ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 130, MAY 2008
BOOKSHELF
“Common Ground?: Seeking an Australian Consensus on Abortion and Sex Education”.
Editors: Rev. John Fleming PhD & Nicholas Tonti-Filippini PhD.
Reviewed by Gabrielle Whiting.
Available from John XXIII Fellowship Co-op. Ltd. Price $30, 378 pp.
This book has been published at a critical time in Australia for the rights of unborn children. The well-intentioned editors and contributors claim to offer a new approach to the abortion issue.
In her chapter Moving beyond the polarised debate on abortion: the way of the future contributing author, Marcia Riordan, promotes an allegedly new-found “woman-centred” approach. She quotes John Paul II from the chapter The Defense of Every Life in Crossing the Threshold of Hope: “It is necessary to become courageously ‘pro-woman’, promoting a choice that is truly in favour of women. It is precisely the woman, in fact, who pays the highest price, not only for her motherhood, but even more for its destruction, for the suppression of the life of the child who has been conceived. The only honest stance, in these cases, is that of radical solidarity with the woman. It is not right to leave her alone.” The quotation is not put into its broader context. Earlier in the chapter John Paul II affirms at greater length the right of the unborn child, with the inclusion of “we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience - the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being”. John Paul II further asserts that “It is not possible to speak of the right to choose when a clear moral evil is involved, when what is at stake is the commandment Do not kill!”. The text which Miss Riordan quotes follows a discussion of abandonment or coercion of the woman by the father of the unborn child. Miss Riordan omits the beginning of the text from which she quotes. John Paul II pre-phrases the quoted text with “Therefore, in firmly rejecting ‘pro-choice’ (it is necessary to … .)”.
Fr. John Fleming and Dr. Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, editors, base their idea of seeking common ground with abortion supporters on the findings of an Australia-wide survey conducted in collaboration with Sexton Marketing Group and commissioned by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute. The data extracted from such surveys must be interpreted with caution. Surveys are notoriously unreliable, even those on objective facts or realities. Interpretation of survey data on subjective matter, such as opinions on issues of morality and legality, is fraught with greater difficulties. The commissioned survey found that, while a majority supported the “right” of a woman to access abortion, a majority believed that the number of abortions annually in Australia is too high. These findings are conflicting. Respondents who are themselves opposed to abortion on moral grounds and who believe that the number of abortions in Australia is too high may favour the legal availability of abortion because they may also appreciate that Australia is a secular democracy and presume that others want access to it. Further, when personal interests are involved, expressed disapproval of abortion can easily be dispelled. This is a major weakness in the conclusions drawn by the editors from this research.
If valid interpretation is possible, these and other findings of the survey reveal the confusion and degree of ignorance of the public with respect to abortion.
Contributing author, Brigid McKenna (nee Vout), in her chapter Reframing the anti-abortion message: pro-life and/or pro-woman? discusses the pros and cons of promoting a woman-centred approach to the abortion issue as opposed to an approach that focuses on the rights of the unborn child. She also variously considers a “woman-centred pro-life” approach and a “pro-woman pro-life” approach to the issue. Although there are some unsupported assertions in this discussion and Mrs McKenna inappropriately aligns David Reardon’s (Elliot Institute) pro-woman/pro-life agenda with Mary Cunningham Agee’s women-centred arguments that appeal to relativist ethics, there are some valuable passages in her chapter. These include, for example, Mrs McKenna’s acknowledgement that the pro-life movement has for long recognised the need for practical assistance to women, providing “pregnancy counselling and support services … assistance and love … often at great sacrifice”. Conversely, Mrs McKenna and the other authors of Common Ground?, though highlighting the moral and philosophical differences between the two “previously polarised” parties to the abortion debate, fail to demonstrate the shortcomings of the traditional pro-life organisations in Australia in addressing both the needs of women and the effects of abortion on women, with which, by implication, the authors are contrasting their “new woman-centred” approach.
Health effects on mothers
There is no indication in Common Ground? that comprehensive factual information on the health effects of abortion on women were presented with the survey questions. The questions relating to health effects were not predicated on the fact that a majority of the Australian public have been denied the scientific information on:- mental health effects of abortion, a link between abortion and suicide, a link between abortion and breast cancer, a link between abortion and pre-term birth and the severe complications such as cerebral palsy that can occur in premature babies.
In her chapter An evidence base for counselling, social policy and alternatives to abortion contributing author, Selena Ewing, in reference to women’s lack of awareness of potential health effects, stresses the importance of fully informing a woman, before she has an abortion, of all these possible effects. The first of the two scant mentions of breast cancer is by Fr. Fleming with reference to the survey question (in his chapter Analysis of new data on Australian attitudes to abortion, pregnancy counselling and alternative ways to reduce the frequency of abortion in Australia) as to whether the respondent was aware of health risks associated with abortion, including breast cancer. A majority indicated that they were not aware or only partly aware of the health risks mentioned. Fr. Fleming indicates that the survey did not test whether those who claimed awareness of health risks were actually in possession of the facts. In Table 6 Support for information given prior to abortion, chapter 3, Fr. Fleming, does not present the provision of information on the increased risk of breast cancer and of preterm birth and serious complications of premature birth in subsequent pregnancies as an option to be supported for counselling on abortion. Not to include this information in counselling on abortion would be a serious breach of a duty of care and is indicative that the editors are ignorant of the reality of these health risks. In his chapter Public policy and abortion: bad but better law, Dr. Tonti-Filippini’s “The debate over long-term sequelae such as breast cancer and post-abortion grief is also lacking conclusive peer-reviewed evidence with claims made on both sides” (bold type added) reveals a surprising lack of knowledge of the epidemiological science relating to abortion and the increased risk of breast cancer and of the dominance by vested interests of those who deny the overwhelmingly convincing peer-reviewed epidemiological evidence. This, and Tonti-Filippini’s claim that “little help can be given to (a woman) to assess the relative probability of those risks”, reveals a lack of understanding of the science of epidemiology. The medical science of epidemiology cannot conclusively prove anything. This ignorance is surprising, giving regard both to ignorance of the science and to the editors’ and contributors’ “new woman-centred” approach to abortion.
There are inaccuracies, doubtful interpretations and false or dubious assumptions made in Common Ground?. In chapter 10, Public policy and abortion: bad but better law Dr. Tonti-Filippini presumptuously predicts that Australia’s parliaments will accept the survey data and the interpretations published in Common Ground? and that on the basis of this acceptance none of Australia’s parliaments are likely to accept proposals to prohibit abortion!
Among the inaccuracies is a reference to the 2000 case at the Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, in which an abortion was induced at 32 weeks gestation. Fr. Fleming refers to a “discovery that the foetus was affected by dwarfism”. In this case the foetus was assessed by the doctor/s and thought to have dwarfism, but no diagnostic test was applied. The notes of the nurse in attendance at the delivery included “On delivery, baby does not appear small”. There is still doubt that the child had dwarfism.
In her chapter Miss Riordan lauds the formation of Women’s Forum Australia. During the 2006 Federal government debate on the cloning issue Women’s Forum Australia concentrated their lobbying publicity on egg collection issues. Such groups may have difficulty in working with pro-life groups who emphasize the right to life of unborn children.
The first occurrence of the use of the term “common ground” in the book is in the first chapter by Fr. Fleming in reference to an assumed “recognition of the common ground identified in (the) survey”. A later occurrence of the term “common ground” by Miss Riordan under the heading How effective are the new strategies?, elicits conjecture concerning the editors’ acknowledgement of Fr Michael Goonan SSP and St Pauls Publications for their work on the title. In the latter occurrence of “common ground” Hilary Clinton is quoted in reference to the abortion debate: “There is an opportunity for people of good faith to find common ground in this debate … .”. Did Fr. Goonan and St Pauls Publications draw from Hilary Clinton to select the title?
The strength of Hilary Clinton’s pro-abortion stance is well known to the pro-life movement, which is not fooled by the remainder of her quote “ … We should agree that we want every child in this country to be wanted, cherished and loved … . We can all recognise that abortion in many ways represents a sad even tragic, choice to many many women.” Mrs Clinton’s fierce rivalry for the Democratic nomination on “pro-choice” policies with fellow abortion supporter Barack Obama shows that for pro-lifers to seek common ground with her on this issue would be at the very least naïve.
Relativism
Pro-life Australians seek to present the truth about human life and at this time oppose outright, plans to decriminalize abortion. There are other Australians who, holding a relativist view that abortion is a woman’s choice, deny the truth, support the abortion industry and seek to maintain and promote all of the deceits and violence of the institution of abortion. As the issue itself of choosing life or a culture of death is as polarising as the battle between good and evil, polarisation between the two groups is inevitable. The need to promote the truth and expose the lies and violence of the institution of abortion remains. It is not possible to reach common ground with determined purveyors of lies.
The findings presented in Common Ground?, to any extent that they can be accurately interpreted, may be educative for those who need to gauge the receptiveness of the public to the truths about abortion. While Fr John Fleming and Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini are to be commended on their attempts through this book to advocate ways to reduce the incidence of abortion, the pro-life community would err if it determined its stance on abortion law reform on the basis of social research such as that featured in Common Ground?.
Our abortion culture has developed through the failure of legislatures to prosecute under criminal law provisions and/or to test judicial decisions in higher courts and through a lack of informed public debate on the issue. Relativism has at the same time become the dominant ethic. The public needs to be educated about abortion - that is, educated with the truth. The authors of Common Ground? seek consensus with those who hold relativist views on abortion.
Pope Benedict XVI said, in an address to Catholic-Inspired Non-Governmental Organizations on 1 December 2007, “I encourage you, then, to counter relativism creatively by presenting the great truths about man’s innate dignity and the rights which are derived from that dignity….
What is needed, in fact, is a spirit of solidarity conducive for promoting as a body those ethical principles which, by their very nature and their role as the basis of social life, remain non-negotiable.” (L’Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition N 50, 12 December 2007 pp5)
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family
NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN