Abortion?
By Petrus Simons and Leanne Whitfield
In 1977 the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act was passed. It came into effect on 1 April 1978. Under this Act abortion is still a crime, unless two certifying consultants agree that legal grounds apply. If they believe that the health of the pregnant woman is endangered by the pregnancy, an abortion is approved, provided it does not occur after 20 weeks. Recently, Ms Steve Chadwick, Labour List MP, has been preparing a private members bill permitting abortion-on-demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy.
Pro-life people believed that the provisions of the 1977 Act would prevent a normalisation of abortion. Sadly, they were wrong. In 1976, when reporting became obligatory, 4,682 abortions were reported, in 1980 5,945, rising to 11,068 in 1990 and 16,103 in 2000. From 2003 onward it has fluctuated between 18,000 and 19,000. Since the early 2000s around 25 percent of pregnancies have been ending in abortion.
Very often, approval is given on the basis of a threat to the psychic/mental health of the woman concerned. However, the very large number of abortions so approved, suggest that the ground is invoked to circumvent the strict meaning of the Act.
Professor David Fergusson of Otago University, has followed the lives of 1265 Kiwis born in 1977 (630 women) in Christchurch. 25 women had had at least one abortion by age 25. In 2005, the study found that women who had abortions subsequently had significantly higher mental health problems (incl. depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviour and substance abuse) than those who had not become pregnant and those who gave birth (Dominion Post, 7 Jan 2006, A15). The data confirm the results of surveys showing that about 70 percent of women, who have had an abortion, suffer from post-abortion trauma.
Abortions are never risk-free. A Canadian study (published September 2009) showed that the risk of premature birth was 36 percent higher for women who had previously had a first or second trimester abortion, and for women who had had more than one abortion, the risk was 93 percent higher, compared to women who had not had abortions (Dominion Post, 5 Nov. 2009, A10).
Pro-choice advocates have always seen the restrictions of the Act as an unnecessary hurdle. Sometimes they argue that in thinly populated areas it is much more difficult to get an abortion certified than in major centres and that this is inequitable.
However this may be, 18,000 plus abortions a year suggest that the hurdles must be very minor indeed. Our rate exceeds that of countries with high rates of abortion such as the USA, Sweden and Australia.
The key problem is that for many an abortion has become another medical procedure. It is seen as a technical solution to a problem. The widespread use of abortion puts pressure on those who believe that their being pregnant is a problem, to seek abortion as a solution.
Even when a pregnancy is joyfully accepted modern scanning technology may show up a potential problem such as Down's syndrome. Often, this leads to the heart-breaking decision to abort the baby. As a result there has been a decrease in the number of people born with such a condition. The irony is that a great deal more can be done for them than in the past, so that they are able to make a much greater contribution to society. We should ask whether our society is happier or poorer as a result? We ask this question, realising that parents of intellectually handicapped children bear a heavy burden. Nobody would wish such a burden on anyone.
The steep increase in abortions since the 1977 Act has coincided with an equally steep increase in the number of crimes against persons. Is this a coincidence? We doubt it in the belief that the two reflect a change in perception of what it means to be human.
If we get used to relying on modern technology to prevent and solve all problems, we may forget what love is all about: considering and treating those around us who are invalid, intellectually handicapped, or sick as if they were Christ himself. He is the only human since Adam and Eve left Paradise, without any flaws. Each one of us carries the marks of sin, including physical and mental flaws. More importantly, we may confess that Christ has taken all of our burdens on Himself when He went to the cross and rose again on the third day. He, who could not do violence to anybody, was violently murdered in our place.
Christian love we should try to use the best technology available to preserve life and to heal what can be healed even in utero, so as to promote the sanctity of life. We should be thankful for what has become possible in this respect. Life itself, however, will remain beyond our scientific/technological grasp. It is truly a gift from God.
So, what about Ms Steve Chadwick's private members bill? Chris Trotter was rightly upset by this attempt to make it even easier to get an abortion than it already is (Dominion Post, 9 July 2010, B6). He confessed that, personally, after much 'pushing and shoving' he had come to the conclusion, given the responsibility, that the decision to have an abortion should be made by the woman herself and not by others.
She who is pregnant is obviously the most directly involved. But, she is never the only one. Normally, a male person has something to do with it. The two are part of families, have friends, may belong to a faith community, have been educated, counselled by doctors, etc. She who makes the decision does so as a person embedded in a set of cultural practices. Her baby is not just her own, but a separate person with distinct DNA. Overarching all this, there is the Giver of life, whether acknowledged as such or not.
Our culture is thoroughly imbued with a technicistic/economistic spirit. We reduce human beings to machine-like bodies governed by brains that seek to maximise physical and mental outputs. Since we happen to be much more than machines, we get into many problems.
We hope that the church leaders of New Zealand will make a strong stand, defend the sanctity of life and call for a renewal of our culture inspired by the love of Christ. They should be able to do so in the knowledge that their flocks are right behind them in confession and practice.
