'Zoe's Law': So when does life begin?

A Post by Edwina Hine

For several months now the NSW Parliament has been discussing an issue broadly entitled "Zoe's Law". In essence the discussion has stemmed from a series of car accidents and assaults that resulted in mothers losing their unborn children. It would appear that the current state laws do not adequately address the protection of unborn children in cases of such trauma and crime, and that only the injury to the expectant mothers can be dealt with through the courts of Law.

When "Zoe's Law" was first proposed, most of the community saw the advantages of introducing such legislation. For most, it seemed only natural that when crimes result in a mother losing their unborn child, those that are found to be at fault are held to account. However, as the time draws near for the law to be debated in Parliament, it seems support for the bill is fading. The SMH reported this week that the NSW Law Society has joined the push to oppose the bill. They have written to all members of parliament stating
 

Changing the law so an unborn child is a ''living person'' under the Crimes Act would have broader consequences

The NSW Law Society are not the first to raise these concerns, not surprisingly the bill has been opposed for some time by the Pro-choice lobby who fear that 'Zoe's law' would also have a bearing on current laws regarding the termination of pregnancies. The discussion surrounding this issue is a sensitive one,  I was taken aback however when the NSW Law Society criticised "Zoe's Law",  as the Bill moves to define a 20 week old fetus as a living person. The Law Society goes as far as to say this definition is 'Arbitrary'.

Such a debate - is certainly a thought provoking one, I have found Megan Best's  article in Case # 17 'Living And Dying Ethically', entitled  "Embryo liberation" helpful as I have thought through some of the issues during this debate. Whilst the article specifically discusses the use of human embryos for research purposes, Megan's analysis covers the broader issue of life and whether it begins at conception or at a later time. Dr Best  covers the biblical aspects of the issue,  although her article actually begins with a clear analysis of the science behind conception. Best concludes that fertilization,

"… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte (egg). The embryo, from the time it is created, is a unified, unique, dynamic, self directed whole, not just a collection of cells."

Dr Best reminds us that Psalm 139 indicates that we are known to God from the moment we are in the womb, and perhaps more importantly, we are made in God's own image

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...

I  imagine, many of you like me, would shy away from engaging in the current debate surrounding 'Zoe's Law'. The issue is emotive, and will likely bring us into conflict with some of our friends and family. But I commend Dr Megan Bests article to Case readers, Christians cannot properly contribute to debate the proposed law changes unless they are well informed and understand the topic properly.

The article I reference in this post is available as a free download from the CASE Website. CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to become CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE.

Send CASE an email

Living and Dying Ethically

Photo courtesy of wiki commons

Frequently there are news items that challenge me and bring up various questions. It was little wonder therefore, that this weeks news regarding the expansion in distribution in the RU486 tablet ( which is prescribed to terminate early stage pregnancies) gave me pause for thought (SMH and Australian).

The debate surrounding the use of this medication, is a sensitive one, and has been bubbling away since around 2006 when the drug was first given a very limited release  in Australia. The 'Therapeutic Goods Administration' (TGA) recently decided to allow a wider use of the drug. This will no doubt see the discussion heat up again. This post will not cover the issue of abortion directly, I write though, as I have found a recent read through of  Case #17 entitled  "Living And Dying Ethically" quite timely as I think through many of the issues that arise from these recent news articles.


All the articles of  Case #17 were useful in light of  the current debate, and well worth a read. Megan Best's article entitled "Embryo Liberation" is very insightful. While it isn't about abortion, it examines the ethics surrounding the use of embryos for research, (after they have been discarded as potential IVF embryos). The article investigates the question of when life begins, exploring first the basic biology of conception. Best concludes that fertilization,

"… is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte (egg). The embryo, from the time it is created, is a unified, unique, dynamic, self directed whole, not just a collection of cells."

Megan Best explains that secular views concerning the issues surrounding the embryo debate come down to a matter of person-hood. She contends that human personhood is not merely a matter of biological conception. Secularists see personhood as demonstrated through such things as self awareness, a rational nature and the ability to exercise this nature. The question of personhood is also overridden by many in the debate, as they consider consequentialism (ie in short, the end justifies the means approach).

Our community has decided that, while the destruction of developing humans may been seen to be regrettable, the potential consequences of their destruction—medical cures through embryonic stem cell research, improved IVF, freedom to women through availability of some contraceptives and abortion—justify the use.

Finally Dr Best concludes her thesis with an investigation  into the biblical view surrounding the debate. In essence she states there is is no doubt that the Bible indicates that we have a relationship with God that originates in the womb, supporting her conclusion with various biblical references.

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. (Psalm 139:13-16)

As stated in the introduction of this post, the issues involved in the RU486 debate are challenging, emotive, and understandably we often wish to avoid the discussion altogether. However I would recommend a re-reading of Dr Megan Best's excellent article, as it clearly defines many of the views and history of the issues surrounding the debate. Increasing our understanding of all the relevant information and becoming more familar with all the facets of the discussion, will ensure we may better be informed, and be able to constructively contribute to future conversations regarding this most difficult topic.

The main article I reference in this post is available as free download from the CASE Website. CASE Associates receive Case magazine 4 times per year as part of their benefits. For blog followers who are yet to be CASE Associates you can sign up HERE or order a single copy HERE.

Edwina Hine (New College and CASE)

Prenatal Genetic Testing: A pandora's box?

In March while taking part in a conference run by CASE on Medical Ethics I was challenged in quite a personal way about the problems of prenatal genetic testing. I reported on the conference in a previous post (here) in which I offered a perspective on things that had challenged me, including a lunchtime conversation with Darren a young man with cerebral palsy who asked me a question that had life and death consequences. I also shared how troubled I had been by one section of Dr Megan Best's presentation outlining key ethical issues concerning the beginning of life and prenatal testing. Here's what I said at the time:

"She made the simple point at the beginning of her talk that technology has given us information about the unborn child not possible just a short time ago. One consequence of this is that we now find it easier to identify disease and abnormalities in the unborn child. This can be good, with new ways to identify problems and abnormalities prior to birth, and ways to intervene medically, increasing the chance of a successful birth and in some cases solving medical issues more easily than if they are left until after birth. Of course it also provides opportunities for parents to know things about their unborn child not previously possible. This presents parents with opportunities to terminate the life of the foetus based on judgments about identified disease and abnormalities. Hence, technology offers us new knowledge that can be used to ensure life or sadly to terminate it."

What I didn't mention at the time was that just weeks earlier our 5th grandchild had been diagnosed as having a rare genetic disorder either Beals syndrome or another rare form of disorder within the Marfan's group. Abraham Lincoln was thought to have had a disorder within the Marfan's group as he possessed many of the physical characteristics of Marfan's syndrome. People with Beals usually have long, thin, fingers and toes that cannot be straightened out because of contractures. This means they have a limited range of movement in the joints of their fingers, hips, elbows, knees, and ankles. They also have unusual external ears that appear crumpled. Beals syndrome can also affect the skeleton, muscles, tendons, ligaments, and the heart. Contractures of the elbows, knees, and hips at birth are very common. Some babies also have clubfoot, causing one or both feet to be turned in towards each other at the ankles. In most individuals, the contractures improve with time and the clubfoot often responds well to physiotherapy.

As Megan spoke I couldn't help but think, could such testing help parents identify a disorder like Beals? And if so, would some parents choose to terminate? Megan had reported that some doctors had expressed concern that fewer babies were being seen with club foot; could this reflect prenatal diagnosis? In the case of Evelyne's parents, as Christians they would never have considered doing this, and as a result had chosen not to have genetic testing. It seems that while testing is avaliable for Beals (here) and Marfan's (here), there are questions about their reliability. Of course, it is highly likely that testing that is more reliable will inevitably be available if pregnant women want it.

Last Sunday we gave thanks to God for Evelyne Adel Blencowe's precious life as she was dedicated at her parent's church in Bathurst. She was born on September 15th 2008 and has been a joy to all of us. Yes, she will face challenges in life; we still await test results to confirm the diagnosis and as a result don't have a detailed prognosis. This bright little girl whose impish personality and a determination to do everything her 3 year-old brother does, has already had more tests in her short life than I have had in my lifetime, and I'm sure there will be more. But as the Psalmist reminds us she is a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3-5).

For me, little Evelyne brings into focus the enormity of what people choose to do when they abort a child based on a medical diagnosis. There is strong evidence to suggest that the decisions that parents make to have abortions around the world (estimated at 42 million each year or 115,00 per day) are sometimes taken for reasons as basic as the impact that the child might have on the life of the family, the trauma that their condition might cause for the mother, the gender of the child and the chance that there might be an abnormality. Evidence of this can be seen on one well-known website (here). When parents are offered advice about genetic testing, they are encouraged to make choices that are:

"Right for you" and
"Right for you and your family"

Our family couldn't imagine what it would be like not to have our precious little Evelyne. Yes, there are challenges, but these are inconsequential compared to the joy and blessing she has brought to our family

In commenting in a Washington Post article (here), Leslie G. Biesecker of the federal government's National Human Genome Research Institute offered a sobering comment that we need to give careful reflection and consideration:

"[Prenatal testing] is a classic Pandora's box......Like any powerful technology, it solves some problems while at the same time creating new ones. How you use a powerful technology decides whether it's good or bad."

Related links

We published an issue of Case magazine last year that focussed on the theme Living and Dying Ethically. You can find more information (here).

New College runs an annual public lecture series. This year the lecturer will be Dr John Wyatt, author of 'Matters of life and death' (here). Dr Wyatt will present his three public lectures at New College on the 8-10 September 2009 titled 'Bioethics and the Future' (more information here)

Sermon by John Piper 'Abortion, race, gender and Christ' (here).

Excellent Washington Post article, 'Fresh Hopes and Concerns As Fetal DNA Tests Advance' (here)

Associates of CASE can download the talks from the Medical Ethics conference mentioned at the start of the post from our website (here). This includes Megan Best's presentation.

The Case for Pro-Life Advocacy

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds has an interesting interview with Scott Klusendorf, President of Life Training Institute, who offers his thoughts on how pro-life advocates should respond to the election win by Barack Obama and his plans to support Pro-choice legislation. Klusendorf has a forthcoming book titled, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage Culture (to be published by Crossway in March 2009). His comments on Obama’s support for the Federal Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) have direct relevance for other nations with liberal abortion laws like Australia.

Klusendorf states that:

“FOCA creates a federally guaranteed right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy that goes way beyond Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Should the federal courts ever reverse or otherwise gut Roe and Doe, FOCA would enshrine abortion rights into law at the legislative level. Parental consent, informed consent, restrictions on tax-funded abortions, and physician conscience laws would be swept away, along with federal and state bans on partial-birth abortion.”

His most interesting comments concern what Christians should do about the possible threat to make abortion on demand easier and less controlled in the US. He suggests that action is necessary and that we must not give up on the Pro-Life agenda. He also suggests that we need to equip more Pro-Life advocates to engage the culture, not shrink back in defeat. He outlines four ways to do this:



1. Christian leaders should purposefully preach and teach a biblical view of human value, and do it often.

“…the biblical worldview explains human dignity and equality: All humans have value because they bear God’s image (Genesis 1:26, 9:6, James 3:9). At the same time, the science of embryology establishes that “human life” is not a “label we confer,” but a biological reality we discover. From fertilization forward, the unborn are unquestionably human. Hence, biblical commands against the unjust taking of human life (Exodus 23:7, Proverbs 6:16-19) apply to the unborn as they do other human beings. Like everyone else, they have the image of their creator.”

2. Christian leaders must not only preach about human value; they must equip their people to engage the culture.

He argues that theology gives church members a biblical foundation for their pro-life beliefs and that Apologetics will provide the tools to take biblically informed beliefs into the marketplace of ideas.

3. Pro-life Christians must hold their churches and parachurch organizations to account.

However, while holding people to account he argues that we need to “….equip Christian leaders rather than criticize them.”

4. Pro-life Christians must recruit more full-time apologists.

He suggests that we need people dedicated to educating and challenging others. He reinforces this view with a confronting quote from Gregg Cunningham of the “Center for Bioethical Reform”:

There are more people working full-time to kill babies than there are working full-time to save them. That’s because killing babies is very profitable while saving them is very costly. So costly, that large numbers of Americans who say they oppose abortion are not lifting a finger to stop it. And those that do lift a finger to stop it do just enough to salve the conscience but not enough to stop the killing.

It seems to me that the strategy he outlines for the USA has relevance for other countries like Australia. As I concluded my previous post on the recent Victorian Legislative changes to the abortion laws we need to act in his country as well.

We need to be arguing against abortion, not in a self-righteous way, but on moral and ethical grounds supported by hard facts and biblical truth, that present the case for the rights of the unborn child and the sanctity of life. We need to avoid being judgmental and simply taking the high moral ground.....history will judge us badly when it considers that in Australia alone up to 100,000 abortions are performed each year.

Links of relevance to this post

Full post from Justin Taylor, "Stayin Alive: Pro-Life Advocacy in the Obama Era. An Interview with Scott Klusendorf" here

My daughter Nicole has some great posts on abortion on her blog 168 Hours that you can read here.

A previous post from Justin Taylor with comments from Don Carson on practical ways forward can be found here

Related material on Medical Ethics from CASE Scholar Dr Megan Best can be found here.

Advance Notice

a) Conference

CASE will be running a conference on Medical Ethics at New College on the 21st March 2009. More details will be posted on the CASE website soon.

b) Next issue of Case on Medical Ethics

We will also be focussing on medical ethics in the next edition of Case magazine.

New Abortion Laws in Victoria: Where does this leave us?

1. Divided reactions to the approval of Victorian Abortion Reforms

The State of Victoria's revised legislation on abortion was approved on Friday (10.10.08) without amendment (Melbourne Age report here).

Pro-choice advocates are pleased with this outcome pointing primarily to the fact that abortion has now been removed as an offence in the Crimes Act and terminations are now legal up to 24 weeks gestation.

Pro-life groups are deeply disappointed with the new laws pointing to the fact that the amendments while partly aligning Victoria with some Australian States, have now made terminations easier up to 24 weeks and even after this with the approval of two medical practitioners. The laws also make it more difficult for doctors who object to abortion on moral or ethical grounds, with the legislation requiring them to refer a woman seeking an abortion to another practitioner who doesn't have such an objection.

Pro-choice groups have argued strongly for the revisions to legislation on the following grounds:

• There is inconsistency across states and Victoria's laws were more conservative than some, hence the argument was why should Victorian women find it harder to obtain an abortion than women in other states.
• The Victorian laws were based on an 1861 English Law, and made it an offence if women unlawfully obtained an abortion.
• The Laws in place only allowed a legal abortion on the grounds that it was necessary to preserve the woman from serious danger to her life, or physical or mental harm.
• The laws were silent on a permissible period within which any abortion was legal, based on a judgment as to whether the child was capable of being born alive.

Some of these issues might well be argued on the basis of equity for women and consistency across the states but I would note the following:

• The Victorian laws are now more liberal than some other states, and from a pro-life perspective, at least as bad as the rest.
• There has been serious debate in recent times about the age at which an unborn child can be assumed to be unable to survive if born. While 24 weeks was once seen as the age at which a foetus could not survive if born, many doctors and medical ethicists have increasingly questioned this due to the higher survival chances of the foetus at 24 weeks or even earlier. Many babies can now survive at 24 weeks when born prematurely. Victoria has chosen an age that many would suggest is not ethically justifiable. Some medical experts are now suggesting that 20 weeks should be the upper limit necessary abortions. See these recent reports in the UK media (here & here).
• The pro-choice arguments fail to consider the rights of the unborn child, choosing instead to place the choice of the mother above all else. The Discussion by de Crespigny and Savulescu in the Medical Journal of Australia that is regularly cited by pro-choice advocates is illustrative. In citing the public debate about the abortion of a 32 week foetus on the grounds of probable dwarfism, they argue that such debates create "a harmful uncertainty" for patients, families, staff, the hospital, other institutions, future patients, the Australian society without any mention of the child's life.
• The new laws now make it difficult for doctors to maintain legitimate objections on moral and ethical grounds.
• Some question the fact that while someone can face criminal charges (up to 20 years) for killing the unborn child of a pregnant woman ("Byron's Law" - here & here) women are given the right to approve this action if it is their own child. This seems ethically inconsistent.
  

The debate has provided an interesting insight into community views on abortion and in particular, some of the key groups that have participated in the debate. There is no doubt that ethically it is an issue that divides many members of the community as some of the following responses indicate.

2. Varied Community responses

There have been many different voices in recent debate and many varied submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission's abortion law review. Here just a few.

Pro-choice groups have used a frequently cited statement published in the Australian Medical Journal as part of their campaign to change Victorian laws. The discussion paper was written by two doctors, Lachlan J. de Crespigny and Julian Savulescu support women's right to choose abortion (read it here).

Some accept the right of others to choose while arguing against abortion based on personal experience. For example, this article by Tracey Spicer argues that 24 weeks is too far advanced to allow a child to be terminated. Experiences like Tracey's are a challenge to those who want to make laws more liberal (read it here).

The Catholic Church continues to be a strong defender of the rights of the unborn based on medical, moral and ethical grounds. The Catholic Church has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Victorian reforms (read the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne's submission here and media comments here).

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has also been a vocal critic of any liberalisation of abortion laws, its submission argued for abortion to remain in the Crimes Act, governed by a tight interpretation of the Menhennitt Ruling (Read its submission here).

The Anglican Church in Victoria has been surprisingly neutral as the following extract from its submission suggests: "Our consensus view is the gradualist position....While we believe that the destruction even of an early embryo is of moral significance, we believe the moral significance increases with the age and development of the foetus. The significance increases gradually over time, in parallel with its physical development. As a pregnancy advances, more powerful moral reasons are required to allow the destruction of the embryo/foetus. It is more serious to consider destroying a foetus at 28 weeks than at 10 weeks. We would want to see this distinction noted in any legislative provisions, though we would counsel against a legislated absolutionist end-point after which an abortion could not proceed." Read its full submission here.

The Women’s Health Victoria (WHV) Council has welcomed the Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) Law of Abortion Report (March 2008) as a comprehensive landmark document that it supports (Read their submission to the commission here).

3. Where does this all leave us?

Let me say first that I know that there are genuine cases where pregnancy represents a threat to life for some women and where serious abnormalities discovered prior to birth leave parents with an awful choice to make. As Christians we need to be loving and supportive of women and men who find themselves in such circumstances (see Claire White's good comments on this in her Briefing Article "After the Silence: Dealing Christianly with abortion"). It is not our job to judge, but we must speak out if we have concerns. The issues are complex and the need for careful responses from the church has never been more important. We have been let down by some of these responses and non-response.

The Victorian legislation was an opportunity to introduce new legislation that at least addressed the latest scientific evidence in this area. While respecting the right of people to express different views in this area, I am disappointed that rarely is anyone (even large sections of the church) arguing for the rights of the unborn child. The latest data on survival of babies born prematurely, coupled with our knowledge of the extent of human development in the womb well before 24 weeks, would suggest that to continue to assume that the unborn child is not a child at all is an obscenity. It is a grave ethical inconsistency that the death of an unborn child due to violence against the mother, or even negligence in a motor vehicle (see for example here and here) can lead to criminal charges against the perpetrator (as it should), while our abortion laws in many states allow for almost total discretion on the mother's part, to terminate well beyond the point at which the child could survive outside the womb. As Nicole Starling commented in a blog post (here) on her blog 168 Hours:

"It seems difficult to explain why a father killing his child is 'foetal homicide' and a mother killing her child is legally sanctioned 'termination of the pregnancy'."

We do need to be actively involved arguing against abortion, not in a self-righteous way, but by arguing on moral and ethical grounds supported by hard facts that present the case for the unborn child (Don Carson has some good suggestions on how to do this here). My point in writing this post has not been to be judgmental and simply to take the high moral ground, it has been motivated by sadness at the rejoicing in the streets by some because it has now become that little bit easier in Victoria to terminate life. History will judge us badly when it considers that in Australia alone up to 100,000 abortions are performed each year.

Juno – an unexpected pro-life message

I went to see the much talked about low budget movie “Juno” this week and came away touched by the story and encouraged that Hollywood has produced a movie that at least implicitly is pro-life. Sixteen-year-old Juno MacGuff (played by Ellen Page) is a geeky, funny and unusual teenager who has one-off sex with an equally geeky boy, Paulie Bleeker (played by Michael Cera), and the outcome is an unwanted pregnancy.


Her first reaction and the expectation of most people around her is that a termination is the only answer. She looks for an appropriate abortion clinic and sets out alone to terminate her pregnancy at 12 weeks. At the door she finds a Christian classmate acting as a lone picket at the clinic. Su-Chin (played by Valerie Tian) is standing with a placard proclaiming “All babies want to get borned” (sic). A lone Christian chanting to anyone who would listen that abortion is wrong. Juno speaks to her and tries to work her way past hoping her classmate might not realise why she’s there. As she slips by her classmate blurts out somewhat incoherently that her child would have a heartbeat and fingernails. “It has fingernails?” Juno replies, hesitates, and then walks in.

The abortion clinic is almost a caricature with a zany teenager at reception offering her forms to fill out and some free condoms. After an awkward exchange Juno leaves the clinic and returns home having decided that she couldn’t go through with the abortion.

The rest of the movie revolves around Juno working through the news that she is to have a baby with her friends, family and school-mates, and her efforts to choose suitable parents to adopt her child.

Many Christians will find things in this movie that that they don’t like. Like the language so typical of teenage life. Juno won’t be seen as the ideal role model for most Christian parents, but her recognition that she needs to live with the consequences of her actions, that she is unsuitable as a parent, and that her child should be placed in the hands of a couple able to take good care of him or her, is all positive. The wonderful character of Juno created by Ellen Page is the real strength of this movie, but it is also a wonderful screenplay that is well acted by all and well directed.

This is the fourth in a series of four hollywood movies in the last year that have had an implicitly pro-life message - “Waitress”, “Knocked up”, “Bella” and now “Juno”. In the three previous movies a married woman chooses to keep the child of an unwanted pregnancy with an abusive husband, a 20 year old decides to reject her mother’s advice to “take care of it”, and a single woman who is finding life tough decides against termination when a friend offers to help her. While none of these movies have been anti abortion, they have all had women who have decided against abortion and value the life of the unborn child above their own circumstances.

In the case of Juno, we see a young woman facing up to her responsibilities after having been confronted by the simple truth that her unborn child had fingernails and a heart beat at 12 weeks. The Pro-life movement has always argued that when woman are confronted with the facts concerning the unborn child as well as well as the details of what happens with an abortion, that there is a chance that they will be challenged to reconsider. It is refreshing to have a movie that subtly celebrates life, rather than the more common practice of promoting the right of women to choose what is done with their bodies, with no consideration of the unborn child. If you’re not sure whether this is for you have a look at the movie trailer first, but I’d recommend it as a movie that is memorable at multiple levels.

The Local Church and social issues

CASE is one of a number of organizations dedicated to challenging Christians and non-Christians to consider what the Bible teaches about every part of life. In the truest sense of apologetics we seek to offer a defence of the Scriptures when its claims are challenged or when public policy and action appears to be out of step with what we believe the Bible teaches. As well, we seek to initiate debate and dialogue to promote Christian understanding of intellectual and social issues. We always see ourselves doing this in partnership with other like-minded organizations. And so it’s always encouraging to see local churches taking a stand on issues and encouraging their members to think deeply about social issues in the light of the teaching of the Bible.

One example of a local church that is seeking to do this is The Lakes Evangelical Church on the Central Coast. It has recently had two sermons on issues that have been the concern of CASE associates in the past. The church has challenged its members to consider what the Bible teaches us about "IVF and Stem Cell" research and also "Abortion".

If you are interested in these topics you can download MP3 files and powerpoints of material associated with the sermons.