Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, writes in the Observer commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion act.
Many supporters of the 1967 Act started from a strong sense of taking for granted the wrongness of ending an unborn life. What people might now call their ‘default position’ was still that abortion was a profoundly undesirable thing and that a universal presumption of care for the foetus from the moment of conception was the norm.
But the rapidly spiralling statistics – nearly 200,000 abortions a year in England and Wales – tell their own story. We are not now dealing with a relatively small number of extreme cases (and clinical advances have in fact reduced the number of strictly medical dilemmas envisaged in 1967 act’s supporters). When we hear, as in a recent survey reported in the Lancet, that one-third of pregnancies in Europe end in abortion, we may well ask what has happened.
What happened actually started way back in 1930. Before 1930, the ‘default position’ of all the main Christian bodies was that contraception was wrong and constituted a grave evil. That was, of course, until the CofE decided that our god-given fecundity was something to be avoided and controlled. Many wise people at that time and in the decades following warned of the slippery slope that follows from separating the marital act (a quaint expression these days) from procreation. SO it should not really be a surprise to anyone to see how far we slid into the pit.
The Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer finds irony in the Archbishop’s comments as well.
As a Roman Catholic priest I see a genuine irony in his comments. At one point Dr. Williams asks, ‘We may well ask what has happened’ in regard to this slippage. For a Roman Catholic what has happened is all too clear: In 1930 The Church of England was the first Christian church to allow the separation of procreation from the marital act in the Lambeth decision on contraception and gave endorsement, even if unwittingly, to future policies which would allow the killing of children. It’s a small step from excluding children from sex to expelling children from the womb.” Fr. Euteneuer said.
“The ‘slippage’ Dr. Williams speaks of is precisely what Pope Pius XI warned of in the Papal encyclical, Castii Conubii, issued in response to Lambeth, and what Pope Paul VI reiterated in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. These popes said that the widespread use of contraception would lead to ‘a general lowering of morality’. By now we see this in our entire society. On the social as well as the personal levels, contraception and abortion are two sides of the same bad penny.” Fr. Euteneuer said.
So when these mainline protestant churches look at the horror of abortion and ask “how did this happen?’, they should know that a mirror would come in handy.
October 26, 2007 at 8:59 pm
If abortion is such a horror then what type of jail time would be appropriate for women who have them, were they made illegal.
October 27, 2007 at 5:49 am
How could one even ask about appropriate jail sentences for women who have abortions? In this day and age we should be well aware that most women are victims as well in this, victims of families, husbands, and boyfriends who just want the “problem” to go away. I am morally certain that the women involved have already been sentenced to a lifetime of regret. The sentencing of those who “love them” will have to be left up to God. Fr. Michael
October 28, 2007 at 1:02 am
Well if you aren’t going to have any legal penalties then what’s the point of criminalizing abortion?
October 28, 2007 at 1:08 am
Bill, jail time is reserved for the abortionist who swoops in to take advantage of the frightened and vulnerable pregnant woman (often just a girl) for a tidy profit. She, too, is a victim in his crime.
October 28, 2007 at 1:14 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
October 28, 2007 at 1:15 am
Well, I’m sorry in this society we mete out punishments to those who suborn murder as well. And unless you want the penalty for having an abortion to be commensurate with that of suborning murder, I am unconvinced that you really believe a full human life was taken in the process. There are lots of times when people commit crimes in fragile emotional states, it doesn’t lessen their guilt.
October 28, 2007 at 1:35 am
Bill, so you are sorry that people who suborn murder get punnished???
I do not know what the penalty for suborning murder might be, but I’m pretty sure that I would be happy for abortionists to face that penalty. As I understand it, in criminal law, it is the state suing the defendant, because the defendant has commited a crime that hurts society. Does the victim of a con artist get punnished, or does the victim get a plea bargan so that the state can get the con artist off the street to spare future con victims? The state is not interested in the poor idiot who got conned, just as the state would not be interested in prosecuting the woman who goes to an abortionist, but rather getting the abortionist off the street.
October 28, 2007 at 1:43 am
Are you serious? How is a woman being conned when she asks and then pays for an abortion? Are you saying that you have such insight into the minds of others that there of no way that a woman could in full possession of her mental faculties ask for an abortion? Come on. How does an abortionist con someone? He doesn’t convince her or pressure her, he simply performs a medical procedure as asked. I am pretty sure that the penalty for soliciting murder is the same as committing it. Do you want doctors who preform abortions put to death or life in prison because after all according to you murder is what they are committing. Do you want that for the women?
I am not saying I want people who solicit murder to get off, I am saying that unless you can agree to these consequences for those involved in an abortion, you don’t really believe a murder has been committed. I am pro choice by the way. I am trying to illustrate the incoherence of your position.
October 28, 2007 at 3:26 am
bill,
What we talk about here is the awful nature of abortion. We believe that with abortion there are many victims.
The politics and legalese will be sorted out. We believe abortion is the murder of a person. That has a moral element to it. That element is the one under discussion on this site.
Or do you not believe in morality at all?
October 28, 2007 at 3:46 am
Bill,
One purpose of the law is to protect the vulnerable. I compared abortionists to con men only to point out that both take advantage of vulnerable members of society, and in both cases those taken advantage of ought not to have the book thrown at them. I did not say that abortionists are con men.
In some instances the crime, itself, proves the mental capacity of the criminal. I do not need any special insight into her mind to know that a woman who seeks out and pays someone to rip her child limb from limb from her body does not have full possession of her mental faculties, or else she does not have a clear understanding of what an abortion does.
Abortion is murder. It deserves the legal penalty of murder. Any woman who would procure an abortion is, as I said above, either duped about what she is doing, or mentally incapable at the time, and therefore not held to the same standard as the abortionist.
So, inside the woman, the abortionist is “simply perform[ing] a medical procedure”. One moment later and outside the mother, were that abortionist to perform the exact same “medical procedure”, all of the civilized world would rise up as one in condemning it as the most abhorent torture and the cold blooded murder of a defenseless and innocent human being.
So in the eyes of current law, the reality of human life hinges upon location–inside: parasitic clump of cells; outside: SHAZAM! human being. Now that’s an incoherent position.
October 28, 2007 at 4:04 am
Matthew Archbold,
You wrote, “We believe abortion is the murder of a person.” This statement is not really true.
That abortion IS murder has nothing to do with what we believe. It is an objective fact. Simply because Bill might believe that the sun is cool does not mean that we, then, believe that the sun is hot. THE SUN IS HOT. When we use the term “we believe” we are allowing those who reject reality to draw us into their world of unreality. Don’t know about you, but that’s a world I’m not interested in spending much time in…
October 28, 2007 at 11:24 am
I believe in God. His reality or unreality does not depend on my belief. But I still say “I believe in God” even though He is, I believe, an objective fact. My subjectiveness has nothing to do with it. That is my perception.
I understand your point but the emphasis of my statement was on the person-hood.
October 28, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Matthew Archbold,
Yes, I so agree with you. It is the personhood that matters, but using the “we belive” phrase lowers the reality of the personhood of a child in the womb into the realm of opinion, where it becomes no more relevant than Bill’s opinion. You believe it’s a person and he believes it’s not a person. You are equals.
About believing in God, a subtle but important difference exists between “believing IN”, and “believing THAT”. I believe IN God; I know THAT He exists. I can know that He exists and still not believe in Him.
I know this is subtle, and I, and I presume all pro-lifers, certainly understand exactly what you were saying, but Bill can use imprecise language to make you look wishy-washy. This very language is what allows the Nancy Pelosis and Ted Kennedys of the world to vote for abortion–my belief that abortion is murder is just my belief, an odd counter-cultural opinon I hold, but some of my constituents disagree with this belief, so I must vote according to their will…
I did not really mean to take you to task, though what I wrote does sound a bit that way. I was only trying to show you that sometimes a “we believe” phrase can underdut the truth of what you are saying.
Peace!
October 28, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I didn’t take your point to be confrontational so don’t worry. I think it’s a subtle point you’re making. I could probably argue it both ways. But we’re toying with subtleties while we agree on everything that means anything. thanks for the comments. (Although if you want to be on the side of right you’re better off just agreeing with me on most things. 😉
October 28, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Another excellent post. Thank you.
October 28, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I have linked to this on my blog.
October 29, 2007 at 12:47 am
Honestly the idea that the poor woman doesn’t know what she is doing seems rather sexist to me. Some women are in fact clueless to the child developing inside them, many are not. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they are willfully ignoring reality.
Make abortion illegal. It is the inhuman murder of a defenseless child. But for crying out loud don’t pander the “poor woman”. If a woman were to circumvent the law to the point of procuring an illegal abortion she should at least be charged with accessory to murder or other charges as would fit her age and general mental state. But don’t fall into the crazy-land that says all women who have abortions are witless or clueless. Society has lied and said abortion is wrong. If we live long enough to see this wrong made illegal there can and should be consequence to the crime for all involved.
October 29, 2007 at 12:50 am
that should have read “Society has lied and said abortion isn’t wrong.”
October 29, 2007 at 2:29 am
darcee,
Thank you for that point. You are right. I am the Anonymous who took on Bill, and your thoughts are right on–the woman seeking the abortion should not get off scott free.
October 29, 2007 at 1:46 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.