Beyond Abortion

                                    

Those who read this blog regularly will know that I have not blogged too much on the sensitive and controversial issue of Abortion. Other than a post on the "180 Movie" of last year, the only time I've really touched on the topic was in March of this year, when I wrote a fairly lengthy blog post looking at the publication of a medical paper looking at the idea of 'post-birth abortion'. This post, which you can read here, was well recieved, and it pushed me a little closer to considering writing about abortion proper. I'm still not - quite - going to do that today. Today I want to look at a similar story; one where an educated person makes a pronouncment that, considered, is rather terrifying.

Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu, whose speciality is practical ethics, has said that the creation of so-called 'designer babies' should be considered a "moral obligation". As this Telegraph Article reveals, he made these comments, seriously, in Readers Digest, not normally a publication known for its controversial content. As a scan of the linked article, and a reasonable bit of internet searching show, the point that Savulescu is making is the logical outworking of the fact that we do currently screen babies in the womb for various conditions. According to Savulescu, we should actively do what we can (by allowing to live, or ending the spark of life) with babies whilst they are still in the womb. This idea echoes in a very chilling way what I wrote about before, the idea of what are effectively post-birth abortions (EDIT 1/9/12 - it is worth noting that Savulescu is actually the editor of the Journal that published the controversial article). It seems that certain scientists would like to take the future of the human race into their own hands, and trust genetics over all other things. As an occasional armchair scientist, it is concerning that one branch, of one branch, of science is being elevated (even theoretically) to such a serious role.

Whilst the idea that Savulescu (and others) is proposing is chilling, fascinating, and arguably abhorrent, it nonetheless raises a fascinating point. This phrase, a 'moral obligation', what does it mean, and how should we react to something we are apparently 'obliged' to do?

The point is made in the article that we currently, as a country, screen for Cystic Fibrosis and Downs Syndrome - allegedly to 'little public outcry'. I had a good friend as a child with Downs, who was far more genuine and human than many people I know who are so-called 'normal'. The human race is the better for its variety, its flaws, and its very humanity. As a Christian I can look to the great orthodox Doctrine of Imago Dei, essentially a statement of the basic worth and human-ness of every person; male/female, straight/gay, black/white, young/old, student/teacher, banker/builder, and every other permutation. The Christian tradition gives us the opportunity to formulate a response to this so-called moral obligation.

The Christian Gospel message allows us to challenge modern moralists. The tone of Professor Savulescu's argument is very human-focused. Humans make mistakes. Its part of our nature. I don't need to dwell here on the grim spectre of eugenics that this issue raises. What starts out as voluntary soon becomes mandated. What starts out as 'choice' can easily become something else. The heart of the Gospel message is not human focussed - but it is crucially related to the human condition. The Christian tradition, the Bible, Jesus himself; made it - make it - abundantly clear that humanity, whilst possessing Gods very imprint and a spark of the divine, is flawed. The simple fact that human history is full of moral failures - by any standards - is proof of the need for, and veractiy of, the Gospel message. Indeed, some of the worst atrocities have been done by warped interpretations of the Christian tradition, even as the more recent (historically speaking) atrocities of the Holocaust and 9/11 were committed as part of other worldviews.

Jesus was very clear about the need to be moral, and to uphold the moral law. But the summary, for him, was rather radical. And it came with a radical motivator. Jesus said that the greatest part of the law is to:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself"

That, for Christians, for followers of Jesus, is the basis of all morality. On both parts, arguably, the notion of Genetic screening is abhorrent and not a moral obligation. Allowing the child to develop naturally and without interference is a means of loving God, wholeheartedly, and trusting him. Allowing a child to live and be born - let alone remain alive - is a perfect realisation of loving ones neighbour as oneself. 

The starting place, however, is loving God. Throwing oneself at God. Trusting in God. Following Jesus. Totally, with every fibre of our being and every element of the self. When we first do that - and Jesus invites us, any and all of us, to do it at any point in our lives - it is an active, radical thing. It requires repentance, and acceptance of what Jesus did on the Cross. It requires total commitment - to taking part in the greatest kingdom the world has ever seen. It requires total surrender - to the one who has already won the greatest victory. This happened, the life lived with Jesus becomes less a series of moral obligations than a life of love lived joyfully for Gods glory. With Jesus, we don't need to screen babies before they are born: because we live in a relationship with the God who can heal any problem, who can redeem any person, regardless of their background, their actions, their issues. The Christian story is not one of cold, clinical 'moral obligations', but rather one of wild, expansive love. by the Grace of God.

_________________

Thanks for reading, this has been a long post, I hope you enjoyed it and that it was thought provoking. I'd love your shares, likes, comments and feedback. As ever. Thanks again.