Comment (25)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggA question of conscience
Why are pro-choice activists so dismissive of freedom of conscience?
Some older Americans may
remember a lugubrious Hollywood melodrama set in Melbourne about a
nuclear holocaust. Everyone dies, mostly from suicide. It certainly
left its mark on Ava Gardner, the leading lady. “On The Beach
is a story about the end of the world,” she told the press, “and
Melbourne sure is the right place to film it.” This is a remark
often quoted in Australia, though mostly in Sydney.
But at the moment, for some Melburnians, it seems about right. A bill has sailed through the lower house of the parliament of the state of Victoria which removes abortion from the criminal code and allows unrestricted abortion up to 24 weeks. If the doctor secures the approval of a colleague, he can do an abortion up to the time of birth.
The bill still hasn’t
passed the upper house, where it will face stiff opposition. But it
could succeed. The state Premier says, without any irony, that Victorians will know by Christmas.
One of the most objectionable features of this legislation is that it effectively removes doctors’ right to conscientious objection. It requires doctors-who-won't to refer women to doctors-who-will. Furthermore, "in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman”, the doctor must perform it.
Of course, the legalisation of abortion is the core of the bill. That is awful enough. But denying freedom of conscience in so a transcendental matter as taking a human life has its own importance. And those who crafted the bill were ruthless in ensuring that there would be no escape. Objecting doctors will have to conform or face the consequences.
Surely conscientious objection is a basic human right? For most things, in Victoria, it is. But not for abortion. Two years ago the state adopted a “Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities” which guaranteed its citizens "freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief". However, it also specified that "nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction".
What I found baffling is that Victorian MPs cared so little about conscientious objection. Australia is supposed to be a democracy. How could they be pro-choice about abortion but anti-choice about conscience?
Fortunately, Lesley Cannold enlightened me. Ms Cannold is a well-known figure around the traps in Melbourne, as a bioethicist, journalist and president of Pro-Choice Vic. In a scathing opinion piece in the Melbourne Age, she denounced pro-life doctors who are more concerned about protecting their right to impose their values on women than observing their obligation to help them.
As I read on, I suddenly grasped why Ms Cannold was having conniptions. It is because she has redefined freedom of conscience to make it mean something different from what it has meant for 2500 years. "The right to act according to the dictates of our conscience is founded in the value of autonomy,” she says. “Autonomy means self-rule. An autonomous person is one who is free to direct her life according to her own values."
In short, Ms Cannold is a relativist. The content of the values she describes is utterly personal, making it impossible to test them in a rational debate. Hence, her kind of conscience makes arbitrary, even capricious, choices. It is just a whim, like choosing between Colgate and Ipana, or painting your bathroom Autumn Peach or Twilight Rose, or ordering mango or chocolate chip ice cream.
The traditional view of conscience is quite different. Only a malfunctioning conscience is capricious. A well-oiled conscience makes its choices based on reason and evidence, not on whimsy. Doctors who object to abortion, for instance, regard it as obeying the principle of "first do no harm", especially to the sick and vulnerable. They defend their view with abundant medical, sociological and psychological evidence. They are not imposing their values; they are choosing a rationally-justifiable good.
Even the Greeks, long before Christianity, saw conscience as rational act. In the classic argument for obedience to a higher law, Antigone, in Sophocles's play, defies the king's commands. “I did not think your edicts strong enough / To overrule the unwritten unalterable laws,” she states. She dies rather than disobey her conscience. I can't imagine Cannold and the Victorian MPs who voted for this bill dying for their conscience. It makes no sense to be martyred for choosing your favourite ice cream.
So, in Cannold's scheme of things, if values are relative and conscience is irrational, then there is no point in debating about the truth. What matters is seizing the levers of power to impose your own values as fast as possible. In other words, to establish a dictatorship of relativism. And that's exactly what pro-choice activists are hoping to do in Victoria.
I suspect that this brutal battering of freedom of conscience is part and parcel of the pro-choice ideology. Abortion is hard to justify with facts. It clearly is the taking of an innocent human life. To deny that, your will has to hogtie your capacity for reasoning things out. No wonder abortion was removed from freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights -- because it is rationally indefensible. Its only shield against inquiry and criticism is power. So that's the secret of why Victorian MPs don't give a toss about their constituents' freedom of conscience. If you accept abortion, you probably don't believe in truth. And if you don't believe in truth, you won't think conscientious objection is worth the hassle.
Thanks Maryse, much appreciated. By the time you sent this I had already emailed all of the members, I only got about five replies, two pro- life, one anti- life and one undecided. Prayer is so important at this time. As our parish priest pointed out this weekend, if Vic falls, most of Australia will probably fall too.
Want to point out something too Maryse, please be very careful when blaming women (Eve) squarely for abortion. Family coercion and male irresponsibility are also just as much to blame, repeat JUST AS MUCH as the other reasons you offer. Of course feminism, communism and materialism are the other offenders. Then, we can blame bleeding heart politicians, who as you say just tow the party line and parrot fashion those mantras.
Maryse Usher, it is clear that society is divided on this issue. The sad aspect of this Bill is the intent to criminalise people who, till now, were considered to be law-abiding citizens. In the process of decriminalising abortion the pollies should not criminalise those who choose not to be participants of this practise.
No Victorian went to jail for aborting a baby - although it was/is illegal - but I have no doubt that, if this present Bill is passed, conscentious objectors would be punished. If this were to happen then how different would we be from the Chinese government whom we criticise so much.
Amy, if you’re still reading, here is the link to the Members of the Victorian Legislative Council. Please feel free to email them - nice polite emails, of course. MPs have remarked they have received letters and email from all over the world. Yours just might be the one to convince an MLC to vote the right way against this diabolical bill.
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/mlcs.html
I have to say there is a much better class of posters than on the Melbourne University-sponsored Online Opinion site where Michael’s article is also featured. Given the lurid and low standard of offerings by the Online posters, I guess most are students who, poor lambs, have been given no philosophical, historical nor bilogical education and must resort to repeating pro-abortion mantras and making personal attacks on those who are prolife. It occurs to me that those with a sound Christian faith can easily and instantly see, not only the evil of abortion but how its exponential consequences can almost destroy a society.
What we are seeing, I think, is Eve run amok. When women destroy their maternal hearts, society is poisoned by eroticism instead of being nurtured by good, chaste, powerful mothers.
To David Page,
Australia is a federation of states not unlike the US. Thus each state has its own system of government. The legislation that a state can pass is governed by our constitution as there is obviously a question of demarcation between the state and federal level.
Each state Parliament is bicameral consisting of a Legislative Assembly analogous to the House of Representatives and the Legislative Council which is considered a house of review and is analogous to the Senate.
Members are elected to the Legislative Assembly by electorates. Whoever receives a majority in their electorate wins the ‘seat’ and represents that electorate. The bill in the state of Victoria has passed through this house.
As yet it is still up for debate in the Legislative Council which members are elected to from a common ballot with all citizens of the state voting on the same set of candidates. The method for election to this house is via proportional representation.
Ronk, the bill has passed the Legislative Assembly but is still being debated in your State’s upper house. I have read that the non-religious Australian Medical Association shares your concern. It is clear that many Libs who fight for freedom of choice are not keen to offer this same freedom to those who wish to choose differently. But, be prepared for a series of laws with each one going further than the one before. This strategy that has been used before by activists for different causes. This is how they implemented their plan with human embryos. If they had started of with cloning humans, the population would have opposed it. However, the first step was to allow experiments with surplus embryos - which were destined to die anyway, they said. (Japs did this with some prisoners of war using the same line of reasoning). The next step went beyond surplus embryos. They then sanctioned cloning. In some countries they have ‘progressed’ even further - creating designer babies and human-animal hybrids. So, it is best to resist this Bill - as is - right now.
Ronk, The law seems to have a political bent. Requiring a doctor who has never done an abortion to do one in an emergency seems quite mad. The doctor would probably end up killing the mother as well. There are extremists, though, on both sides of this issue. In my country laws have been passed, and, so far, stricken down by the courts, that would forbid the morning after pill to rape victims. Those attempts were also political nonsense.
David Page, Australia’s political system is a federation of States broadly similar to the USA. But if you’re asking how this gobsmackingly evil and stupid legislation managed to get the support of a clear majority of Victoria’s democratically elected MLAs, I’m afraid I have no explanation. I can only hang my head in shame at being an Australian.
Could someone please give me fairly easy instructions on how to contact Vic Upper House ministers. I am a WA voter however so I don’t know if I am eligible, so to speak, to make comment.
The answer is found in a 2000-year-old writing. According to it, if one acts against natural law, one must attempt to justify his actions. Calling right wrong and wrong right is the usual justification.
As someone who made the choice to have an abortion nearly 30 years ago, I live with the knowledge everyday that I murdered my son in the process. Abortion is murder - there is no getting around that.
Could someone explain the Australian political system to me?
Dear Patient,
I do not kill children. Due however to draconian legislation, I am compelled to give you a list of murderers who will kill your child with Government approval.
You are not compelled to kill your infant child. There are many alternatives that respect your descendents right to life, while providing you the relief you seek.
Helpful contacts:
XYZ Adoption service…
Birthright…
Licensed Child Killing Physicians.
Dr. X
Dr. Y
This list complies with Act 123,,,,
No endorsement of any organization or person on this list is implied.
I understand that no endorsement of any organization or person on this list is implied, and I agree to indemnify and save harmless Dr. (Me) against any action resulting from my receipt of this list
I have always been impressed with the enemy’s use of “Pro-Choice”. They don’t really mean choice. They don’t really want anyone to “choose” for life. They want folks to feel compelled to murder most of their babies so that all murderers will feel justified or vindicated in their “choice” of murder. I think a key word in the commentary is “autonomy”. “There is nothing new under the sun,” to quote Solomon, and humans have always tended to want to be autonomous; and autonomy means I have the right (or wrong) to what I please, when I please and how I please, even, and especially, as it pertains to my relationship with God. I think the quintessential illustration in regard to autonomy is in Isaiah fourteen, where Nebuchadnezzar’s downfall is being described. “You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the most High.” This is probably also a reflection of Satan’s fall; but clearly shows the felt need for autonomy; which Adam and Eve also felt a need for.
To adowebale oriku,
There is no lack of supernatural element on both sides of this issue as evinced by the tens of thousands of women who supposedly died in “back alley” abortions in Canada before 1969 (when Pierre Trudeau, recently voted “the worst Canadian” by the readers of the Beaver magazine, made abortion legal and unlimited in this country), and which later turned out to be pure fantasy created by pro-abortionists to influence the public opinion. Just like Nigerian babies, these imaginary “victims” still surface in the media.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >