Tag Archive for 'idealism'

Abortion Legislation

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 4 November 2007
in Church and Culture
. 0 Comments

In the 40 years since abortion has been legal in Britain, the number of terminations taking place each year has increased from 22,000 to almost 200,000.

Anti-abortion groups stage rally

Since 1967 the yearly rate of abortion has multiplied - from 22,000 in 1968 to 193,000 last year. More than a fifth of pregnancies end that way.

What next for Britain's abortion law?

On one side, pro-life campaigners are trying to get the government to reduce the upper abortion limit from twenty-four weeks. On the other, pro-choice campaigners are trying to reduce the number of doctors needed to approve an abortion from two to one.

I am against abortion. A life is a life is a life, and taking one is never right. But here I'm not going to argue the medical sides. They are well-worn and well-documented.

Instead, I'm going to argue about the very nature of the 'pro-choice' argument. It argues that 'a woman should have complete control over her fertility and pregnancy' ('Pro-choice' - Wikipedia). They say that women should have access to 'safe and legal' abortions, sometimes as a last resort, but not always. It is a question of rights, particularly the right-to-choose.

I agree that the 'right-to-choose' is an important human right. It should not be the case that innocent people should be detained against their will, or that children are denied the option to go to university.

But, and it is a big but, whenever we exercise our 'right-to-choose', we have to live with the consequences. I chose to marry my wife, and now I have to live with the consequences - I do not have the freedom to carry on acting as if I am a bachelor. In making choices, in opening doors, we inevitably close others.

When people exercise their freedom and have sex with someone, the result of which is pregnancy, they are constrained by their own freedom to have sex, and the biological consequences. Humans do not have the right to do whatever they like, and then ignore the consequences. The whole criminal justice system is based on this principle.

This is a simple solution - but the problem is complex. What about women who become pregnant after being raped? What about situations where the health of the mother is endangered by the baby? What about teenage pregnancies? What about 'underground' abortions - is it better to have legalised abortions, which are safe, or force underground abortions, which are not? Obviously the former, if abortions must happen.

So where does that leave us? The ideal solution does not work in such a messy situation. So, I would suggest the following things:

  • Abortion should not be seen as a 'right', but as a 'last resort', and only in specific cases of rape or perhaps danger to the mother's health. It should never be used as a method of birth-control, to correct a 'mistake'.
  • The upper limit for abortions should be significantly lowered.
  • Education in schools must be improved to lower the rates of teenage pregnancy. Obviously my preferred option would be to encourage teenagers to wait until they are married, but given that that will never happen, contraception should be freely available (which it is - so the use of it should be encouraged).
  • Education about what actually happens in an abortion, what the baby looks like and is capable of before it is aborted, the number of babies who have been legally aborted worldwide in forty years (well over 50 million) - should be much wider.

When pro-choice campaigners frame the argument in terms of 'rights', they miss the point entirely. The 'rights' are exercised, in most cases of abortion, a few weeks before. Instead, it is a case of dealing with the consequences of a sinful and broken world, in the best possible way, given the worst possible options.

Sexual Orientation Regulations

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 March 2007
in Culture
. 0 Comments

I have just been reading a blog by a fellow Wycliffe student here. He argues that the Catholic Church has no right to oppose the SORs going through Parliament at present. The reason is that they are willing (in a world which is far from ideal) to allow 'stable' non-married couples to adopt children. The church obviously feels this is better than for the child not to be adopted at all. The main point of the argument is, 'not to let the impossible best be the enemy of the relatively good'.

This debate highlights one of the classic difficulties within ethics, especially Christian ethics, of the balance between idealism and pragmatism. The theological term is 'inaugurated eschatology' - we live in the light and power of the kingdom of God, which at the same time has not yet fully come. We find ourselves living in two worlds, this age and the age to come. The difficulty, as evidenced by this example, is knowing when to stick to the 'ideals' of the age to come, and when to compromise with the current age.

With this particular issue, where should the boundary be? Should the Church stick to its ideals, and put a blanket ban on adoptions by all 'sinners', including non-married couples? Surely not. Should the Church give in to pragmatism and allow anyone in a 'stable' relationship to adopt? I don't think so. Christian ethics is never going to be that simple, because of the tension between this age and the age to come.

And so, I would like to support the Catholic Church's position on this. My next comments have the potential to be controversial, and I don't mean to offend anyone. These are simply some thoughts I have on the subject.

I think that in this issue the pragmatism comes in recognising what constitutes 'marriage'. At its most basic level I would say it is a public commitment to share your whole life with one other person, of the opposite gender. Some would use the word 'covenant' to describe it. Most of the time this is marked by a public wedding, and, if done in church, public prayers and promises one to another.

Is there really a major difference in kind between this and a 'common-law' couple, especially one making the public statement of living together and wanting to raise a child? (The Church is (hopefully) going to rule out couples who have a history of serial relationships, or who have no real intention of staying together long-term.) Is there a major difference between a couple committed to a long-term relationship, and a couple who are officially married?

If not, the next question is, are there any major differences between a committed heterosexual and a committed homosexual couple? I would suggest that perhaps there are. All the major churches (and religions, as far as I know) hold that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman, and that it is the 'ideal' situation in which to bring up a child. Perhaps, then, the 'pragmatic' compromise could be over what constitutes 'marriage', so that committed heterosexual couples are, to all intents and purposes 'married', but the 'ideal' of children being brought up by a man and a woman should not be compromised.

What I am not saying is that homosexual couples are more sinful, or evil, than heterosexual couples. What I am tentatively saying is that perhaps there is something important about the nature of a family that we should not compromise on.

I am willing to be corrected on any aspect of this argument, and please forgive me if I have written in an offensive way. This post is meant to reflect some of the long wrestling I have done myself over these issues.