The Iron Dome missile defence system that protects Israel is highly impressive. However, we’ve seen that it can still let missiles through as Iran has launched a sustained barrage of ballistic missiles and drones against Israel. Christian defences against a culture of death at both the beginning and end of life may not be seen as anywhere effective as the Iron Dome. Still, over the years, there have been successful defences against that culture. I’ve argued that this means at some point, we will probably see legislation get through on euthanasia. This week, we saw something new get through on abortion.
The House of Commons have voted to decriminalise abortion up until birth. Specifically, the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill is intended to ensure that a woman will not be prosecuted where she seeks to use drugs to facilitate abortion herself. The amendment is not intended to repeal the current limitations on abortion including the requirements in the 1967 abortion Act.
It is important for us as Christians to understand exactly what the Law is attempting to achieve here and what it is not. It’s also important to be aware of what the potential impact, even where not explicitly intended might be. Let’s have a look at what has happened.
Abortion is currently a criminal offence in England under the 1861 ffences against the Person act which says at Section 58
“Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, and whosoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or shall unlawfully use any instrument or other means whatsoever with the like intent, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable F2 … to be kept in penal servitude for life “[1]
Then at Section 59 it says:
“Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable F5 … to be kept in penal servitude F5 … ]”[2]
Additionally, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act (1929) says at Section 1:
“Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:”[3]
The 1967 Abortion Act does not decriminalise abortion. Instead, it provides exceptions where an abortion may be permitted and so not subject to prosecution. It says at S1:
“Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—…”[4]
There then follows a series of scenarios where abortion is permitted.
The current amendment is intended not to change that situation. A briefing sheet argues that
“The changes proposed here would have no impact on the provision of abortion care, or the laws that govern doctors, nurses and midwives.”[5]
Rather, the specific aim is to ensure that women do not end up being in prison.. The aim is to ensure that this does not happen. It is important in our reaction to the amendment that we get this. The amendment is not, in that respect, directly making a statement about the rights and wrongs of abortion, unlike an amendment from Stella Creasy which was not called but would have made abortion a legal, human right for women.
This means that we need to be alert to the different reasons behind the amendment and why people will have voted for it. For some, it will be that they see this as being solely concerning women’s rights. They will not see it as being to do with another human life. However, there is also a particular concern for those seeking an abortion that might be considered vulnerable and/or could to varying degrees be considered as victims. Consider as an equivalent matter, the concern that some people have to decriminalise prostitution, not to let kerb crawlers off the hook but to protect the prostitutes who have often already been subject to significant harm. We need to be alert to vulnerability and the various reasons why women might find themselves seeking an abortion.
However, at the same time, there are reasons as to why we should argue that this amendment is the wrong move. First of all, it is worth noting that the focus is on the de-criminalisation of self-administered termination. However, restrictions are still in place for medics. The argument made for decrimilisation is that women should have access to safe abortions. Of course, there is nothing safe about any abortion for a baby but moreover, this change of law means that restrictions and controls on self-administration are removed meaning that it may seem easier to go down this route. Surely that is to reduce safety for women too.
Secondly, by its nature it does change things. It changes culture and attitude. The point of the 1862 and 1929 acts was and is that they recognise the unborn child as having life and personhood. Decriminalisation by simply removing the provision affecting mothers removes a specific responsibility that a mother has towards her unborn baby. In fact, it means that medical professionals outside of the family have a greater responsibility towards that child. But I would also argue that it means that because the culture changes, even those medical professionals are no longer being held to account for taking a life but rather for breach of accepted medical procedure and practice.
There is maybe a debate to be had about whether it is right to send mothers to prison because of abortion. However, surely that should be on a case by case basis. There should be ways of ensuring that vulnerable women are protected whilst upholding the value of life. It is important that this amendment is removed from the Bill as soon as possible.
However, what this also highlights for us, is the point I made at the start. Our attention over the past few weeks and months has been on other ethical issues and this enabled this amendment to get through without much serious attention. Even if it hadn’t been this specific case, then at some point we would have seen something coming in that moved forward the culture of death’s agenda. It is not enough to campaign on one or two specific issues and respond to attempts at legislation. We need to be making the case for a culture of life more loudly.
[1] Offences against the Person Act 1861
[2] Offences against the Person Act 1861
Faithroots 