Briefly Entering And Exiting An Aspect Of The Abortion Debate

I did a degree Philosophy & Politics for three years at Essex University.  Before that I did a two year course at A-Level in Theology (as well as English and also Government and Politics).  Before that I did a GCSE option in Religious Studies.  Throughout this time moral issues and their practical and political implications came to the forefront often.  As a result I have an inquisitive eye and mind for these issues as they crop up – even if I don’t tend to blog that often about them.

There is a reason for that – as in why I don’t frequently blog about them.  That reason is I like to be fairly informed before expressing a view on those issues.  The time it takes to be fairly informed is considerable – checking the issues, considering different sides and coming to a conclusion.  I could just rant from the top of my head based on what I believe, but that’s not really my style.  (Well, not all the time anyway.)  As you may be aware there are one or two other pressing responsibilities in me life that mean that such considered time is not always available to me.

So, when I do make an entry into an issue – especially this one – then I do so tentatively.  I look left, I look right, I see a gap, I nip over quickly and carry on.

OK.  So enough with the disclaimer and preamble.  Abortion.  Very touchy subject.  Evokes strong reactions from those with strong convictions on the matter.  For those not as strong then they are liable to be persuaded by those strongly convicted especially when given certain arguments.  For what it’s worth my belief has been and remains that abortion is morally wrong.  That is to say, I do not believe it is the will of God or His heart to allow the life that is created in the woman’s womb to be snuffed out on man’s (definitely used in the generic sense) diktat.

An argument I’ve heard, inevitably in the light of the rights discourse over the last two hundred years or so, is that a woman has rights over her reproductive organs.  (I use that phrase and have an imagine in my head of pipe organs automatically producing more pipe organs and their noise increasing and increasing … sorry to be glib at this point, but I needed to say that.)  I think that this idea of a woman’s rights over her reproductive organs is a sad symptom of how far society has come where the concerns of life at its very beginning are kinda turned into almost a roulette at the whim of the woman.

For some reading, this might already mark me out as a reactive neanderthal of the ages before enlightenment and you may think my view is that women should be seen and not heard and just do what the man tells them to do.  Thankfully the truth is that I am nothing of the sort (and my vocal wife can testify to that).  My concern is, as much as possible, for a theocentric view on matters.  My understanding of that sees all life as of value to God and thus I am not to mess with a life that has started.

Anyway, be that as it may, I acknowledge that the country that I live in allows abortions and in legislation have certain checks and balances to ensure that each abortion is conducted as safely as possible.  In the past week a newsworthy item hit most of the media over an amendment to the Health & Social Bill to be debated on Tuesday and Wednesday.  The nub of the situation has been reported by the BBC here – and it’s the nearest I could get to a ‘balanced’ and ‘impartial’ report on something that the rest of the media has proved to be virtually impossible to report in a balanced and impartial manner.  As I read it, an amendment has been suggested to offer ‘independent’ counselling to women considering abortion.  This is opposed to the stated advice that would be offered by professionals linked to organisations that actually carry out the abortions.

It has caused a stink as the Guardian reports.  MP’s have come out to oppose the amendment and as the BBC article implied so in essence has the government gone to the lengths of letting all its MP’s know that the Health ministers will oppose the bill.  Most of the articles I read from the various sides of the political spectrum were also fairly aggressive in opposing the amendment.  (Though this article from a somewhat unlikely source was somewhat sympathetic to the underlying point of the move. This article also highlights the problem in the first place with the amendment.)

One voice I do want to mention on the issue is that of the blog known as Cranmer.  It is one I peruse frequently, not because he supports my views – he doesn’t always at all.  It is because he offers perspectives that are not always reflected in the mainstream media but are bridges for people from a Christian background to engage with the political matters of the time.  He has posted a series of blog entries on this issue which I highly recommend for your reading.  His initial post months ago about the role of the church on such issues. More recently he wrote of how the amendment itself provoked a reaction based more on the main person leading it which only got worse as time progressed. Cranmer also showed how those opposing the amendment had infiltrated other parties who may not even have known how they were infiltrated.  Finally, he shows in a tweet conversation with an MP how little people have looked beyond their own ideologies in attacking others for promoting ideology.

What the whole scenario displays to my viewing is how passionate people are to uphold what the ongoing liberal agenda promotes and that any intervention from a ‘faith’ perspective to suggest otherwise is to be sidelined wherever possible.  It continues the privatising and marginalising agenda some have against the role of religion in politics.  It’s reflected in the view of Blair in government espoused by his right hand man Alastair Campbell that they ‘don’t do God’.  Faith is nice for issues of conscience, but when it comes to policy it needs to take a back seat and allow a ‘neutral’ entity – The State – to exercise things in a manner fair and just to all … as far as they are concerned.

It is tragic again that what is ultimately so personal and so important – the issue of life – is considered something that shouldn’t suffer the interference of people of faith.  It is tragic, but somewhat inevitable when a humanistic and secular agenda muscles in with such intensity as it does.  The issue now remains for people who follow Jesus is not how to respond, but how to be clear in convictions and express/promote them in the public arena without getting caught up in a political juggernaut that is driven by power and control.  How does the Kingdom come to earth when the status quo continues to sideline its efforts?

I believe everyone is political – whether they choose to engage or not.  This blog is not my platform or soapbox to promote any other agenda other than the Kingdom one.  I’m not ashamed of that, but I also recognise that the full manifestation of that will not come through the governments of this age.  It is still important to speak out on that agenda whenever it comes to the surface.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

dmcd