Their Life in Our Hands

Last week there was a significant amount of news coverage of an article published by the British Medical Journal in their Journal of Medical Ethics. The article advocated what it termed 'after-birth abortion.' It was posted here but has since been removed from the website. It has done something to raise the temperature around the whole abortion issue, which tends to be less of a hot topic in the United Kingdom than other areas in the world. By way of example, the Daily Telegraph newspaper ran an article under the headline 'Killing Babies no different from abortion.'

The article argued that if a newborn was likely to place an "unbearable burden" on the family or society (for example in the case of disability or complex needs), it would be justifiable for the infant to be subject to an after-birth abortion. "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life." Our hope is that this whole sorry episode moves the debate in a better direction and bears fruit in legislation that will protect life from the point of conception.

Louise Adams is part of our church family at Harvest Glasgow and is is a qualified play worker for children with complex needs. At her personal blog last week she responded to the article. I thought it brought a useful perspective. here is what she wrote:

My thoughts today have been provoked by an article in the Sun newspaper. The article was about a couple of former Oxford University research associates who argued that the right to kill newborn children should be legalised. There isn't really much point in me elaborating on their claims as there is nothing that could have possibly helped them justify it. I often wonder why seemingly intelligent individuals come out with stuff like this. You sometimes wonder if they desire to go against all human morality in order to come across as being enlightened to some sort of notion that we are not smart enough to realise. Why is it so uncool to follow our conscience these days (and ultimately, God) and constantly try and second guess what our instinct and knowledge of right and wrong would tell us?

The part that stung me most about this article was the fact that they used disability as the example for slaughtering a child. This is a complete bone of contention with me when they use disabled children to justify things like abortion and now this. I am not claiming having a disabled child is easy and without its burdens and heartache- believe me, I have seen every facet of difficulty you could come up against. But since when does a disabled child equate to second best? And since when does it mean they do not deserve basic human rights? And since when does it mean they are not a completely precious creation, deserving of love and life? The article states that they should be allowed to kill a child if they put an 'unbearable burden' on their family or society. What?? How can you predict how much of a burden a child can be when they are minutes old? And yes, families have expressed in the past that having a disabled child can be a burden, but never unbearable. On the contrary the love these parents display can only be described as unconditional.

I always find this kind of thing hard to get my head around since children like these have been responsible for so many blessings I have received in my life. I also get very angry at this kind of thing because never once in my 8 years of working with disabled children have I came across one who is judgemental, or prejudiced, or pushes me aside because I have red hair, a sizeable nose or because I'm not a size 8. (Don't get me wrong, they have brushed me aside if the games I want them to play are mince. lol) These children can still make you laugh, make you feel loved and special and can still make you tilt your head to the side and sigh because they are so cute.

But this is the point, what is it about what these children can do for us? How they make us feel? How they will contribute to the family? Or how good looking or easy they will make our lives? The newpaper article stated that the academics claimed that "the interests of actual people over-ride the interest of merely potential people. Since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions".

What makes us so important that we can decide the mortality of a child? Having a child, knowing a child or working with a child is about what we can do for them, not the other way around. Isn't this the complete reflection of the way God is with us? Our relationship with God isn't about how great we are or the Great things we can do. Our salvation hangs on the fact because we weren't, Christ died for us. I was completely dead in my trespasses and useless and sinful, yet God took me as His. What Grace! How can we reject any child when they don't deserve it, when God doesn't reject us when we completely deserve it?

How can we treat a human life as disposable and completely meaningless when the creator of the universe finds little old me (and you) so completely precious. Did you know when God First loved you? Before the universe was made. Did you know who was with you and formed you and loved you when you were a seemingly 'meaningless' ball of cells in your mothers womb? Your heavenly father.

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
¹⁴ I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
¹⁵ My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
¹⁶ Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

¹⁷ How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
¹⁸ If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you.

Psalm 139: 13-18

Louise Adams blogs at I Have Grace