Abortion is an emotional,painful and difficult subject. Few issues polarise the community so thoroughly.
Catholics have a total ban on all abortions,while Protestants generally oppose abortion,but accept that extreme circumstances make it tragic but necessary. Most people - Christian or not - are opposed to it as a method of birth control,but some consider abortion a better alternative than bringing an"unwanted"child into the world. Others see abortion as merely a surgical procedure.
I do not want to rehearse the basic arguments about abortion,but rather question the merits of legalising it. Should the Government,the courts,the law be involved in this issue at all,or should it be left purely to the patient and doctor to decide?
Not all matters of morality are matters of criminality. Adultery hurts individuals and society as a whole,but it is not considered criminal even though it is wrong on utilitarian,intuitive and Biblical grounds.
So why is abortion considered a crime? Is it not a matter of personal choice? The morally loaded language often used on both sides of the abortion debate - like"killing a baby"or"removing a scrap of tissue"- does not help in rational discourse.
A human foetus is not yet a baby,but is considerably more than a scrap of tissue. Abortion is not a matter of debating ordinary government policy. Rather,it is a matter of high moral order. An abortion kills a human foetal life. Not all killing is wrong,but any killing requires justification,especially when the victim is unable to protect themself.
Arguments that it is a woman's right to control her body do not deal,adequately,with the differences between the mother and the foetus. There are two lives for whom the mother is responsible. The question is whether her responsibility for the life of the foetus extends to making the decision of life and death,or whether her self-interest undermines the legitimacy of this decision. Should the state have some say in protecting this life from her?
There is little purpose in demonising those who oppose abortion by claiming they are imposing their morality on others,for the entire legal system is an imposition of morality on others. Rather than an anarchic jungle of society without law,our society imposes a moral system on individuals.
Our society uses a combination of Christian heritage,rational discussion,political democracy and judicial wisdom to guide its choices. On a range of issues,it has chosen to limit individual freedoms. On others,it has allowed the citizens to make their own choices. It is not unreasonable to make life and death issues involving a defenceless victim a matter of moral discussion,political decision and judicial wisdom.
Furthermore,decriminalising an activity has consequences. The Greens are still formulating their plan to have abortion removed from the Crimes Act,so it is hard to predict with certainty its effects. But over the past 50 years,several other matters of morality have been decriminalised,providing us with some guidance of what to expect.
Since the 1960s,censorship and gambling laws have been relaxed,and prostitution and homosexuality have been decriminalised. The results have been similar,and this isn't just the slippery slope argument,for to decriminalise is to legitimise.
Legitimising something is more than refraining from prosecuting offenders. If an activity is legitimate,it can be advertised,promoted,commercialised and taught positively in schools. After decriminalising prostitution,pages of advertisements for brothels appeared in the local papers. In legalising off-course betting and the casino,gambling ads became a normal part of society. In decriminalising homosexuality,school children were introduced to it as a normal lifestyle. By removing censorship laws we promoted the porn industry..
Those who see no moral problem with these matters may ask what my problem is. But many who voted at the time for"decriminalisation"had no idea what"legitimising"meant.
Even the laws that are not prosecuted can still serve a valuable purpose. They establish community standards:both educating and constraining behaviour. For abortion,they maintain the onus of proof on those who wish to abort,rather than on those who don't. The law as it stands protects parents,like those who tell me they feel pressured to have an abortion when advised of possible foetal abnormalities. They limit what can be advertised and promoted within the community. They give clear guidance to what is,and what is not,to be taught in schools. They prevent people profiteering from human suffering.
Nobody is suggesting that we go looking to prosecute those who are making the dreadful decision about abortion. But the present law reminds us that abortion is not a normal surgical procedure. In abortion,we are killing a foetal human life.
Phillip Jensen is dean of St Andrew's Anglican Cathedral,Sydney.