Letters to the editor: Strong objections to abortion submission
Strong objections to abortion submission 1
We the undersigned members of Melbourne Anglican churches strongly disagree with the position on abortion outlined in the ‘Submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission Inquiry on the Law of Abortion from the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, 9 November 2007’ as posted on the Melbourne Anglican website and referred to in TMA December.
We do not hold the ‘gradualist’ position with respect to the moral value of developing embryos/foetuses. We believe that the Bible teaches that all human life has absolute moral value irrespective of race, gender, wealth, education, age (including the unborn) or level of disability. We are therefore generally opposed to abortion as it seems to us to be a form of killing – and killing of the most vulnerable members of our society at that. We believe our view is in line with historical Christian teaching and the official position of the worldwide Anglican Communion as expressed at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, a position that has never been overturned.
We do understand that occasionally the moral considerations are more complicated – eg., when a mother’s life is directly placed in immediate and exceptional danger by a pregnancy or birth (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy or childbirth) but could be protected only by destroying the unborn child. Because of such complex cases where a decision to terminate may be morally justifiable, we do not advocate a blanket-ban on abortion. Nevertheless, we believe that such situations are exceptional, must be addressed with appropriate gravity and do not cancel out our general opposition to abortion.
We agree that abortion is an extremely sensitive issue that must be discussed with great discretion and care. We recognise that in a fallen world many people, including Anglicans, will have personal experiences of abortion. We affirm that in Christ there is unqualified forgiveness for all who repent and that the Church must proclaim and embody that message.
We accept the responsibility to deal lovingly and compassionately with all members of our Church and society, including those who have been party to abortions.
We are seeking to make our strong objections to the content of the original Submission, including its moral position and recommendations, known to the Victorian Law Reform Commission.
The Revd Tim Patrick
Carlton
and over 600 Anglican signatories.
Continue
the discussion in this months' Talking PointAbortion against God’s plan
As ambassadors of Christ we are obligated to speak the word of God into the social situations in which we find ourselves. When the Victorian Government announced the review process of the abortion laws we had a magnificent opportunity to shine the light of Christ unequivocally on this issue by proclaiming that God is for life in every circumstance, and none more so than in this issue of abortion. God says “do not kill”; the Anglican church recognizes selfhood from conception, so it is logical to believe that the “Anglican women” on the Archbishop’s committee could have spoken with one voice to declare to women in Victoria “do not kill your babies”; and to the government “do not change the law regarding criminal sanctions against doctors who perform abortions”. In the submission process there is opportunity to also discuss compassionate options for care for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant or worse and as the body of Christ we should also proclaim our defence of these women and care for them. This includes care for women who have undergone abortions, recently or in the past. Christ’s love is to bind up the broken hearted and surely, there is no one more broken hearted than a woman who has knowingly or unknowingly cut short the life of her baby. As Melbourne Anglicans, we need to speak to these social situations clearly, so as young women know unreservedly that abortion is against God’s plan for their lives. This submission does not do that. By removing criminal sanctions for doctors who perform these operations we are effectively condoning abortion in the eyes of future young women.
Kerrie Ternes
Wantirna South
Gradualist approach dubious
It is interesting to note that the authors of the recent submission on behalf of the Diocese of Melbourne to the Victorian Law Reform Commission on abortion have adopted a dubious gradualist approach as a measure of assigning moral value.
God knits and moulds us in the womb pulling the thread of our life through this world and into the realms beyond death. It would be foolish to presume that we can arbitrarily delineate the point on that thread at which a person has more or less moral value. Regardless of how vulnerable or small that person is, they are a thread in God’s larger tapestry, valued and created by our Lord. Hopefully the authors of the report will reconvene and reconsider how a sliding scale of moral value actually devalues the vulnerable person being measured.
Luke Isham
Camberwell
I have never had such a reaction in terms of e-mails and personal approaches on a single topic as in the past few days, to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture and interview in which he appeared to be supporting the implementation of a form of sharia law in Britain. After Sunday church there were people – new Christians – regretting their membership and confirmation in the Anglican church after reading his comments.
The Archbishop has reportedly been shocked and horrified by the backlash to his comments. No doubt it will continue, as he will meet at the Lambeth Conference later this year with Anglican bishops from nations where sharia law is a lived reality. To his credit Dr Williams did humbly acknowledge that he was out of his depth, saying ‘I’m no expert in this’. Yet he felt confident enough to declare that ‘it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system.’ In fact the Human Rights Court of Europe has found that sharia law is alien enough to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Grand Chamber of the European Court upheld the dissolution of a Turkish political party for its aim of instituting a plurality of legal systems in Turkey, in which each religious group would be governed by distinct religious laws. The Grand Chamber found that a plurality of legal systems would be incompatible with the Convention and that sharia law would be coercive and discriminatory: coercive in that it would compel individuals (including Muslims) to obey rules imposed by religion – for example Muslims would be coerced to live by sharia law, which might be contrary to their personal beliefs and conscience; and discriminatory because of treating people differently due to their religion, for example a Christian woman might gain custody of her children in a divorce, but the same woman, if a Muslim, might not gain custody, as sharia law grants custody to the father as a matter of right.
The principle of equality before the law is a bedrock of the English legal system, and it seems truly remarkable that Rowan Williams was not aware of the challenge that the Islamic sharia poses to it.
One must wonder where he has been getting his advice, and whether on the issue of sharia in Britain, it has been from his partners in interfaith dialogue.
The Revd Dr Mark Durie
St Mary’s Caulfield.
Prayer for Melbourne
Thank you so much, Archbishop Freier, for a loving, thoughtful, caring prayer for us all and for our beautiful and vibrant city of Melbourne. It will find a good place on our retirement village notice board for some time.
Josephine Mann
Geelong
Extend discussion
Dr Brian Porter (‘Reclaiming funeral liturgies’ Feb. TMA) has opened an important discussion which should be extended to all Prayer Book liturgies and the Ordinal. Reclaiming the second order of Holy Orders might be a good start.
The Revd Dr George Mullins
Brookfield
Understanding young people
Having had yet another report about youth land on my desk, I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a better way to understand what’s going on in the minds and lives and world of the young people with whom we work.
I think there is. It is conversation; simple, time-consuming, on the ground, potentially messy conversation.
I wonder how much time we (as youth workers, parents, or other concerned adults) actually spend with young people, asking questions, and listening to their answers. Not enough, I suspect. That may be why we need other people’s research to inform us! As good and valuable as this type of research is, the findings are generalisations. But our calling to serve young people is exercised in a particular context with particular young people.
Not only is personal conversation the best way to understand youth, it is a way of demonstrating Christlike love and concern to a young person.
Jesus spent lots of time with people. He knew what was going on with them, whether they were hungry or feeling anxious or guilty or self righteous or hopeless. He loved them. He talked with them. He listened to them.
Wouldn’t we do well to do the same with the young people around us?
Mayukha Perera
Southern Region Youth Officer
Letters to the editor must include your name and address.
They should be no longer than 250 words, and preferably typed and emailed to: