William Wilberforce & The Modern Abortion Issue In Australia World

THE ABORTION ISSUE...
I recently spoke with a Federal Senator who lamented along with many of his fellow Christian parliamentarians that they had presented the Church in Australia with a gift for which they were somewhat disappointed it had not been more grateful. The gift was the raising of the abortion issue into the public arena of debate. This Senator regarded this issue as an ideal opportunity for the Church to take a clear moral stand and show some courageous leadership.

Much credit should therefore be given to Rod Benson of Morling Theological College who organised the Abortion Rally in Sydney on Monday January 31st, in which 12 different religious and denominational groups united to put pressure on the Federal Government to overturn the Medicare sponsorship of abortion. Senator Ron Boswell is also to be highly commended for having the courage to take up this cause in the Parliament. Newly appointed Opposition leader, Kim Beasley, is to be slightly commended for stating publicly that he is opposed to abortion. Great credit should go to Tony Abbott for initially raising the issue but one wonders whether his recent silence isn't the result of some gag which has been placed on him by his senior parliamentary colleagues. Senator-elect, Stephen Fielding, has stated that Family First does not want to see Australia returning to the bad old days of "backyard" abortions. I'm personally flabbergasted at the continuation of this type of thinking, especially from Family First! The PM has continued to state that the Government will not change its policy regarding abortion funding since there is no groundswell of public opinion to change it! Perhaps he is right. But I hope he will have reason to change this immoral law!

The modern predicament of abortion has arisen due to some incredibly faulty logic and great deviousness.

In the book, "Legislating Morality" by Norm Geisler & Frank Turek, they list some 19 myths associated with the promotion of abortion. Some of these myths are continually referred to today- including by the Opposition Leader ("I'm personally opposed but publicly neutral") and Stephen Fielding ("We don't want to return to the days of 'backyard' abortions!"). So I want to deal with some of the myths surrounding the abortion debate so that we too are not swept along with this corrupted thinking-

Myth #1. An embryo isn't a human yet.
All of the scientific evidence says that a human embryo is a developing human. It is a myth to consider that a human embryo is not a human. A human embryo has all the DNA coding of a fully developed human! To artificially end the life of an embryo is the same as artificially taking any other human life.

Myth #2. Clinical abortion cuts down on 'backyard' abortions.
While it is true that there were some 'backyard' abortions prior to clinical abortions being made legal and actually funded by the Government, they probably numbered only a fraction of 1% of all abortions since most 'backyard' abortions were actually carried out by fully trained doctors in their surgeries, albeit illegally! In the 1973 Roe Vs Wade case in the USA, grossly exaggerated figures were cited by abortion-proponents of the number of these type of abortions to cause the judges to believe that if it's happening anyway they might as well make it safe and legal. (Fortunately this same reasoning isn't applied to murder.) But years after the case these same "experts" confessed to doctoring their figures by 10,000%. Naturally, figures for 'backyard' abortions have never been recorded. But we can reasonably agree with many experts who state that more women die today from legal abortion procedures than ever died during the era of so-called 'backyard' abortions! Legal, clinical, abortions have made it more dangerous than ever for women. The legalising of abortion has dramatically increased the number of abortions, not simply transferred where, how and who does them!

Myth #3. It's a woman's choice.
This also sounds like "We can't enforce our morals onto others"... "While I'm personally opposed to abortion, publicly I don't think I can take away a woman's choice", and so on. Referring to #1, since abortion is the unnatural and artificial taking of a human life, in what other way do we use this same logic to allow anyone else to unnaturally or artificially take another human life? No one has the right to choose to take another's life artificially. In what context would a statement by a politician- that he personally disagreed with murder but publicly believed in the right of a person to choose to practice it, be acceptable?

William Wilberforce ...

In 1783 William Wilberforce embarked on a campaign to eradicate the slave trade. The obstacles he faced seemed insurmountable. But the principles upon which he fought for the abolition of the slave trade are the same principles we must employ today.

* He educated the British public about the gross injustice of slavery
* He targeted the financial aspects of slavery (his fight was initially with the slave "trade")
* He persisted because he knew he was right and that the weight of good morality was on his side
* He employed a multi-pronged strategy - politics/academics/arts/religion
* He also engaged in other issues of social and moral importance

For Wilberforce the battle lasted 40 years. During this time he achieved what our Prime Minister says is currently lacking in Australia: public support for his position.

Ultimately what's at stake here is how we define right from wrong which then either makes Christ's death on the Cross the single greatest event in history or totally irrelevant.

Rethinking Ideas About
The Future

• Government funded abortion should be our initial focus in changing public attitudes about abortion.
• Good education about what constitutes a human and its development is needed.
• Compassion must be shown to those who have already had an abortion.
• The blessing of children needs to be emphasised and demonstrated by Christians (Psalm 127).
• We should lobby our Health Minister and local members vigorously to demonstrate that this is an issue deeply concerning the Australian public.
• That the future is determined by what we plan or determine today.

We have to recognise that wars are rarely won without losing some battles along the way. As we implement these objectives we may lose some battles. But holy persistence is one of our greatest weapons in this war. If we can sow the ideas which will provide the framework for future thought into the next few centuries (at least the next four generations) we can leave our grandchildren's children a legacy worth having and a greater position from which to fulfil the Great Commission.

Andrew Corbett, 6th February 2005