“Pure Evil”? Dangers in Christian responses to the decriminalisation of abortion for mothers

I’ve just written an article on the recent move to decriminalise abortion in the case of the mother. This will be published shortly. I have argued that the move is grievous, that it is something we do not want to see coming into law. However, I’ve expressed concern at how Christians have been responding to the amendment and I thought ti might be worth going into more detail on this first.

I think that there have been some helpful responses, a good example would be this article from the Christian Medical Fellowship which deals with the facts of the matter, seeks to understand the reasoning, shows compassion to women but also is clear as to why the law change is wrong and dangerous.  On the other hand, this article from James Mildred in Evangelicals Now and this one by David Robertson (The Wee Flea) are in my opinion, less helpful. 

Why do I find them unhelpful.  Well, firstly I think there’s an engagement in hyperbolic language.  Mildred’s article is headed “This Law change is evil, pure and simple” whilst David Robertson describes it as “absolute evil”.

It’s important when we see such strong terms used t o consider both what they are describing and what/who they maty be seen to describe.  Let’s be clear about this, abortion, the murder of babies in the womb is evil and so those who participate are participating in sin.  As well as causing the death of a little, vulnerable person, completely unable to defend themselves but evidence throughout the years is that it results in significant emotional harm to the mother as well as potential physical harm.

However, abortion is already in place.  This law is not introducing abortion, nor is it intended to significantly extend its access or extent.  In fact, it is not changing the status of abortion as a criminal act with some specified exemptions. Rather, it is exempting mothers from criminal culpability and prosecution.  Is that more evil than the act of abortion itself?  It is surely possible to consider abortion a moral evil whilst not believing that the mother herself should necessarily face criminal prosecution.  We similarly recognise that prostitution is a moral evil whilst recognising that there is legitimate debate over whether the prostitutes themselves should face prosecution or rather receive care and help.

How then are those kinds of headlines going to be heard and what are they going to be seen to apply to.  Well first, if all, I’ve already begun to allude to one risk. The emphasis seems to be on the evil being found in the potential way in which the scope of abortion will be extended.  So, when does abortion become particularly evil? Is it at week 25? Or is it one day before the child would have been born.  Surely we do not want to get into that kind of thinking.  We want to insist that abortion is not evil because of increased viability.  We certainly don’t want to make it about cuteness.

Secondly, “pure evil” may be seen to apply to the mums themselves in much the same way that the tabloid press have identified particular criminals as “pure evil”. Thirdly, it may be applied to the MPs who moved the amendments, spoke in favour and voted.  We need to be particularly careful about the language here baring in mind the risk we have seen of both violent threats and actual violence against MPs in recent years.  But what it does is it turns some people into monsters and separates out their sin from that of others and ourselves.

This links in to another problem with James Mildred’s article.  He writes on why the law change is happening:

“Sadly, it is the result of politicians’ desire to worship at the altar of autonomy. Inevitably, if you make human freedom your god, you will always prioritise those able to choose what they want. The casualties of this are those without a voice.”

In terms both of euthanasia and abortion, the pursuit of autonomy is significant, in fact his is at the root of all sin going back to Adam and Eve.  We all crave to be like God, to be autonomous.  However, to focus in purely on autonomy is rather simplistic and skates over other thinking and issues at stake.

Here is what was stated in the briefing paper from the MP moving the amendment:

“Women who seek to end their pregnancies outside the current law are doing so because they’re desperate. We know that many of these women are mothers already, and were in the most desperate of situations which deserved care and compassion, not punishment. Other women have been investigated after experiencing stillbirth, adding extreme stress to an already distressing experience. Examples include: • Seven police officers arrived at the home of a woman who had called an ambulance when her baby was born prematurely, about 18 months ago. They searched her bins and provided no assistance while she performed mouth-to-mouth on her unconscious child, who was still attached to her placenta by umbilical cord. Mother and baby survived; • A vulnerable 17-year-old girl presented to abortion services in the early days of the pandemic. She was unable to travel to a clinic on two occasions owing to Covid restrictions so passed the legal abortion limit and was referred to children’s services and antenatal care. Soon after, she delivered a stillborn baby at home. She was investigated by the police on suspicion of abortion law offences; • A woman was taken to hospital by ambulance owing to complications from early medical abortion medication that she was given after a medical consultation this year. She believed she was ten weeks pregnant, but it emerged she was actually at 19 weeks. Despite being within five weeks of the legal abortion limit when she was discharged from hospital in the early hours, she returned home to find a police cordon and officers searching her property.”[1]

Meanwhile the CMF article I mentioned above picks up on one particular case, that of Nicola Packer who had to wait four years for her case to come to court where she was cleared.[2]

“In summary, Ms Packer had never wanted a child and when, in November 2020, she was feeling unwell and took a pregnancy test that was positive, she immediately went online to book a termination. After telephone conversations, but without a physical examination or ultrasound scan to confirm her dates, she was prescribed ‘abortion pills by post’ to terminate her pregnancy at home. In the early hours of 7 November, she gave birth in her bathroom to what she now knows was a 22 to 26-week-old fetus. ‘Pills by post’ cannot be used legally beyond ten weeks’ gestation because of concerns for the mother, particularly the risk of haemorrhage, if used later. Packer was reported to the police and arrested at her hospital bedside. There followed over four years of investigations before the trial in May this year resulted in her acquittal. In essence, the court accepted that this was a tragic mistake; Ms Packer had believed herself to be only six weeks pregnant when she took the abortion tablets.

It is worth noting three things here.  First, that the law as it stands prior to the amendment coming into force affects vulnerable women who have lost a baby when  there is simply no connection to abortion.  Secondly there are women affected who are already victims and whilst we still would argue that abortion is not the answer, it becomes clear that they are not actively seeking to kill but may well be convinced that abortion is the only way out of their suffering or to prevent future suffering.  Thirdly, it seems that in many of these cases that if it does get to court then people are found not guilty.  They are not punished.  However, they have already experienced significant duress through police investigations and a particularly vulnerable time.  As someone once said of a different issue “the process itself is the punishment.” 

It seems that the aim here is primarily to prevent such situations.  Indeed, arguably, it is less about reducing the number of convictions for abortion as it is about removing the need for people to be subject to criminal investigation. My point is this, that we cannot (as with euthanasia) simply attribute the root cause purely to the worship of autonomy.  We should acknowledge a genuine desire to be compassionate.  This helps us then as Christians to start to think and talk about what true compassion looks like and to point people to the better story of the Gospel. 

At the same time, we need to pick up on another underlying issue.  We should be just as concerned about the relativisation of life, human dignity and rights.  Whilst some of those acting to abort their own baby may be more culpable than others, I have more sympathy for the rape victim than the person who simply didn’t want a child, we also need to pay attention to the way in which our culture has shaped thinking and mislead people. 

There is a danger that we might resort to shouting our anger and disgust and so fail to seek to make the compassionate argument for a different way.

---

[1] 4252

[2] I think that is the final example referred to above.

—

I’ve opened comments here as I note David Robertson has written a response to my article and I think there may be a few misunderstandings in the response. So, I’m happy for his readers to drop a comment here to challenge/question specific things and I’ll try and respond