Sanctity of life motion

[Tim Patrick]

I've been asked for the text of the motion that ended up not being put at the Melbourne synod last week. Here it is.

That this synod

a)      upholds the sanctity of all human life and agrees with the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in his 2006 Common Declaration with Pope Benedict XVI that Anglicans are called to co-operate in “promoting respect for life from conception until natural death”

b)      echoes the 1989 Australian General Synod call upon our Federal and State legislatures “to uphold the rights of the unborn child, provide and support adequate programs of human relations education, pregnancy support and care for single parent families”

c)       commends all disciples of Christ within the diocese to develop a biblical response to issues that threaten human life, and to engage in and/or support ministries which protect the unborn, the aged, the infirmed and the weak.

The Reverend Tracy Lauersen
The Reverend Timothy Patrick

[jane churchland]

thanks for this TIm... this is something of a revelation given what was reported to me by our parish's synod rep...
ah chinese whispers, can't beat 'em.

[Luke Isham]

How may I view, if it is possible, the minutes of Synod?

[Tim Patrick]

Sydney Diocese's synod ended on a very different note to Melbourne's.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/synods_life_affirming_finale/

This article reports the passing of a sanctity of life motion - one that was more strongly worded than ours I might add. The words of the motion are in the side-bar of the article.

It's interesting that the motion was also followed by this

Synod requests that the content of this motion be forwarded to the following persons – the Prime Minister, the Federal Opposition Leader, Senator Guy Barnett of Tasmania, the NSW Premier and Leader of the Opposition and the bishops of each of the Anglican dioceses of Australia.

Also interesting is the fact that the motion was moved by an ex-Melbourne Anglican.

[Andrew Stagg]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Sydney Diocese's synod ended on a very different note to Melbourne's.

It seems we could learn quite a lot from the Diocese of Sydney - apparently they know what they are on about, they are clear in upholding biblical values and that they are not afraid to speak the truth. Surely something is very wrong in Melbourne when our diocese is unable to do the same and successfully votes to dodge the question.

Luke Isham wrote:

How may I view, if it is possible, the minutes of Synod?

I've no idea, because I too would like to read what actually happened. Every other institution these days publishes this sort of thing online as part of open accountability. Surely the answer isn't "no you can't". Does anyone know where we the public can find our own synod stuff??

[Jereth]

Good on them.

I won't be holding my breath, but I hope someone in the Melbourne church says something strong and official against this new Law. There are many things about the Law that even a gutless "politically correct" church such as ours could condemn.

For example, the new law opens the doors to abortion for sex selection provided it occurs before 24 weeks. There are many Asian cultures which have a strong preference for boys (I am descended from one such culture and know this well), and so I fully expect to see this becoming commonplace in Victoria which is home to many Asian migrants. For instance, over the next decade or so, we can expect to see more and more 2 children families where the first is a girl and the second is always a boy. By comparison, there will be a reduced frequency of 1-child families with a girl, and 2-child families where both are girls, and so on.

As early pregnancy testing becomes more sophisticated, there will be many other examples of abortion used to dispose of babies that for one minor reason or another are unsatisfactory to the parents.

As a fellow (female) GP said to me the other day, we are standing on the brink of a genocide the likes of which Australia has never seen. I'm ashamed to be part of a church denomination which appears to be taking the coward's way out. However I am glad we can still look to the Sydney Diocese and the Catholic church for moral leadership.

Jereth

[Tim Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

Good on them.

I won't be holding my breath, but I hope someone in the Melbourne church says something strong and official against this new Law. There are many things about the Law that even a gutless "politically correct" church such as ours could condemn.

There are a number of us who have said quite a lot. You are a legitimate member of the Melbourne Anglican church and I am even licensed as a priest here. There are lots more of us too. We haven't heard everyone speak loud and clear, but we haven't all been silent.

For example, the new law opens the doors to abortion for sex selection provided it occurs before 24 weeks. There are many Asian cultures which have a strong preference for boys (I am descended from one such culture and know this well), and so I fully expect to see this becoming commonplace in Victoria which is home to many Asian migrants. For instance, over the next decade or so, we can expect to see more and more 2 children families where the first is a girl and the second is always a boy. By comparison, there will be a reduced frequency of 1-child families with a girl, and 2-child families where both are girls, and so on.

The irony is that those who condone abortions are usually champions of "women's rights" but abortion is known to target girl babies more than boy babies. As one synod member said to me after we didn't vote on my motion, there are around 500,000 women missing from our world today because of selective abortions. Are liberal abortion laws really a triumph for women?

[Tim Patrick]

Jereth wrote:

Good on them.

I won't be holding my breath, but I hope someone in the Melbourne church says something strong and official against this new Law. There are many things about the Law that even a gutless "politically correct" church such as ours could condemn.

There are a number of us who have said quite a lot. You are a legitimate member of the Melbourne Anglican church and I am even licensed as a priest here. There are lots more of us too. We haven't heard everyone speak loud and clear, but we haven't all been silent.

For example, the new law opens the doors to abortion for sex selection provided it occurs before 24 weeks. There are many Asian cultures which have a strong preference for boys (I am descended from one such culture and know this well), and so I fully expect to see this becoming commonplace in Victoria which is home to many Asian migrants. For instance, over the next decade or so, we can expect to see more and more 2 children families where the first is a girl and the second is always a boy. By comparison, there will be a reduced frequency of 1-child families with a girl, and 2-child families where both are girls, and so on.

The irony is that those who condone abortions are usually champions of "women's rights" but abortion is known to target girl babies more than boy babies. As one synod member said to me after we didn't vote on my motion, there are around 500,000 women missing from our world today because of selective abortions. Are liberal abortion laws really a triumph for women?

[Jereth]

Tim Patrick wrote:

Jereth wrote:

Good on them.

I won't be holding my breath, but I hope someone in the Melbourne church says something strong and official against this new Law. There are many things about the Law that even a gutless "politically correct" church such as ours could condemn.

There are a number of us who have said quite a lot. You are a legitimate member of the Melbourne Anglican church and I am even licensed as a priest here. There are lots more of us too. We haven't heard everyone speak loud and clear, but we haven't all been silent.

G'day Tim,

Sorry, that was badly worded. I didn't mean to say that no one has said anything. I think that what you and Tracy did with your motion was very admirable. There's also been some good stuff in the blogosphere by Wayne, and Mark Durie, etc.

What I did mean to say was that the church has not come out unequivocally and strongly to condemn abortion the way Sydney diocese has, and the Catholics, and Orthodox, and Presbyterians, etc. And this is clearly not because the church is incapable of saying something unequivocal and strong about anything -- because it has made some pretty unequivocal statements about sexualisation of children, and climate change, and the MDG, and (as Rev. Wayne astutely points out on his blog) the new cathedral sound system.

When there's a new law in force that allows abortion for sex selection, and partial birth abortion on the opinion of 2 doctors, it's a bit distressing that the church as a whole can't say something clearly... don't ya think?

Anyway, this feels like flogging a dead horse. I should probably get on with some important practical stuff -- like researching which Medical Defence Organisation is willing to cover me if I am sued for not complying with the mandatory referral law!

cheers, Jereth