CATHOLICEVANGELICAL.COM
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact

Today I cried...

11/2/2020

Comments

 
I went to a new doctor today.  We have recently moved and it was time for me to renew a prescription for medication that I take daily for chronic pain.  The response of the doctor was not to enquire about my background, nor my general health or well being. Instead he proceeded to give me a condescending lecture on how he had been practising medicine for 15 years and had never given anyone pain medicine as strong as the one I am on not even bone cancer patients (Which if true is appalling, because bone cancer patients are generally given  medication such as fentanyl - which is literally hundreds of times stronger than what I take to deal with their pain)

He told me he would write one prescription, to give me 'time to find someone else to handle you.'  He then said he would be willing to see me again only if I went to a pain specialist...  I had already mentioned that I was prepared to see anyone who can help me... but he wasn't listening.  He was too busy explaining to me that he didn't want to be getting emails from the government, which he views as threats, asking if he is sure he needs to be prescribing opiates.   

Then, when referring me to a pain specialist he informed me that he was going to refer me to someone in Victoria well over 13ookm from my location and I could speak to them over Skype.  I asked if I could be referred to someone more local because that would surely be better for ongoing care... so he referred me to both, because the local one costs money upfront and may take a while... I told him the cost was irrelevant and I was prepared to pay anything to get real support, he ignored me, he just wasn't interested in what I wanted, or felt or needed. I left the surgery with my prescription for one box of medication and the referral was sent to the pain specialists.

On the way home, I cried.  I am a 38 year old man, and I cried because I had been made to feel like a school boy being scolded by the headmaster.  I cried because I was treated like a lying drug addict out to get a score.  I cried because I have been struggling to get proper treatment and support from doctors for 16 years, and in my previous doctor I had found someone who genuinely engaged with my care and supported me... and today I took a huge step backwards.  

I suffer from chronic pain.  I have been suffering from this pain in varying degrees since 2004 when I had a back injury while in the Navy.  However over the last 8 years especially the pain has been steadily getting worse.  Over that time period I have had multiple MRI's, x-rays, bone scans... you name it.  I have been put on countless medications.  The only thing that has actually helped with ongoing pain relief is the current medication I am on which is a controlled release opiate. 

I deliberately only take the medication once a day, even though it is designed to be taken twice, because I know that opiates are dangerous, I know they can lead to addiction.  So I take it in the morning to get me through my day, but at night when possible I just go to bed early because laying down relieves the pain (most nights I am in bed at 8:30). I tried to explain these things to the doctor... he wasn't interested and cut me off to continue his lecture. 

Today I cried because I went to see someone who is supposed to help, and instead they put my mental health back to a place that I hate - Today I started taking an anti-depressant again for the first time in 6 months because my mind is back in the black hole. 

Why am I writing this? Am I seeking attention? Do I want people to call me or come up to me and tell me how they read it and check on me? No.  Please don't - I am ok. I will be ok.

I am writing this because what happened to me today is not OK, and the fact is, it happens to people every day.  Doctors are being told that opiates are the enemy - I get that - and it is true when abused they are incredibly dangerous and can cause incredible damage. 

However there are literally millions of people like me, who are suffering, and who have found that opiates DO work for us.  They do relieve the daily pain we endure, and because of that they help our mental health as well.  Suffering chronic pain wears you down, both physically and psychologically, getting relief has a major impact on our ability to think, and feel.  

The message needs to change.  Doctors need to stop looking at opiates as the enemy and the people who take them as 'addicts' or at best 'addicts in waiting'.  If doctors do their jobs and manage their patients well, then opiates are no more dangerous than any other medication.  My previous doctor would ensure I was back to see him monthly for assessment, he would take the time to listen to what I was experiencing, and would occasionally change medications (because different opiates affect different receptors) in order to manage the risk and prevent dependency. 

The key for me though is that doctors need to stop lecturing and start listening.  The doctor I saw today could have delved into my medical history, he could have asked about my general health and wellbeing, he could have checked on my mental health.  Instead he lectured, condescended and completely ignored everything I had to say. 

I will see the pain specialist, I am more than happy to explore alternative treatments.  But I will be looking for a new GP, I will be looking for a doctor who actually considers their patient's wellbeing and doesn't jump to conclusions based on one prescription.  

Please pray for me, and pray for the doctor I saw today. Pray that he is willing to open his heart and mind and think more carefully about how he engages with patients.  Pray for those who are making decisions about what doctors are told about opiate medications, that they consider that while dangerous if misused, they are vital for the health and well being of millions when managed properly.  Pray for the thousands of people who are likely to get treated the same way I did today by doctors who are more concerned about giving lectures than engaging with and caring for patients. 



Comments

10 reasons why... a response.

28/11/2019

Comments

 
Yesterday Eternity published an article written by Mark Powell who is the Associate Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Community Church.  Mark presents 10 'reasons' why Christians shouldn't engage in Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies... and for some reason also throws in an uninformed rant about smoking ceremonies.

So lets look at Mark's 'reasons':
1. ​It takes away from the worship of God. The Bible declares that “The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1) and that God says “I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8). Hence, the practice of things such as smoking ceremonies to ward off evil spirits is completely at odds with Christian theology.
OK... acknowledging and giving respect to people apparently takes away from the worship of God... Let's look at the opening of the acknowledgement of Country used by Bishop Chris McLeod provided in his article on this topic :
We acknowledge that God is sovereign over all land. Everything in heaven and earth belongs to God. We acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the Adelaide region in which this church is located, and we respect the spiritual relationship they have with their country.
I don't know about you, but it seems pretty clear that God is first and foremost here - God is acknowledged as sovereign creator, as the one to whom all belongs.  You see doing a welcome or an acknowledgement of country takes nothing away from God - it in fact honours Him first and only acknowledges the fact He entrusted custodianship of this land and waters to certain people groups... where have we seen that concept before I wonder...(c.f. Genesis 12).

As for the smoking ceremonies... it is a completely different topic.  But to be clear, smoking ceremonies when done in the context of Christian worship are used as symbol of cleansing and of our prayers rising before the throne of God (Revelation 8:3-4), they have nothing to do with warding off evil spirits.

Lets move to No. 2
2. It leads to syncretism. Following on from this, because Aboriginal cosmology is pantheistic – God and the creation are one – there is a tendency for the traditional religious beliefs to be fused
together with biblical truth. Once again, this is incompatible with the exclusive claims of Scripture which teaches that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).

​In contrast, note the recent article by Aboriginal Christian, Brooke Prentis, in which she refers to Uluru as the “most sacred and holy place”, which gives to a part of God’s creation an inappropriate status and significance (see Romans 1:18-25).
Where to start. Aboriginal cosmology is pantheistic? Well it is true some parts of Aboriginal spirituality exhibit signs of pantheist ideas to be sure.  However In my own people's spirituality there is an 'All Father' Creator Spirit (Called Baiame), from whom all of creation comes.  He is not part of creation, He is separate to it...yes there are many other spirtual beings in our Dreaming Stories - but all of these also only exist because of the All Father's creation, and they mould and change the created land and waters - they do not create them themselves - nor are they the same as or part of them. Essentially there is one creator and then there is creation, including humanity, animals, land, sea and spiritual beings.  Sound familiar? 

However if we move on from Mark's clearly misinformed and also rather insulting take on Aboriginal spirituality, he then makes a remarkable claim -He claims acknowledging that Aboriginal people are traditional custodians of the land and waters of Australia leads to Syncretism...He then promptly demonstrates this alleged syncretism by pointing to an article written by CEO of Common Grace Brooke Prentis which he (mis)quoted completely removed from context - Brooke did not refer to Uluru as'the most sacred and holy place'.  She had spent a significant part of her article explaining that all lands and waters are holy and sacred because they all come from God as creator, and in the actual sentence that he pulled this wording from the full sentence is:
'This weekend, I was in a place that I consider one of the most sacred, most holy of places. Uluru.'
You see Brooke at no point equated creation with creator, she at no point even came close to suggesting that creation should be worshipped or idolised.  I encourage you to actually read her full article.  For Mark to have deliberately misquoted Brooke like this to try and establish some form of 'evidence' to support his syncretism claims is appalling - and sadly I can't think of any way this could have happened accidentally.

Reason 3:
3. The parallel to ancestor worship. Official Indigenous protocols insist that words like “Elder” should be capitalised to acknowledge the continuing real presence of those who have died. (This is also why there is a warning on television programs which show images of deceased Aboriginal people). However, acknowledging Aboriginal “Elders”, past and emerging, is not simply honouring the memory of the departed – like many Australians do on Anzac Day – but is more akin to the ancestor worship still practised by many people today.
The more I read of Mark's article the less I believe he actually knows anything about Aboriginal people, our customs and beliefs. Protocol dictates that 'Elder' be capitalised because it is a title! It is capitalised for the same reason that we put a capital at the start of Rev. or Dr. or Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms... etc. 

The reason that there is a warning on TV programs which show Aboriginal people who have died is precisely because they are NOT still here and it is considered to be insensitive to show the persons image or speak of them directly because they are no longer here. 

Then of course there is the next unsubstantiated claim - that acknowledging those leaders who have come before is different when it is done for Aboriginal people, apparently when we acknowledge past elders we are worshipping them... but when non Aboriginal people acknowledge those who have gone before its totally different... presumably because of... what?

Reason 4.
4. Biblical peacemaking principles of forgiveness teach that past sins should not be continually re-raised once they have been repented of. However, these prescribed “politically-correct” statements do precisely that. They have the practical effect of perpetuating guilt, while allowing no final resolution or real reconciliation to occur.
Now we start to see Mark's real motivation start to come out.  He objects because he sees these ceremonies as 'politically correct'.  He also makes a hash of trying to use 'biblical peacemaking principals'.  He seems to think that acknowledging that we meet on land that was forcibly removed from others is 'perpetuating guilt' without offering solution, while also leaving the implication that we should all just move on - it's the classic line from racists rehashed - 'why don't you just get over it, it was years ago'.

Well here is the thing - the fact that this appallingly ignorant article has been written by a Christian pastor and published by a Christian organisation demonstrates that people simply do not understand Aboriginal culture, or the history of this nation. That tells me if we want to see genuine peace making, and genuine reconciliation, we need more of these ceremonies and more education on the real history of this nation.

​Number 5...
​5. The political nature of language. The secular form of language used in Indigenous protocols (such as “Traditional Custodians,” and “Respect to Elders”) is neither politically nor theologically neutral. As such, if we are serious about reconciliation, then we ought to use biblical language to express theological truths of sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Mark again betrays his real motivation - which actually has nothing to do with Christianity - he objects because he sees it as 'political', and clearly not on the right side of politics for Mark.  The fact that he sees using a term such as 'Respect for Elders' as being anti biblical raises some alarm bells though - the BIble is in fact clear that we are to honour our elders... (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Leviticus 19:3 & 19:32; Job 12:12 & 32:4; Matthew 15:4). Now I assume as a good Christian man Mark seeks to follow the will of God in honouring his elders? So why the opposition to merely showing respect to Aboriginal elders? The more I read and reflect on Mark's words the more I worry about his view toward Aboriginal people in general... 

Traditional Custodians is the other term he rejects as being neither 'politically nor theologically neutral'... I'm not sure how to respond to that - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had custody of this land for thousands of years... it is simply a fact  that our peoples are the traditional custodians.

Number 6...
6. It implies guilt by association. There is a growing pressure in our country to conform to a progressive social agenda involving identity politics. As such, to what extent are Christian denominations – or their individual members – responsible for historic crimes committed during the colonial period of Australia? Whereas injustices have tragically occurred, we should be careful of condemning our own spiritual forebears or of implicating the church today through guilt by association.
Mark again lays his own political agenda over the top of what is actually being discussed.  I am no 'progressive' with a 'social agenda involving identity politics', I am however a Christian who seeks to follow the example of Jesus in showing honour and respect to all. 

To what extent are Christian denominations responsible for historic crimes? It depends doesn't it? What did the denomination do? When did it do it? Has it been involved in truth telling? Has it apologised for the previous actions? Has it made any attempt at genuine reconciliation with the people they wronged or their descendants? All of these things matter.  

To what extent are individuals within denominations responsible? They aren't. No-one believes that Individuals should be in some way held accountable - however church bodies? You bet. Just as churches are being held responsible for historic child abuse because of the appalling policies they had in place at the time, so to they should be held responsible for the crimes that they committed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

I would love to know when Mark believes the 'colonial period' ended, and presumably therefore when all the crimes against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ended?*
  • Was it when we federated in 1901 with a constitution that explicitly made clear that 'Aboriginal natives' were not to be counted as human beings?
  • Was it after that with the establishment of the Aborigines Protection Boards, which forced people from their homelands, refused to allow them to hunt or practice culture?
  • Was it During the first World War when Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders went to fight for the very nation that had sought to destroy their cultures and returned to only more scorn, segregation and hatred?
  • Could it have been in 1967 when we had that wonderful referendum to allow Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be actually considered people?
  • Was it 1972 when the practice of forcibly removing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from parents on the basis of their race - and not their welfare - was finally put to an end?
  • Maybe it was 1992 when the High court handed down the Mabo decision squashing the idea of Terra Nullius and effectively declaring for the first time Australia was in fact forcibly taken from its rightful custodians.  - What is it called again when a military force of one people comes and takes over the land of another people? 
  • Maybe it was 2007 when the Government suspended the racial discrimination act in the NT so they could send the army to remote communities and take complete control - on the basis of one line in one report about paedophiles - which was later completely discredited by the Australian Crime Commission.
  • Was it when the government as part of the NT intervention removed Aboriginal people from jobs (CDEP) and forced them onto welfare so they could forcibly put them onto 'income management' despite having a job being the 'best form of welfare'

I could go on... but instead,
Number 7:
7. Theft must involve financial reparation. While many regularly acknowledge their guilt of dispossessing Aboriginals of their land, very few are willing to make financial restitution. But if one truly believes that they are in possession of “stolen property”, then they should give it back and not simply engage in disingenuous displays of virtue signalling. What’s more, this should be done by the individuals most concerned and not merely projected onto their own particular religious institution.
The implication being of course that Mark doesn't believe he is on 'stolen property'. But here's the thing - the High Court has determined that the land we now call Australia was not Terra Nullius (Land belonging to no-one), it has determined that the land and waters did in fact have owners.  That is significant.  That means unless there is a treaty in place or a deed of sale, the land and waters of Australia were forcibly removed from their rightful custodians by a superior military force - that is called invasion. Given this clear fact of history, Mark is on stolen property.

Now does that mean he should start paying 'rent' as Mark seems to imply as the only solution in this case? No. There is another solution - it is called treaty.  The fact is the land and waters of this country were taken by force by government using military and police at their command.  Originally the British government, and then that was passed to colonial governments and then at federation to the Australian Federal and State Government(s). It is at government level where action needs to be taken through treaty and voice - A voice is not a third chamber of parliament, it is an advisory body only. Treaty can bring about fair and just outcome, and is the only logical and fair outcome after an invasion.  

Australia is the only Commonwealth nation that doesn't have a treaty with it's Indigenous peoples, which is a clear demonstration that the argument of it being unworkable and too hard is just nonsense.

Number 8:
8. It undermines gospel reconciliation. As the gospel goes out to the ends of the earth, the redemptive power of the cross will continue to deliver God’s chosen people from enslaving idolatries and unite us together in Christ. But Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country protocols support a worldview that privileges Aboriginal culture within our society and thereby hinders – rather than promotes – the work of reconciliation.
Ah, the privileges of being Aboriginal... Is Mark seriously suggesting here that having a Welcome or Acknowledgement prevents people being saved? Is he seriously suggesting that being asked to show respect for the history, culture and people of this nation who have been here for over 60 thousand years is something that splits us apart rather than joins us together? 

Here are the simple facts - Aboriginal people are the rightful custodians of Australia, the land was taken by force and without consent.  Those are incontestable.  Now knowing that, and knowing that we can never undo what has been done, a simple way to acknowledge this truth and the hurt it has caused - and continues to cause - is to say a few words at the beginning of a gathering which acknowledge this truth.  If possible it is even better to have a member of the local Aboriginal community offer welcome.

Think about that for a moment, a member of the community who had their land, waters, culture and language all stripped away by force, a person who likely has significant trauma in their family due to the effects of stolen generations, a person who almost certainly knows several people who have committed suicide in their community due to the substantially higher rates in Indigenous communities due to inter-generational trauma... this person doesn't stand up and condemn, rather they stand and hold out their hands and their heart in welcome.

If Mark looks at that person and thinks they are being offered privilege... I am lost for words.  If he looks at them and believes they are hindering rather than promoting reconciliation, then I fear he doesn't understand what reconciliation is.

​Number 9:
​9. It harms Christian unity. Our doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ is harmed since it perpetuates an unnecessary distinction between Aboriginal and all other Christians who live in Australia. In short, it rebuilds the dividing wall which previously existed before the cross (Ephesians 2:14-18; Galatians 3:28).
It harms unity to acknowledge and give respect? Again - this just demonstrates more ignorance - there is no barrier being created here! It is about tearing down barriers! You are being welcomed by someone who has every right to reject you. 

For me this is clearly analogous to what God does with us through the cross.  He has every right to be mad with us, to reject us, to cast us off, and yet he humbles himself, bears the pain and offers forgiveness and welcome. The only ones erecting barriers are those who reject the welcome.

Number 10:
​10. Because the current Aboriginals were probably not the original inhabitants. This is a position historically held by many Australian anthropologists, scientists and academics. For example, Professor Manning Clark (1915-1991) originally argued that the modern Aboriginal was a descendant of a racially distinct, third wave of immigrants, who had themselves invaded and conquered those living here before them.
This is so ridiculously out of step with modern anthropological study that it would be laughable if it wasn't the same kind of trope trotted out regularly by racist groups. 

So lets put it to bed. Firstly Manning had a reputation for being a great narrative historian - who often ignored the facts in favour of his view of the narrative*.

Secondly the 'three wave' theory of migration to Australia has been soundly refuted and the vast majority of anthropologists now reject it along with the alternate two wave theory.  The general consensus is now that there was one wave of immigration to Australia by the ancestors of the Aboriginal people who still inhabit this land.

Senator David Leyonhjelm made a similar claim to Mark back in 2015 arguing that Aboriginal people were not the first inhabitants of Australia, this claim which the senator clarified was based on his understanding research into 'Mungo Man' and also into rock art was subjected to a fact check by independent scholars over at 'The Conversation'.  I include the full 'Review' of the fact check for your reference, and also provide links to the full article and other articles which conclusively show that modern scholarship is in agreement that Aboriginal people were indeed the first to settle these lands:
...The evidence from DNA of today’s Aboriginal populations, as well as those from the past recovered through ancient DNA is revealing new insights into the complexity of the First Australians population history. What we see in the DNA is evidence of an unbroken Aboriginal lineage for well over 2,000 generations.
Attempts to recover the ancient DNA from Mungo Man reported over ten years ago were subject to considerable critique. Consensus generally agreed that the reported results probably represented contaminated DNA, and not ancient DNA dating back over 40,000 years. The Elders of the Mungo Lake today have given consent for Griffith University researchers, under the direction of Professor David Lambert, to see if ancient DNA can be recovered from Mungo Man and numerous other individuals from the ancient Willandra Lakes system. This work is currently underway but really is at the edge of what is possible in ancient DNA studies.
The anatomy of the very first physical records for the First Australians also complements this picture. We see a morphology in the remains of Mungo Man and Mungo Woman, from some 42,000 years old, that would not look out of place in Aboriginal Australian populations today. Mungo Man and Woman are fully modern people in every sense of the word, and indeed represent some of the earliest modern human remains within the whole Australian-Asian region. Europe at this time was still the domain of the Neanderthals.
Finally, the study cited by Senator Leyonhjelm’s spokesperson seems to be misquoting the research of UQ Professor Hamish McGowan. While Prof McGowan does note that climatic conditions in the region around the Gwion Gwion rock art complex in northwest Australia probably meant that Aboriginal people abandoned the region for 1,500 years, he does not suggest the region was populated by an entirely different non-Aboriginal population. As noted above, there is no evidence to support such a proposal. - Michael Westaway.

In conclusion to what has turned into a much longer piece than I had envisioned. Mark's piece demonstrates an almost complete ignorance of Aboriginal culture, practice and history.  It uses terms of the political right and far right to attack a perceived (though in my view non-existent) political slant to the issue.  He uses arguments that are often used by racists and their supporters, to be honest I was waiting for him to use the line 'I'm not a racist... but...'  or 'I have friends who are Aboriginal'...

Now I want to be clear, I am NOT accusing Mark of being a racist, I do not know him, and one article doesn't provide me enough evidence to make such a judgement.  What I will say is that this article demonstrates the same tired, disproven arguments based out of ignorance that many racists use.  I hope that Mark will take that on board and seek to learn and be better informed going forward.

I encourage All churches to include the use of welcome or acknowledgement of country, because it pretty much does the very opposite of what Mark's article suggests: It shows honour and respect to people and creation without elevating either to divine status. It brings us together for genuine reconciliation through truth telling, and sharing together.  It is a way to educate our people on the importance of creation, care for it, and honouring others - even those we don't always fully understand.

References:
Eternity Articles:
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/australia/no-not-in-church/
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/opinion/yes-its-a-mark-of-respect/
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/opinion/when-christians-gather-should-we-make-an-acknowledgement-of-country/
​
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/opinion/a-pilgrimage-to-uluru/
NT Intervention Facts:
https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2017/06/21/10-impacts-nt-intervention

On the claim Aboriginal people weren't here first:
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-might-there-have-been-people-in-australia-prior-to-aboriginal-people-43911

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manning_Clark#cite_note-30
​
Comments

Abortion... A letter I wrote to my Parishioners

21/8/2019

Comments

 
The below is a copy of a letter I wrote to my parishioners in our weekly pew sheet for Sunday 11th August 2019.



This week I am writing about a very challenging topic.  My letter will deal with the topic of abortion, and may be upsetting or distressing for some.   If you believe you may struggle with this topic, I encourage you not to read on, or to read it in the company of someone who can support you.  I am always available to talk and provide support for any of you, don’t hesitate to call me.
_____________________________________________
 
I have real concerns about the abortion legislation which has been passed by the NSW lower house this week. Now this is an emotive and polarising topic.  Let me be absolutely clear, if you or someone you love has had an abortion, you/they will not face any judgement, hate or discrimination from me. You and/or they are welcome here, you are loved here and you are deeply loved by God.

I know having an abortion is an incredibly hard decision, and it has long lasting emotional, psychological and sometimes physical effects.  And while the traditional Christian view on abortion is that it is against God’s will, because it amounts to taking another human’s life, it is not something that God will forever hold against you, it is not something that is unforgivable. 
 
When we turn to Jesus for forgiveness and restoration, we are forgiven everything. I want to make this clear because I know that sometimes in the past (and even today in some parts of the church) people are made to feel unwanted, unloved and unforgivable for having had an abortion—that is simply not true.  Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (c.f. Romans 8:38-39).
 
What I do encourage, though is if you or a loved one is struggling with having had an abortion in the past (or any other thing), if you are struggling with doubts, or guilt, if you are not sure of God’s love or forgiveness, please ring me and arrange a time for a private sacramental confession.  As always in a confession anything you share is completely confidential, I cannot share it with anyone—not even my wife.  Speaking out loud your fears, your brokenness, your heart ache, and hearing those words of absolute forgiveness, hope and restoration in the absolution is a powerful and liberating experience, and I truly wish more Anglicans would avail themselves of it.
 
I want to tell you also, that if you disagree with my view on this, as always you are welcome to do so, and I would be happy to have a private chat with anyone regarding this or any other issue.
 
A view compatible with scripture:
 
So what exactly could be a Christian understanding of this issue? What would be acceptable in legislation for us as we seek to honour God, and value the life of all people?  These are my own thoughts on this very difficult topic—I believe them to be honouring of scripture, honouring of life and also honouring of women.
 
  • Abortion being removed from the criminal code and moved to the realm of medicine and medical ethics is perfectly acceptable.
  • Abortion is a necessary last resort in some circumstances in order to protect life, and so Christians do not need to support a blanket ban on abortion.
  • The universally accepted medical definition of when pregnancy starts is not at conception, when an egg is fertilised, but rather when the fertilised egg is implanted in the womb—This is because the vast majority of fertilised eggs do not implant and are lost, so it is not realistic that a fertilised egg be considered the beginning of a viable new life, rather this begins at implantation.
  • As pregnancy (and thus a viable new human life) doesn’t begin until implantation, and implantation doesn’t occur for 7-10 days, the ‘morning after pill’ cannot be considered the same as abortion—it prevents implantation, rather than terminating a growing implanted baby.
  • After implantation there is a new, independent viable human being growing.  Before 22 weeks abortion should not be ‘on demand’ as the new laws say, but rather should be available to protect the health and life of the mother, or to protect the life and health of another baby (in the case of twins for example where only one baby is viable, and doing nothing would lead to the death of both).  It should require sign off from a doctor saying it is necessary.
  • Late term abortion (post 22 weeks) should be available only in circumstances where the baby is not viable (i.e. they are going to die due to a medical, genetic or other condition) AND/OR the mothers life is at risk if the pregnancy continues. It should require sign off from at least two doctors.
  • Abortion should NOT be available for ‘lifestyle’ reasons.
  • Abortion should NOT be available as a means of gender selection.
 
Interestingly, based on this understanding the only thing that needed to be changed in NSW, was removing abortion from the criminal code, as it is already legal for women to acquire abortion where medically necessary.  Abortion itself was not illegal in NSW as has been reported in some parts of the media, only abortion without a valid reason, such as protecting the health/life of the mother was illegal, it has been readily available for decades where there is a valid medical reason.
 
So, if it was already legal,  why do I have concerns about the new laws? Primarily because they could allow for the abortion of a baby right up to birth, and do not require that there be a valid medical reason.
 
That means, that technically under the new law it would be possible for someone to procure an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant, due for example to a relationship breakdown, and no longer wanting the child.  Now of course that is a very unlikely scenario, and even if it did happen it would be exceptionally rare… but why would we want to allow it to even be a possibility?  Why would we not close that loophole in the interests of protecting life?
 
My second reservation is around the new provision for those less than 22 weeks which means abortion would be an ’on demand’ service.  It will no longer need a doctor to say it is medically necessary to protect health or life—abortion will be done essentially no questions asked, up until 22 weeks.  This opens up the possibility of gender selective abortions, where, primarily girls, are aborted by people because they aren’t as valued as a son in certain cultures—there is already evidence that girls are being selectively aborted in Victoria (see article from The Age)
 
Finally, and incredibly importantly, we as a society, if we want to lower the number of babies being aborted, need to provide proper care and support for mothers—especially young single mums.  We need to provide access to medical, psychological and spiritual care for pregnant women, that allows them to know all of their options, including options for adoption where a woman is not in a position to care for the child post birth. 
 
Other situations that lead to abortion include domestic violence and abuse, and again this is a place where we as a society should be demanding our governments provide proper care and support.  Women in danger from their spouse should never be forced to face the added trauma of choosing to terminate a child.  
 
I want to conclude this week by again emphasising that if you and/or someone you love has had an abortion—for whatever reason—you will never face judgement from me.  I want to also re-enforce that you are deeply loved by God, and that nothing you or anyone has done, can ever separate us from that love, that hope and that forgiveness.
 
If this letter has distressed you, and you need to talk, please don’t hesitate to talk to me, or if you would prefer to talk to someone else please call:
 
Pregnancy Help Australia:
Offer post abortion support and counselling.
24 hour support:
1300 792 798
 
Lifline: 24 hour counselling support:
13 11 14
 
Comments

    Author

    Fr Daryl is an Anglican priest living in regional New South Wales Australia. Learn more on the About page.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my church or any other organisation I am affiliated with.

    Archives

    August 2020
    June 2020
    February 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    May 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    February 2016

    Categories

    All
    Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander
    Abortion
    Abuse
    Anglican
    Asylum Seekers
    Australia
    Census
    Christian
    Chronic Pain
    Domestic Violence
    Ethics
    Human Rights
    Juvenile Detention
    Marriage
    Orthodoxy
    Pluralism
    Politics
    Refugees
    Royal Commission
    Same Sex Marriage
    Secularism
    SRE

    RSS Feed

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact