VLRC Final Abortion Report

[Tim Patrick]

Hi all,

As many of you will know, last November the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne made a submission to the Victorian Law Reform Commission Inquiry into the State's abortion laws.

There was much in the ADOM Submission that many in our Diocese were deeply disappointed about. We felt that it was unfaithful to the teaching of the Bible and the authorised position of the Anglican Church and also that it misrepresented the views of many Melbourne Anglicans. I prepared and circulated a response to that submission which is available on the documents page of the masg website.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has just today made public its final report on the State's Law of Abortion. You can download it as a pdf at

http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Law+Reform/Home/Completed+Projects/Abortion/LAWREFORM+-+Law+of+Abortion%3A+Final+Report

or request a hard copy by calling the VLRC (I think).

The report only makes recommendations to the Attorney General - it doesn't affect any changes. From what I have read so far, there seem to be three options offered in the report and it may be that we could champion one (Model A) over the other two. I haven't had time to read and digest the whole report yet but will aim to do that over the next couple of days.

If anyone is interested in this issue, can I encourage you to also read the report and other relevant documents on the masg links page and then to offer your thoughts. We might be able to decide on the most faithful course of action after that.

Many thanks,

Tim

[Jereth]

Thanks Tim for pointing us to the VLRC report. Rachel was trying to find it earlier.

I plan to analyse this in more detail soon, but at the outset I am very, very upset to see how frequently the VLRC has cited the ADOM's gradualist theory:

Pages 73 (point 5.13) - a discussion of ethical principles
Pages 78-79 (point 5.72) - the significance of gestational age for abortion
Page 149 (point b.17, footnote 5) - a discussion of "is the Fetus a Person?"

In all of these instances, that awful paragraph from the ADOM's submission is quoted
‘[o]ur consensus view is the gradualist position which argues that while the embryo/foetus is fully human from the time of conception, it accrues moral significance and value as it develops ... we believe the moral significance increases with the age and development of the foetus. The significance increases gradually over time, in parallel with its physical development.

Melbourne Anglicans should hang our heads in utter shame. Here is plain evidence that the world does listen to what the church says; and woe unto the church if it speaks unchristian error and affirms the world in its sin.

Thank God that the Catholics, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Australian Christian Lobby and Salt Shakers also had things to say which were no doubt far more biblical.

[Rachel L]

The Victorian Law Reform Commission has taken the Melbourne Diocese's Abortion Submission seriously and referred to it in the VLRC recommendation to the government regarding the state's abortion legislation.

The Diocese could have written something Biblical and been ignored by the secular Commission; our call is not to be "heard", but to be faithful. Instead they have compromised and the Commission have lapped it up! Now they have the tick of approval from a major Christian Church!

As Christians, we can't expect the world to listen to God's teachings. What we can expect is that when we relax our morals, the world will take notice. The Church is seen as a moral compass by many people, even those who don't consider themselves Christian. Thus we have a great responsibility when it comes to these kinds of questions. We have to be faithful witnesses to Christ, upholding the truth, not bending it. This is not incompatible with loving others - in fact it is more loving.

"I charge you in presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

"As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

2 Timothy 4:1-5

[Jereth]

Here are the options in simple terms:

A - Doctors to determine whether an abortion is justified at any stage of pregnancy, on grounds of maternal health (physical or mental). Basically the status quo (Menhennit ruling), codified into law. This option is good in principle, although in practice "maternal health" will be interpreted very liberally, as at present.

B - Abortion on demand up to 24 weeks. Doctors to make determination on grounds of maternal health after 24 weeks (as for option A). This option is based on the theory of gradualism, making a distinction between younger foetuses and older ones.

C - Abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy.

Obviously, option A is the one Christians should support. I suspect that most mainstream secularists will campaign for option B, and a liberal minority will support option C.

Incidentally, we should be thankful that two of the options are more conservative than the Anglican proposal, which was for abortion on demand up to the end of the 2nd trimester (i.e. 26th-27th week). God has been very kind to restrain the potential damage; he has no doubt heard our prayers.

[Matt Williams]

Hey Jereth,

I find that paragraph frustrating myself, if only for the incompatibility of the two ideas. No doubt they could all agree to it on the committee because it affirms both the full humanity of the child at conception (which would, in some people's estimation, put it beyond destruction) and only affirmed a gradualism beyond that. But I can't see how it makes sense - how can there be a gradual accumulation of moral significance above and beyond being 'fully human'?

It is very hard to understand how an embryo can be both fully human at conception and then accrue moral significance beyond that. Does a foetus become more human, though it was fully human before? It's all very animal farm.

I'm not really encouraged by the VLRC report. I agree position A ought to be the one we push. But I'm sure it has been drafted up as three positions for a political reason that always works well in Victoria - make it look like there are extremists A, and extremists C, and then you can draft option B in whatever form you like and make it look like the comfortably moderate and sanely balanced position. In the Victorian political context, you don't have to say so explicitly. I'm afraid the option being recommended by the VLRC is option B.

Blessings
Matt

[Jereth]

G'day Matt,

Yes, that would be my assessment too -- B is the one which will get up. Although I take comfort in the fact that in practice, options A and B probably will end up looking much the same. I doubt the abortion rate will really go up or down with either of these options.

The question becomes: how should Christians (who believe in the sanctity of all life made in God's image) react to the implementation of an option which, in principle if not in practice, devalues younger or less developed humans? Is it important to take a stand on principle alone -- and therefore fight hard for option A against option B?

No doubt they could all agree to it on the committee

Except of course that one out of the 8 individuals quit the committee (reportedly on grounds of conscience) -- and this individual appears to be the one described in the Submission as the "theologian". Naturally, this fact of history has been kept very, very quiet by the Diocese.

But I can't see how it makes sense - how can there be a gradual accumulation of moral significance above and beyond being 'fully human'?

What it says is that there are humans and there are humans. Some are worth more, some are worth less. At best, this means "humanity" per se is no longer associated with a constant, irreducible worth; at worst, "humanity" is worth nothing in real terms, and our moral worth comes from something totally apart from our humanity (be it our mental capacity, or physical strength, or utility to society, or sex, or race, etc.). There is nothing in principle obstructing the extension of this gradualist principle to all living humans. If a less developed human has less value than a more developed one, and consequently less powerful reasons are required to destroy him or her (as the Submission says), then by simple logical extension the argument also applies to physically disabled people, those with intellectual impairment, and so on. The Anglican church has started down a horrific ethical track; I pray that there will be a reversal.

cheers,
Jereth

[Jereth]

The following letter was written by Nicholas Tonti-Filippini of the John Paul II Institute, in the Age today.

ALL three options provided by the Victorian Law Reform Commission for abortion law reject requirements for making counselling available, seeking an independent medical opinion, reporting adverse events or restricting abortion to places that have adequate facilities for a major surgical procedure.

No database exists for abortion, so it is impossible even to know how many abortions occur, or what effect they have had on women. A previous abortion is a significant item in psychiatric history taking and an adverse-events register would gather information that would allow women to be better informed about the risks.

The Sexton research indicates that 87% of Australians would like both to reduce the rate of abortion and retain the right of women to legal access to abortion, and only 42% are persuaded by the argument that the foetus is not a person. When asked about their personal moral position, only a small minority of the public (24% and under, depending on the circumstance) finds abortion to be morally justifiable (with the exception of cases of severe physical foetal abnormality). The commission clearly ignored community opinion.

[Gordon Cheng]

Thanks Tim, Jereth and everyone else who has been working hard on this issue in the face of difficulty.

Just wanted you to know that people outside Melbourne are aware of your work and thanking God for your contributions.