There were three main arguments from the speakers for the motion: the pro-life position leads to unresolvable crises of conscience and is therefore morally repugnant; that there is no reason for saying that the foetus is morally different from the gametes, and conception is just one step in a continuum of development; and that overall, abortion has done more good than harm. It was argued that the embryo has no capacity to value its own life and that it does not have an intrinsic right to life. The legal judgment affecting the PVS victim, Tony Bland, was cited as an indication that the law no longer protects individuals purely because they are human - something more than this is needed.
The speakers against the motion were both associated with Image, a Christian pro-life organisation. They gave many examples of women who now carry physical and mental scars as a result of abortions, and pointed out numerous ugly features of the abortion industry in the UK. They claimed that a society concerned about people will want to care for the weak and helpless, not kill them. Abortion is having a dehumanising effect: we are seeing an increase in the number of irresponsible fathers, more evidences of the exploitation of women, a loss of integrity in the medical profession, and an effect which numbs the reactions of ordinary people - the mass destruction of human life is a present reality in our country and it ought to leave us feeling outraged.
As I listened to these various points, the question `What is man?' seemed to be of crucial importance. The Professor argued that being human does not confer any significance over any animal. He found prejudice and discrimination everywhere - people were saying `we are more important than beasts', but they were not giving supporting reasons! Why should a human embryo be considered more important than the eggs of a blackbird or a canary? This argument appeared to be widely accepted as only a few speakers from the floor questioned its validity. Nevertheless, both the opposers of the motion gave a reason: man is different from the animals because he is made in God's image. If God distinguishes us from animals, then so should we! The point was made that in our country birds' eggs have more protection than human embryos: it is illegal to take eggs from birds' nests!
Most of the contributions from the floor evidenced hostility to the pro-life position. One person recognised that the opposers of the motion had Christian convictions - `Why not practice this only among yourselves? Why impose it on the rest of us? Do you also want to control our sexual behaviour, so that we must restrict who we want to be with?' Another put in a `plea for the blackbird', pointing out that man was wrecking habitats and ecosystems without regard for the animal world. They need protection, we don't!
The final vote suggested that no one changed their opinion as a result of this debate. 80% of the medics present considered that abortion is morally acceptable and that the only reason for not performing an abortion is that the mother does not want one. These students are representatives of the medical leaders of the future. Most of them have no convictions about man being different from the animals. The Word of God is regarded as an irrelevance - they will allow people to believe what they like as long as they keep it to themselves. We have come a long way from the counsel of Solomon: `The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'.
What a need there is for a basic foundation of truth! What is man? What makes us different from animals? What is the basis of morality? Is it legitimate to even talk about morality if there is no belief in a righteous sovereign God to whom we are accountable? On what grounds can we legislate on moral issues? How should we treat the environment? What should our attitude be towards exploitation of global resources and destruction of habitats? Why defend family life? - or chastity before marriage? - or monogamy? The answers to these questions can be found in the very first book of the Bible, but `generation X' has absorbed the spirit of our age and lost touch with even basic Christian teachings.
How has this sad situation developed? For decades, we have seen the dominance of atheistic humanism among opinion formers in our country. Their ideas have affected education, social action, the legal system, science, leisure, the media and the medical world. We are now seeing the fruits of their ideas. An alien worldview has robbed us of morality, righteousness, real love and compassion. Instead, we have `survival of the fittest' , moral relativism and human arrogance. We need a robust biblical understanding of life, creation, ruin by the Fall, and redemption only through Jesus Christ. Creation orients us to the origins of the physical world, the relationship of the created to the Creator, the majesty, power and wisdom of God, the difference between creation and providence, and the flow of world history. The Fall brings us face to face with the consequences of sin: guilt, alienation from God, meaninglessness, judgment and death. Redemption declares God's answer to our rebellion, the transformation of human life in Christ, and the triumph of divine grace.
David J. Tyler (1993)