Where’s the compassion?
...the Government of Jamaica is not a theocracy, but must represent the desired interface between Church and State, religion and politics, for this nation. Emotional responses and extremist views cannot be the basis on which laws are made for addressing i
were on a righteous mission to ensure that Trump was assured four more years to advance “the mission of God”.
As an Anglican prelate, I need to state very clearly the position from which I approach the issue of abortion and other issues of similar moral and religious import. In so doing, I want to quote from a female Anglican theologian, Kwok Pui Lan, who has articulated the Anglican approach described as the in matters of faith and Christian living. She writes:
debunks the myth that there is one, absolute foundation or source of truth, thus opening up possibilities for dialogue between people on different sides of the fence. The entertains the thought that decisions about right and wrong, truth or falsehood, are not predetermined or pre-packaged, but negotiated in the greyish, ambivalent space of ‘in-between’. While honouring the cultural experiences of peoples, is not complete relativism or moral chaos. It is a kind of disciplined reasoning, seasoned with humility, and sustained by compassion and empathy for oneself and others.”
In light of the fact that we are being bombarded by a deliberate strategy of having people saturate the media with doctrinaire positions, I would like to revisit some perspective on the subject of abortion which I have articulated in the media before.
There is no question that the Judeo-christian tradition is one in which involvement in matters of State and politics is connected with profession of faith as a Christian, and is consistent with scriptural understanding of politics and governance. To that extent, the Church speaks publicly on matters of policy, programmes, and those things related to justice, peace, and the well-being of all citizens. So, at times it speaks truth to power in an attempt to influence the dialogue which shapes the laws and policies adopted by the Government. However, the Government of Jamaica is not a theocracy, but must represent the desired interface between Church and State, religion and politics, for this nation. Emotional responses and extremist views cannot be the basis on which laws are made for addressing
“Via media via media via media via media issues that affect the lives of people in such deep and personal ways, and which are, for the most, part gender-specific in a society which is still strongly male-dominated.
The sanctity of human life is a fundamental principle of theological reflection and morality, not restricted to the Judea-christian tradition, and which operates as a guiding principle in such fields as bioethics as it relates to abortion, embryo research, cloning, genetic engineering, euthanasia, and others. It is also the basis on which such human experiences as violence, abuse, oppression, and human trafficking are deemed to be expressions of evil, injustice, and violations of the sanctity of human life, and which must be opposed.
Within this framework, then, it is clear that the issue of abortion is not just one for any single discipline or religious perspective to claim as the sole determinant of judgement on the subject. To that extent, any decision by the Government must also be informed by the perspectives which these disciplines bring to the table. It must also take cognisance of the findings of credible research data and the experience of human beings, primarily females — who are both the subjects and the victims necessitating this review of legislation, as much as it is about the unborn. It calls for a spirit of humility and compassion to acknowledge that the table around which the dialogue must take place is an inclusive one, without predetermined outcomes.
As we look to the Government to address the law as it relates to abortion, it must be borne in mind that the law, while having legitimate status, is not always an expression of justice and cannot be definitive of that which is compassionate toward those impacted by its enforcement. As a Christian, my perspective on this issue must be determined by the way in which Jesus addressed issues related to the law, its interpretation, and application, not as mere principles, but as it relates to people’s lives. For example, in St Luke 10 Jesus is involved in an exchange with a lawyer who comes to ask a question for which he is expecting an answer which cites the law of the day. In response, Jesus does not provide a legal answer, but offers the profound narrative of the Good Samaritan. In the end, the same lawyer comes to understand that the legal definition is not the answer to a fundamental issue related to our humanity and how we relate to each other under God, but mercy, and to which Jesus admonishes him to go and do likewise.
Similarly, when confronted by a crowd that was insistent that the woman caught in adultery should be stoned to death, according to the prescription of the law, Jesus took the high road of compassion, only to be abandoned by the legalists, who knew what the prescription of the law required in that moment. And we need not doubt that that audience which brought the woman before Jesus was of male composition in what was then a patriarchal society.
Today, it is the case that the decision concerning the revisiting of the law as it relates to abortion is being argued by vociferous men who would like to see men rein in the female parliamentarian who dares to advance a position on this gender-specific sensitive issue.
There is good reason to support the notion of a gender bias in the way the issue is ultimately argued and resolved. It is women who are the gender whose body faces direct result of the decision they make, or are allowed to make. And she is also the host that is held in tension with the unborn they have conceived.
Less evident is the fact that the issue of abortion surfaces in the life of many women because of the actions of males, at best consensual, at worse through violation of laws governing incest, the violation of trust between adults and minors, violence, and rape. The prevailing climate in which domestic violence, gender violence, and the sexual violence that is currently directed against our women and children, primarily girls, cannot go unnoticed in considering the issue of abortion.
To adjudge all of these situations within which a pregnancy takes place as equal, and to be addressed on the same principle, seems untenable, and an option for legalism which loses its sense of compassion. So, that a 13-yearold child impregnated by her father or stepfather, cannot be treated in the same way as an adult who has made a bad decision regarding sexual involvement with an unfaithful partner.
In 2018 the Child Protection and Family Services Agency (CPFSA) reported that between January and September of that year almost 13,000 cases of abuse of children had been reported to the agency, and that more than 230 of the children sexually abused were left pregnant? How should this inform the decisions taken by the parliamentary review? Until we can understand what it is for a minor to experience the violation of trust; the violence of unwanted sexual intercourse; the impact of a pregnancy on the body, mind, and sense of self of a youngster who has been so victimised, we — as men and the ones who believe that we alone have the mind of God on these matters — must, at least, entertain an ounce of humility and compassion. Conception and the right to life does not begin in a “thing”, but a living human being whose life matters.