6) The Bible clearly teaches that (with the exception of war, legal execution, and accidental killing (and which still has consequences)) killing is murder and is a serious sin.

7) The Bible clearly teaches that we have a duty to protect the weak and in our society. (Contrary to popular teaching there is no more vulnerable group in society than the unwanted unborn)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Today in our ‘modern world’ we have allowed a situation to develop where approximately 18,000 babies are aborted in Victoria each year. This equates (very roughly) to 1-in-4 of all births. I think each one of us needs to ask ourselves if we think – just based on the numbers alone – if this is really ok. Abortion is often presented as a complex issue – and sometimes it truly is – however (based on the limited research I have done) my understanding something like 95% or abortions carried out today are morally uncomplicated and simply occur because the child is unwanted. These are issues which I would have hoped would have been addressed by the submission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alison Taylor’s statement “An absolutist anti-abortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.” is debatable since the submission from Tim Patrick is not arguing for that and the petition already allows for situations where “ occasionally the moral considerations are more complicated [due to] immediate and exceptional danger by a pregnancy”.

What the petition is arguing for however - and what has been missed by the committees submission is the "other 95%". This is highlighted clearly in the submission statement “The Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, ][ supports the provision of safe and affordable abortions with appropriate safeguards for women who, for whatever reasons, request them.”

It is in light of this statement, the ‘gradualist position’ findings and other anomalies that I have concluded - for myself at least – that “[The]Submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission Inquiry on the Law of Abortion from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne ][ simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.”

Posted by: Andrew Moody on Monday 3 March 2008 at 11:47am

Alison Taylor (TMA, March) writes that "the real question" is whether we "see a moral difference between an early term abortion and one performed at 28 weeks' gestation."

This is a good question, and I would like to know how she herself proposes to answer it. It is unclear from Revd. Taylor's article what attributes the 28-week-old possess that makes it more human than a child at the ten week mark. It is still less clear why any such yardstick would not also devalue other human beings such as the infirm and disabled.

I suspect the real criteria here in discussions such as this is whether the mother of the child wants it. Taylor speaks of a 28-week-old "foetus". Would she, or any of us, ever use that term to refer to a wanted child: "How's the foetus progressing?" "Have you found out whether it's a male or female foetus?" When the child is wanted we call it a "baby"; we only pretend that it's a biological specimen when we are about to dispose of it.

This of course is completely sub-Christian. It is not human opinion nor any characteristic that determines our worth, but God's attitude to us. Heloves us equally regardless of our attributes. He declares us to be his representative image-bearers and warns that an assault on any human is an attack on God (Gen 9:6; Pr 17:5).

Does this mean that there are no circumstances where humans may be killed? No, the Bible explicitly recognises the duty of governments to use force against evil. Does it mean that all acts of homicide are equal? No, it is more evil to murder the third-trimester child for the same reason that it is worse to torture a person to death than to simply shoot her - intention and pain inflicted all compound the already evil act. Does it mean that there are no medical emergencies where the child must be sacrificed to save the mother? No, but the recourse to such tragic rarities reveals a transparent attempt to muddy the issue.

We are betraying our duty to speak up for the weakest and most abused members of our society. Shame on us.

Andrew Moody

Posted by: Noelene Linard on Monday 3 March 2008 at 11:58am

Regarding the Anglican Submission on the inquiry into the law on abortion, I cannot understand how the Working Group considers an accidental miscarriage to be a reference to abortion and not take account of Psalm 139 13/16 and other references to God making plans for his people in the womb.

My understanding of ethics as expressed by God in the Bible is that wrong is always wrong and right is always right and I believe we should allow the lawmakers to waffle around in the grey areas as they wish but express our Christian view without equivocation.

I also believe that the reason reference to abortion cannot be found in the Bible is because such a practice would have been unthinkable to the Hebrew people of God.

Noelene Linard
Parish of Caroline Springs.

Posted by: Philip Langford on Monday 3 March 2008 at 12:37pm

It was with great disappointment that I read the Melbourne Diocese’s submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission Inquiry on Abortion (as described in The Age and December Melbourne Anglican). This is because it has fallen short of what I would expect from a church body by showing a disregard for basic Christian principles.

The think tank’s recommendation that abortion be decriminalized because of public acceptance of the practice ‘including amongst women of diverse religious communities’ flies in the face of the Biblical injunction for Christians to be in the world and not of it; not to be conformed to it (Romans 12:2), and this includes the values we hold to. We are being disobedient to this call if we appeal to social consensus as justification for what we do.

Nowhere in the submission is there mention of how God regards the unborn (e.g., Psalm 139). Concerning this denomination (particularly the diocese), even if the official or public stance on abortion has not been clear or decisive, the universal church generally has historically opposed its practice (starting from Tertullian in the second century). They state the Bible does not address this issue but it is clear in its proclamation that all life is given by God, and that man is His special creation, being made in His image.

They also state that the embryo/foetus is fully human from conception but gains moral significance and value as it develops. If the child’s humanity is acknowledged, why is its preterm death acceptable? On what basis do they decide the child is of more value later rather than earlier in life? If the reasoning is according to stage of development, this would be analogous to saying that the one year old child is of less worth than the nine year old. It is puzzling how age can be used arbitrarily to determine the value of a human life. As has already been implied, the Scriptures do show that God recognizes the status of the unborn and we therefore must take seriously his commandment concerning the taking of life in this context. They also tell us that, in view of Christ’s message of salvation, all lives are precious as he wants all to turn to him, including those with the potential for life outside the womb.

The committee in passing mentions that the child has rights but does not specify what they are or how they can be upheld. If they are truly human (and by any criterion we can confirm that they are), we cannot escape our moral responsibility for providing legal protection for the unborn, even if the society we live in is growing less sympathetic to Christian values. As it stands, the law has not protected thousands of children who have been aborted over recent years, most for purely selfish reasons (with pregnancy/children being an impediment to career, finances, lifestyle). Decriminalizing abortion robs the child of its right to life as a human being and holds no-one accountable for its death.

Having said this, in some extreme cases, such as a threat to the mother’s life, termination may be considered as a last resort. However, in view of the sanctity of life, we are looking at rare occurrences. Furthermore, one cannot discuss this issue without reference to the Hippocratic Oath, which requires the doctor to do his/her best to preserve human life, not perform mischief and not induce abortion. (Conduct which is compatible with Christian values.)

The problem with value systems which are man-made is that they are purely arbitrary. They shift with time and circumstance. What is unacceptable one year may be acceptable the next. (Compare our society’s attitudes on certain issues with fifty years ago.) In contrast, the Bible provides us with absolute principles for our lives which do not change. Our society is moving away from the Judeo-Christian moral base which has underpinned it and the church is following suit. If the salt has lost its saltiness it ought to be thrown away (Matt. 5:13).

Quite rightly, the committee emphasizes the obligation of the church to show compassion to all of humanity, especially the poor and disadvantaged. The Gospel is a message of love, and providing counselling and other support for mothers-to-be considering the option of aborting their child is a much better route than roundly condemning them. A prayerful, gentle approach is more likely to dissuade a person from making a wrong decision than confrontation. However, we are also reminded that God’s law is unchanging (murder does not cease being murder because man decides it isn’t). As Christ has demonstrated, compassion and the law are not mutually exclusive. He fulfilled the law through a life motivated by perfect love. We honour him by upholding both.

Philip Langford

Posted by: Dr Barbara Burge on Wednesday 3 March 2008 at 04:57pm

i have been reading the debate on abortion in the Melbourne Anglican and feel constrained to make several points.I am a recently retired medical practitioner,and over a long period in general practice, counselled many women on issues in Womens Healh including Abortion.I am also an Anglican, and was on the Public Questions Committee of the Canberra Goulburn Diocese in 1971 (chaired by Dr John Nurser) I can clearly remember being anti abortion in almost all circumstances, but I was challenged to think about the issue somewhat differently. I can also remember it being one of the most difficult and significant ethical decisions of my life.
In summary it is this:
The only person who can make the FINAL decision about having an abortion is the woman herself. It is both her privilege and her onerous responsibility. This is not to say she should not have the opportunity for discussion and counselling by her doctor. her Church or other religious organizations,her partner, her family, her chosen friends.
For some women it can be a relatively straight-forward but never easy decision; for some others it will be an agonizing and difficult decision; and there will be many in between.
As I read the discussion and the submission of the Social Questions Committee of the Diocese,there is a sense in which as a Church, we feel we have a responsibility to tell women what they should do.That is questionable, It is however desirable that we attempt to state as clearly as we can what our moral position is,so that women are helped not hindered in making a decision.We should also support them in whatever decision they make and not judge them. That support may need to be long-term.
I agree there is a difference between a termination of pregnancy which occurs up to 12 weeks gestation and and again between 12 and 16 weeks and between 16 and 26 weeks on to full term. However,I wonder if the difference is more human,psychological, and physical than moral. Moral decisions are of course affected by these factors.
Most women accept that terminations after 16 weeks gestation can only be done for very special reasons , and they are a minority of the abortions done anyway. The majority of abortions are done between 6 and 14 weeks and a large number before 10 weeks.
As always Prevention is important. That means more education on sexuality and appropriate and reliable contraception. Adoption can be an alternative to abortion, but it is a traumatic path to tread for most woman, and in offering it we need to be aware of that.
To summarise:
Abortion presents a significant moral dilemma, made harder because a decision needs to be made relatively quickly. The only person who can in the end make it is the woman herself. However she needs the loving counsel and support of those people who are important to her, and the expert help of those people who can give her the facts she needs, morally and physically and psychologically.
The agony of decision is the hardest of all. For some women it will be much harder than for others. It is however important to undergo that struggle, because if one does not, there is likely to be more regret, questioning, and depression afterwards.
We need to do more to prevent the need for so many abortions.
Barbara Burge
,

Posted by: Tim Patrick on Wednesday 3 March 2008 at 10:24pm

Even after reading Ven Alison Taylor's article 'Explaining the Anglican abortion submission' (March TMA) and speaking with many different people (including several women from the working group that prepared the document), there still remains much in the Submission that I simply cannot accept. As it is not possible to fully explain my objections in just a few short lines, I have prepared a more thoroughgoing response to the Submission which can be found on line at www.masg.net.au

My hope is that this paper will plainly expose some of the troubling failings of the Submission.

Tim Patrick

Posted by: Nat Whilk on Friday 3 March 2008 at 08:36pm

Dr Burge said
"I agree there is a difference between a termination of pregnancy which occurs up to 12 weeks gestation and and again between 12 and 16 weeks and between 16 and 26 weeks on to full term."
I would like someone who agrees with the gradualist approach to explain to me what is the difference between a 11 week old foetus, 29 week old foetus, and a new born baby that makes us view them differently.
Nat

Posted by: Nat Whilk on Monday 4 April 2008 at 12:47pm

Jane,
Can you answer my question or isit too late?
Nat

Posted by: Andromeda on Friday 4 April 2008 at 09:13pm

Well, I'm not Jane, Nat, but my own opinion on the difference between gestations seems fairly simple.

For me, it's about the intersect of development and agency. There are vast differences in the capacity for pain, consciousness and viability. All of these have bearing on the moral agency and moral status of the embryo/foetus when there is a tension between the interest of the embryo/foetus and the mother.

This is not an unusual or non-mainstream opinion. We hold funerals for stillbirth post twenty weeks. We use different terminology - misarriage - for earlier pregnancy loss. We instinctively experience a more intense shock at pregnancy loss the further the pregnancy advances.

You may not agree with the perception of these differences, but they are quite straightforward and far from absurd or abstract. Furthermore, this position is reflected throughout our legal and medical system, and even in the current pastoral responses of many churches to pregnancy loss (quite apart from the issue of abortion).

The response many who are against abortion have to the issue of pregnancy as a result of rape (very few except the most hard line will deny that an abortion in the case of rape or incest is justifiable) indicates that the vast majority engage in a relativist approach to the value of an embryo or foetus - really, we all just decide on our parameters, don't we, according to more subjective influences?

Posted by: Nat Whilk on Thursday 5 May 2008 at 09:13pm

Posted by: Nat Whilk on Thursday 5 May 2008 at 10:13pm

Thankyou for replying Andromeda,
Jane feels it is not appropriate for her to comment on this topic which I think is a pity.
I'm not sure what you mean by the intersection of development and agency - perhaps you could expand on that?
Am I right in thinking that you feel that 1) the ability to feel pain, 2) consciousness and 3) viability mark the difference between a human life that may be terminated and one that may not?
• I am unsure about how being able to feel pain is relevant. If it could be shown that a 12 week old foetus could feel pain, would that preclude an abortion being performed on it? What does it mean for adults without pain perception?
• Consciousness is difficult. What do we mean by consciousness? Do we mean the ability to perceive stimuli external to ourselves? (I take it you do not mean self consciousness?) Again if it could be shown that a 12 week old foetus can respond to external stimuli, would that preclude an abortion being performed on it? What does it mean for unconscious adults?
• What do you mean by viability? Do you mean the ability to survive outside the womb? This seems such an arbitrary criterion. All life is only viable in a suitable environment. The suitable environment for a 12 week old foetus is in the womb. What does it mean if it cannot survive outside the womb? It is like saying fish are uninteresting creatures because they die when they are brought onto land. Each life in its context has its own value.
NAT

Posted by: Nat Whilk on Saturday 10 October 2008 at 01:37pm

Congratulations to the Melbourne Anglican Church on successfully lobbying the State government to allow for the legal abortion of unborn babies up to 24 weeks by arguing that unborn babies are of less moral value than other humans. Frankly I am deeply deeply saddened by the conduct of our church,

Posted by: Claire on Thursday 9 September 2009 at 11:43am

Justice... Hmm...
It seems to me that these legislative changes were needed. Criminal sanctions on women in difficult circumstances helps no one.

From a justice point of view, decriminalisation was a good FIRST step, but if we want to reduce the number of abortions and promote a more equitable society, then there are still many steps to take.

If women and families were better supported to keep their children, many more would.
Abortion is not something that is taken lightly.

My mother had an abortion as a young woman. I spoke to her recently about this topic and she said, "I was still studying, in my second year of nurses' training. If I had had more help I probably would have kept it. I wanted to! Look at me, I love kids, I ended up having three of them!"

Her response is not unusual. As we continue to sort out these issues, please remember that for the overwhelming number of women abortion is not their first choice - but is instead a result of being unable to keep their child for financial, emotional or social reasons.

My mother sometimes wonders how her life would have been different, she knows that she made the right choice at that time. But what if we - the Church, a community that cared about her and her baby - had offered her a different choice?
Justice.... Hmm...

Posted by: John on Saturday 10 October 2009 at 11:11pm

beautifully put Andrew

Posted by: John on Saturday 10 October 2009 at 11:24pm

Im sorry but you are as blind as anyone who supports abortion. As much as you will want to defend your position, if youre not against abortion then you are for it. There is no middle ground and no fence sitting. You make you decision and you live by it. i know very clearly where i stand and i am proud of my belief in protecting the rights and the life of the unborn