“The unborn will not be celebrating.” 

So said Arlene Foster as legislation permitting abortion was introduced to Northern Ireland.  

It is unsurprising that people who hold religious beliefs should argue against abortion:  however the implication that the unborn might have been celebrating, had the DUP suceeded in blocking the legislation, is an obvious absurdity. It is a sentimentalisation of matters, unworthy of any serious theologian, however fundamentalist their standpoint. The unborn neither celebrate nor regret their fate, for their identity has not yet become separate from their mother. The capacity to regret and celebrate only develop once a child becomes part of the world of living people.  If a mother decides to terminate her pregnancy, that is indeed a sad outcome, but overwhelmingly, that sadness is something which the mother alone must endure. 

Some weeks ago this matter was debated on BBC’s Politics live, with Telegraph journalist Tim Stanley arguing the case for the unborn, whilst a heavily pregnant Stella Creasy MP, spoke in support of making abortion available to women in Northern Ireland. One of the prompts for the discussion at the time was the way in which Stella Creasy had been targeted by the pro-life lobby.  Following the debate, I wrote to Tim Stanley arguing, amongst other things, that this debate has been damaged by the way it is being emotionally framed. Here is the letter in full.

Dear Tim Stanley

I listened with interest to your discussion with Stella Creasy on Politics Live,  on the subject of abortion.  

You made the point that images of the unborn foetus should be an acceptable part of the discussion, and indeed  contribute something important, because of the focus they bring to the visibly human physical development of the child.  

Other than a concern with accuracy, I have no objection to such images but I am concerned that they are being used to frame the discussion emotionally and to close down the rational philosophical and indeed theological arguments which can be used to defend a woman’s right to decide the fate of her unborn child. 

I assume your own resistance to abortion arises from  Christian faith, and whilst my own perspective is not a religious one I nevertheless believe that an ethical case can be made in favour of legal abortion which goes beyond the simple assertion that it should be a woman’s right to choose.

The case against abortion is based on a belief  that human life starts at the moment of conception, explicitly the position of the Roman Catholic church, and an argument which I assume underpins most religious objections to abortion.  

With the development of medical technology this belief has been bolstered by our ability to witness the development of the foetus from the earliest stage and to see the rapid development of human form.  

Images of the foetus and assertion of the rights of the unborn are used to build a case that a foetus should be valued as fully human and should enjoy the same rights as those who are alive in this world. There are good reasons to challenge this.  

 Though a foetus  has the miraculous qualities and potential of a human life, its status as a loved and valued person is as yet, only imagined.  Only when the child is born does it become part of the social world in which it is typically loved and valued, and where if this love is failing, or the child suffers on any account, the instinctive response of decent people is one of compassion.  

Of course much support for the rights of the unborn comes from those who wish to present themselves as having a similarly instinctive compassion for the foetus, but the true measure of the matter I believe may be seen in the clear distinction between the way mothers approach decisions regarding the lives of their unborn children and, by contrast, the children born to them.    

It is very exceptional for a mother to take the life of her own, or indeed any child.  Where from time to time this does happen, the matter is likely to be regarded with horror and treated as arising from a break-down in mental health and not as a criminal matter. 

Once a child has entered the world, even reluctant mothers instinctively protect the lives of their offspring and will go to great lengths to do so. 

When a pregnancy has been established, few mothers would seek termination without experiencing some emotional trauma; however, with the exception of mothers who have a strongly held religious belief, terminations are common, and are not regarded with horror as would be the murder of a child. Friends will support a woman through this experience and will be unlikely to challenge their decision to terminate, unless from a religious point of view.   

The modern case against abortion however is built on an attempt to inject horror into this  situation, to tell the mother who terminates her child that she is a murderer, and should be treated accordingly. 

A particular view  of what makes us human is fundamental to the  counter argument and here I think biblical text has got something to offer.  

The story of Adam and Eve may be understood as a metaphor for the emergence of men and women from their prelapsarian state and how, with the acquisition of knowledge, we are all faced with existential problems.  It is this transformation in the world which gives a human life its special status. I am fond of quoting Robert Burns poem To a Mouse, in which he shows a touching sensitivity towards the mouse he has uncovered, but balances this with a statement of his own humanity:

Still thou art blest, compared wi’ me

The present only toucheth thee:

But Och! I backward cast my e’e,

On prospects drear!

An’ forward, tho’ I cannae see,

I guess an’ fear!

When a child is born into this world, its development follows a similar trajectory, from innocence to knowledge.  It is entry into this world which from the first moment begins the development of a person in a way that critically distinguishes their life from that of the unborn. When a child is born, all of our instincts are that it should be cared for, and where care fails, it is our expectation as a civilised society,  that others should step in and take over.  

Nobody wants abortion. Nobody likes abortion.  Everything possible should be done to enable mothers to complete their pregnancy:  but in the end, the fate of the unborn child should be decided by the mother, for the child is still part of her and has not yet acquired an independent existence, or relationship to others.  The concerns of all others are a distant second. 

In making these arguments  I naturally accept the need for a legal framework within which abortions can be safely carried out in a way that broadly accepts  the sensitivities of the world we live in. 

Yours sincerely

Stephen Shellard