Facing the
dilemmas of birth defects, let's not accept over-simple answers
[6-21-04]
Yesterday's
(6/20/04)
New York Times carried
a front page
article on the ethical dilemmas facing prospective parents who discover
birth defects, or the possibility of birth defects, early in pregnancy.
Increased use of pre-natal testing to screen for such diseases as cystic
fibrosis has brought about both the blessing of increased knowledge and the
increased burden of choice for such families.
Every year our
denomination wrestles with issues of reproductive choice and the ethics of
abortion. This year will be no different, with several overtures again
revisiting the ethical dilemmas connected with those few abortions that
occur later in pregnancy, while one overture seeks to insert a statement in
our Book of Order calling simply for an end to abortion, presumably by
recriminalizing it.
Obviously, these
are issues about which Presbyterians and other morally serious persons will
never fully agree. The article in the
Times
demonstrates some of the many shades of grey involved in making complex
decisions around this ethical dilemma.
Awareness of
these complexities might also help to underscore the need for mutual respect
for our differences of opinion.
Unfortunately,
there are groups that continue to claim that our denomination "promotes any
and all abortions" (Presbyterians for Renewal,
ReNews, GA
Briefing) and those who boast to the
New York Times
(May 22, 2004) of their intention to be present "in force," at GA, using the
issue of abortion as a wedge to divide and conquer.
Looks like
another interesting General Assembly.
Bruce Cameron,
Co-moderator
Presbyterians
Affirming Reproductive Options, a network of the Presbyterian Health,
Education and Welfare Association
