|
It won’t be long
before New Zealand has revised abortion laws. Last year, three options for
law reform were suggested in a briefing paper (https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/107941997/government-prepares-for-next-step-in-abortion-law-reform). Central to this is Andrew Little’s desire
to make abortion a health issue rather than a criminal matter.
Currently, a woman
must have the agreement of two certifying medical practitioners that the pregnancy would result if the woman’s physical or mental health is seriously threatened. Up to the 20th week, grounds include serious danger to
life, physical health, mental health, incest or sexual relations with a guardian,
mental sub-normality, and fetal abnormality. Extremes of age and sexual violation are also possible factors that can be taken into account. After the
20th week, abortion approved by two doctors has these grounds: to save the
life of the mother, to percent serious permanent injury to the physical or the mental health of the mother (https://www.familyplanning.org.nz/advice/abortion/the-law-around-abortion).
Such agreements from
medical professionals must be a common event because, in 2017, there were
13,285 abortions in NZ (12,823 in 2016) (https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/abortion-statistics-year-ended-december-2017).
It is interesting to
compare this number to other causes of death in NZ:
Cancer: approx. 9500
Heart disease:
approx 5840
Traffic: 328 (2017)
Suicide: 475 (2017/18)
Murder: 35 (2017)
So, if we consider
abortion a death, then abortion kills substantially more NZers than all these
causes of death.
1. Model A
There would be no statutory test that must be
satisfied before an abortion could be performed. T
The decision whether to have an abortion
would be made by a woman in consultation with her health practitioner.
2. Model B
A statutory test would need to be satisfied
before an abortion could be performed, but the test would be in health legislation rather than the Crimes Act.
The statutory test: the health practitioner who intends to
perform the abortion would need to reasonably believe the abortion is
appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the woman’s physical and
mental health and wellbeing (italics original).
3. Model C
For pregnancies of not more than 22
weeks gestation—same as Model A (above)
For pregnancies of more than 22 weeks
gestation—same as Model B (above)
Model A effectively
means that a woman can have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy if she finds an agreeable medical practitioner. This could be a late-term
abortion.
Model B is
effectively the same, but a statutory procedure laid out in the Act would be
in place and this would need to be followed.
Model C would make
it a little harder for those wanting an abortion after the 22nd
week.
So, what might
a Christian response to this be? I have made my feelings felt more than
once in my blog as can be seen here:
There is no need to go over the material
there again suffice to say that in these blogs over time, I have consistently advocated against abortion. Essentially, from this Christian’s point of view,
a Christian perspective believes that conception begins personhood and human life. We develop from there. We are human from conception. We are people.
For the first nine or so months of life
(ideally), the child develops in the uterus of a mother until birth and continues to develop and grow to adulthood and ultimately declines to physical death (unless interrupted earlier). The mother’s God-given call is
to do all she can to ensure that this child is born into the world as we all have
and have the opportunity to experience life—the greatest thing of all. The mother’s rights
should not be allowed to trump that of the child which is the weaker of the two and
whose rights our political system should be protected first and foremost.
Hence, abortion is not just a woman’s health issue. If it is a health issue,
it is the health of the unborn child that has first priority. On this basis,
abortion would only be considered where the mother’s life is genuinely threatened and one is forced to choose. Then that would be the decision of the mother and/or the legal representative of that mother.
A number of biblical texts can be listed
suggesting that life in the womb is life. Examples include Gen 25:23; Judg
16:17; Ruth 1:11; Jer 1:5; Hos 12:3. Indeed, consistent is the idea of God forming a person in the womb of his or her mother (Ps 139:13; Gal 1:15). In Luke
1:15, John is filled with the Spirit from the womb (Luke 1:15).
Isaiah 49:5 speaks of the future Servant
of God, who the Christian story considers Jesus, being formed in the womb—later seen to be Mary (Isa 49:5). The strongest argument I can think of against abortion is the connection between the incarnation and abortion. The infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke speak of the Spirit of God overshadowing a
young woman, Mary, her conceiving, and the life of Jesus beginning in her womb. Jesus is for Christians the Son of God, Christ, Savior, and Lord. His life began at conception, not at his birth, nor at any point within the period of being in the womb. As John says, “the word became flesh,” and this happened at the moment of the fertilization of Mary’s ovum. This life matured to term, and she gave birth to this child.
With all such things in mind, any active cessation
of life in the mother’s womb of a baby is the cessation of the person’s personhood and humanity. It is a form of homicide. As such, we as Christians
must do all we can without violent force and unethical duplicitous corrupt methods
to stop legislation that downgrades abortion to purely a health matter and
makes it easier to get one. That is counter the gospel we believe in. In
fact, we should be advocating for a repeal of the current law and new laws
that treat abortion as the crime it is.
As we approach an election in 2020, we
need to take this matter very seriously. While there is a complex range of issues that face NZ that we need to take into account as we consider who to vote for, it remains one of the most important issues NZ faces. We may get ridiculed for our position on it. Yet, we should continue to hold firm to our
position.
Yet, we must do so with grace toward all
NZers. We cannot force NZers to live their lives as we would want. If the world around us wants different laws, our call is to pray for them, love
them, and share Christ with them with warmth and grace.
We must remember that many NZ women have
undergone an abortion. Many will regret doing so. Our gospel says to all
people that our past mistakes can be dealt with through the grace of God
whose forgiveness is unlimited where a person comes to him in contrition and faith.
Further, we are to relate to all people with immense humility and grace, for
we ourselves are as guilty as any for the sins we have committed.
If the law changes, it is business as usual
for us. We continue to uphold the gospel with grace and welcome to all people. We stand for what we believe, but with gentleness and respect. The world is changing. It is moving away from a Judeo-Christian ethic in many ways, such as this issue. Yet, our call is to continue to stand for our
ethic, but with a posture of grace, warmth, respect, and love to all we encounter.
So, we would continue to urge the people of the faith in this nation not to
have abortions when facing the great challenges of an unexpected or “unwanted”
pregnancy. We would urge them to consider other options such as raising the child or adoption. We would want to do all we can to support mums whatever their circumstances. We should show empathy toward all women. When we
encounter those who have had abortions or are considering them, we embody God’s
grace toward them, for his arms are open to us all whatever we have done and
whoever we are.
This is the ongoing challenge of being a
church in a world that has ever-different values to our own. The church began in such a space. Abortion and child-exposure were normative in the Roman world,
even if rejected by most Jews. The church stood its ground. But it did so with love and grace. God grew that church until it became the religion of the empire. If we embody the same posture, who knows, it could happen again. Yet if it doesn’t and we remain a small minority in this nation or decline further, we continue to do all things with faith, love, and hope.
|
I am involved in a group called Presbyterian Affirm. It is an evangelical group within the NZ Presbyterian Church which seeks to promote the gospel and the renewal of churches. A group of us under the leadership of Stuart Lange have worked to put together a statement on same-sex marriage. Our hope is that the government will not pass the legislation, believing that the legislation is not necessary and strays from God’s ideals for humanity. Here is the recently released statement. I would appreciate your thoughts on it. PRESBYTERIAN GROUP OPPOSES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL Presbyterian AFFIRM, a widely-supported conservative network within the Presbyterian denomination, is speaking out against the Bill which would allow same-sex couples to marry, declaring its views in a “Statement on Marriage” (see below). Presbyterian AFFIRM believes that “marriage is a unique human institution and treasure” which has “always been about the pairing of a man and a woman”, and that re-def...
Comments