Sandy Grant has a good comment about promoting alternatives to abortion, particularly drawing attention to the Free Money for New Lives website.

[edit: noticed Craig’s mention of it here as well.]

I think this sort of thing is worth promoting in our political context. What do others think?

Gordon Cheng - 14 November 2008 10:02 AM

I think this sort of thing is worth promoting in our political context. What do others think?

Hey Gordo - could you tease this out a little - what do you mean?

I suppose that it is worth promoting is, to me, so self evident, I get confused by the notion of people not thinking it is worth promoting.  Of course - how to promote it is a question that is more difficult to answer.

Mike

Sandy wrote..

My view is that American evangelicals probably do a lot more in this area than most evangelicals in Australia.

This does not bode well.

Luke Stevens - 14 November 2008 11:55 AM

Sandy wrote..

My view is that American evangelicals probably do a lot more in this area than most evangelicals in Australia.

This does not bode well.

Why?

Mike

<insert history of the American ‘Evangelical Right’ here>

Unless of course Sandy was referring to American evangelicals in the sense that we would recognize them, as opposed to the media label for a heterogeneous group that, on the whole, probably has more in common with Hillsong than with us.

Luke Stevens - 14 November 2008 12:54 PM

<insert history of the American ‘Evangelical Right’ here>

Unless of course Sandy was referring to American evangelicals in the sense that we would recognize them, as opposed to the media label for a heterogeneous group that, on the whole, probably has more in common with Hillsong than with us.

Could you be more specific?  What don’t you like about the way the American “Evangelical Right” have opposed abortions?  What should we avoid?  Or is it any actual opposition that you object to (other then Academic opposition)?

I’m not having a go at you - I just don’t know why it doesn’t “bode well” to call for action against abortion.

Mike

Mike Doyle - 14 November 2008 11:50 AM

Gordon Cheng - 14 November 2008 10:02 AM

I think this sort of thing is worth promoting in our political context. What do others think?

Hey Gordo - could you tease this out a little - what do you mean?

I suppose that it is worth promoting is, to me, so self evident, I get confused by the notion of people not thinking it is worth promoting.  Of course - how to promote it is a question that is more difficult to answer.

Mike, 2 attitudes would cause people to think we shouldn’t promote this view.

The first is that Christians should be apolitical, and I have some sympathy for this view. The government is there to govern, and even when it is the Roman empire, it is to be obeyed (Rom 13:1).

The second is that there are other questions that are more important, and (often allied with this) a view that changing public policy on abortion won’t make a great deal of difference to the number of abortions.

Gordon Cheng - 15 November 2008 06:54 AM

2 attitudes would cause people to think we shouldn’t promote this view.

The first is that Christians should be apolitical, and I have some sympathy for this view. The government is there to govern, and even when it is the Roman empire, it is to be obeyed (Rom 13:1).

The second is that there are other questions that are more important, and (often allied with this) a view that changing public policy on abortion won’t make a great deal of difference to the number of abortions.

I must say I profoundly disagree with these two opinions that Gordon posits (but doesn’t own for himself - if I read him correctly)

The only way I could agree with the first point is to adopt a very narrow view of what is meant by “apolitical” - the view that the Church as in institution should not align with a particular political party - that much I could agree with.

If we understand the point to mean that Christians stay out of politics and therefore leave the field wide open to secular humanists, special interest groups, Muslims, etc on the basis of Romans 13, then we better tell Jim Wallace and ACL to disband because we are retiring to our little pietistic cocoons, perhaps hoping to hang on til Jesus returns.

I find such a position totally indefensible, ahistorical, unbiblical and uncaring.

Regarding abortion, just what are the more important issues? OK I can think of evangelism, pastoral care of our own as important issues, but more important than doing something to, at the very least, slowing the killing of the unborn?

To say that changing public policy on abortion won’t make a great deal of difference to the number of abortions is nonsense. Britain’s rate of abortions is two thirds Australia’s. Why? Public policy has nothing to do with that? Requiring mandatory referral to independent counselling prior to an abortion, introducing a 3 day cooling off period, putting in place anti coercion legislation won’t reduce the abortion rate? Really?

The trouble is that the people who wash their hands on an issue like abortion are the people who don’t couldn’t care less about doing something for women caught with an unlooked for/unwanted pregnancy, women who suffer depression, inability to form relationships, etc, etc as a result of pregnancies.

Just who cares for such women? I’ll tell you - those who are willing to enter the public domain and fight for the unborn and the women involved, and they just don’t campaign against abortion but they go out and do practical things in support of the unborn and traumatised women. In Victoria we have 8 pregnancy advisory services run by pro life church agency/christian groups. I imagine Anglicare is doing this kind of work in NSW. The Moore College student initiative is to be applauded.

As a ps to the above entry, I can advise that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Victoria has called a day of prayer and solemn public fasting in all its churches for Sunday, the 30th November in view of the sad state of affairs in Victoria in accordance with the (Westminster) Directory of Worship.

The day will conclude with a combined service of contrition, confession and intercession at 6 pm in The Scots Church, Cnr Collins and Russell Sts., Melbourne. This service will be open to fellow Christians who might wish to join us.

Mike Doyle - 14 November 2008 01:22 PM

Could you be more specific?  What don’t you like about the way the American “Evangelical Right” have opposed abortions?  What should we avoid?  Or is it any actual opposition that you object to (other then Academic opposition)?

What should we avoid? Looking at the American “Evanglical” experience, I’d suggest avoiding becoming so singularly focused on one issue to the exclusion of all others that we end up whoring our moral authority out to morally bankrupt politicians who pay mere lip service to said issue. When such passion overtakes reason and becomes an ideological crusade, mere lip service gets confused for progress, and nothing much happens.

My deep cynicism towards citing US “evangelicals” as some kind of example to look up to in any regard is not due to some opposing ideological position, but a pragmatic concern about their utter and complete failure both morally and pragmatically.

They sold their soul, and they got very little in return.

I suggest we not follow a similar path.

There was a large study done a little while back that concluded “A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.”

If, however, there are evidence-based approaches that reduce abortions, then by all means we should pursue them.

Unfortunately, ideological anti-abortion warriors (in the US particularly) have often argued for things which would lead to more abortions, not less, while also trying to argue against abortion.

So that sounds like a helpful suggestion....

whatever approaches we take, we need to work hard at making sure they are aimed at reducing abortion, not just a legislative approach.

I’m sure legislation has a place (as it covers more than just outlawing something) - but other approaches are also important. Education, caring for the victims, alternative options, appropriate counseling, making keeping a baby as easy as possible etc.

Mike

Luke Stevens - 15 November 2008 03:33 PM

Unfortunately, ideological anti-abortion warriors (in the US particularly) have often argued for things which would lead to more abortions, not less, while also trying to argue against abortion.

The point I would make about this is that they has been something of a parting of the ways between pro life people.

The “ideological anti-abortion warriors” that Luke mentions, argue for no abortion full stop. As I reported in my article on the recent debates in Victoria, several pro life MPs I spoke with, one Labor, one coalition, said they could have won the debate but for antics of some of this group, though I hasten to add most conducted themselves well. This group is represented by groups like Right to Life, Endeavour Forum, Australian Family Association and Saltshakers.

The second group whilst opposing abortion as strongly as the first group was prepared in addition to argue for those actions that support women that I mentioned in post #8 knowing that no Government in the current circumstances is going to outlaw abortion. This group was made up of church linked groups plus ACL with Family Values Australia bridging both groups. (The second group to which I belonged was not very popular with the first group).

For a Government to ban abortion, and let’s remember a Government did precisely that in early 19th C Britain, would require nothing short of a profound, deep working religious revival as in fact occurred in the 18th and 19th Cs.

Bans on abortion aren’t a historical idiosyncrasy. Predominately Roman Catholic countries such as Brazil maintain bans on abortion (and contraception provided by the state) thanks in part to pressure from Catholic bishops. Yet abortion rates are some of the highest in the world, and hundreds of thousands of women are hospitalized every year due to the unsafe way abortions are performed.

That’s what I find so baffling about the anti-abortion lobby’s position on banning abortion (which I note is still an ideal for your group David - the difference between you and the other group is just on the realistic possibility of it happening) - it doesn’t make it go away. It doesn’t even correlate to the number of abortions performed.

For people who seem to care an awful lot about the problem, they seem to be almost superhuman in their ability to refuse to understand or acknowledge its causes and effects, and therefore do much about it.

It really takes a great deal of effort, as shown by the American experience, to get that many people so passionate about an issue and yet accomplish so little.

But, like I said earlier, if there are evidence-based means of abortion reduction, then we should pursue them. But we shouldn’t pursue nice-sounding, ineffective, ideological clap-trap that seems to have dominated the issue in other countries.

Luke Stevens - 15 November 2008 05:50 PM

Bans on abortion aren’t a historical idiosyncrasy. Predominately Roman Catholic countries such as Brazil maintain bans on abortion (and contraception provided by the state) thanks in part to pressure from Catholic bishops. Yet abortion rates are some of the highest in the world, and hundreds of thousands of women are hospitalized every year due to the unsafe way abortions are performed.

Do you have real numbers to back that?  I’m genuinely interested, as I’ve heard the claim made by some that banning abortions will put thousands of women in hospital (or the morgue).  The statements feel like they way overstate the issue - but some hard data would be helpful.

Mike

David Palmer - 15 November 2008 12:32 PM

I must say I profoundly disagree with these two opinions that Gordon posits (but doesn’t own for himself - if I read him correctly)

No, that’s right, I think they’re iniquitous, for various different reasons.

[edit:]

For example, I’m dissatisfied with an argument that says ‘making it illegal won’t work’. This ignores some important questions about the relationship between law and morality.

Making homicide illegal may not stop someone being killed either, but presumably we still think—on moral grounds as much as anything else—that homicide ought to be illegal. The task then becomes to back up legislation with other types of action.