Moral slippage – or compassionate legislation?

Democracy is better than theocracy – but Western civilisation is based on Christian moral values and traditions and both are under severe pressure, internally as well as externally.

Ever since Elizabeth I settled the Church of England’s relationship with our state and their rejection of the excesses of both Rome and Geneva, most English and Welsh people who call themselves Christian, including me, embrace a tolerant and inclusive creed which recognises that clear, even absolute principles, don’t get you off the hook. In the human condition, there is no escaping tough decisions where no answer feels completely right and no option is without cost.

Moral relativism
I believe that abortion is an awful outcome – the ending of a life – but that there are situations where it is the least awful outcome, so I reluctantly conclude that legal provision should be made for these situations. Similarly, I believe in marriage as a life-long union – but it is appallingly cruel to refuse or delay divorce for people who are being systematically damaged by deeply unhappy marriages.

I also believe marriage is the bedrock of a strong and stable society – but many mature and responsible people choose to live in partnerships other than marriage and they should not suffer hardship or discrimination, so I accept the reality of civil partnerships. Similar questions arise in the debate about assisted dying.

Forty years on from the legalising of abortion in our country, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has so wisely said, we have got to the point where accepting the inevitability of tough decisions that may hurt the conscience has become so routine that we stop noticing that there was ever a strain on the conscience. This is not a good habit for societies to get into. We must keep our eyes open for unintended consequences as we are faced with the growing ‘normalisation’ of abortion.

The use of English
In an age dominated by slogans, I reject the over-simplification of the debate into ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’ absolutes. These terms are part of the problem, not part of the solution. So is the loaded language of the debate – do you speak of abortion or termination of pregnancy, of young people being sexually active or promiscuous, of sexual health or sexually transmitted disease control, of women controlling their own fertility and a woman’s right to choose or of the growth of recreational sex and killing babies?

Absent from this timely debate so far has been the recognition that it is not just about old-fashioned surgical abortion. It is about chemical science giving women, for the first time in human history, the freedom to control their own sexuality and their own lives – in short to fulfil themselves, free from the fear of unintended consequences.

Chemical contraception is the norm, the morning after pill is justified in the binge-drinking culture we have allowed to develop, and chemical termination is less physically and emotionally scarring – and of course means fewer doctors having to perform abortions. Mankind is using God-given science to improve the human condition of half the human race. But hang on – that does not absolve either men or women from moral responsibility. And have you noticed how some of those strongest in their condemnation of abortion are the very same who condemn contraception and sex education in our schools? I merely observe that it is mainly men who are telling women how to behave.

Free votes
We are back on that hook again. I am very glad our Parliamentary tradition leaves these issues to the consciences of individual Members of Parliament. It is a lonely business – and there is no hiding behind the Party Whips. When the Government publishes it final proposals for a Human Tissues and Embryos Bill and when amendments are tabled to vary the laws on abortion, I will recall the advice of my Church leaders. But I will also remember I represent very many others who take a contrary view – and many parents in Salisbury who are worried sick every weekend for the well-being of their children. Nor will I forget the children of parents who don’t seem to care what happens.

Results not punishment
So my main consideration must be how to reduce the growing numbers of women who resign themselves to termination of pregnancies. This means concentrating on the many not the few. It means positive support for pregnant women and their partners and families, including proper counselling and informed consent. It means encouraging adoption and fostering. It means prevention of pregnancy in the first place – not lowering the upper time limit which would make matters a lot worse for the tiny number of women involved who have the most difficult and tragic decisions to make. It means ignoring the strident voices of those who seem to want to punish wayward girls for their wicked ways – and ensuring more and better advice on contraception, sexual health and personal and social responsibility for young men as well as young women.

On your behalf I will listen to the evidence and come to an informed judgment. I will bear in mind my own experience as husband, father and grandfather. There is no knock-down argument for tightening the law or lowering the time-threshold for abortions. But there is a steady moral focus in these matters of social and legal debate, questions that take us beyond the current trading of slogans.

Robert Key MP