Rev. Donald M. Boyd
PUBLIC interest in the ethics of abortion has been re-awakened by several recent incidents reported prominently in the media.
First, the public was alerted to the fact that over 3,000 frozen human embryos had to be destroyed according to the rules governing storage of unused embryos. These embryos were created by ‘in vitro fertilisation’ (IVF) techniques. The British policy is that unused embryos are frozen and then destroyed after five years of storage, unless donors specifically ask for preservation.
Secondly, we were informed that a woman chose to have a selective abortion of one of her twins because she claimed that she could not cope with twins. This provoked an application to the courts for clarification of the 1967 Abortion Act.
Thirdly, a woman is pregnant with eight children, apparently because of inappropriate treatment with fertility-boosting drugs. She has refused to have selective abortion, that is, for doctors to abort some of the children so that the others will have a better prospect of survival. Intense interest has developed because it is the first case of octuplets in the world and because the moral dilemma of selective abortion has been thus highlighted.
Abortion is unscriptural except where a continuing pregnancy will result in the loss of the mother’s life. The question arises whether it is acceptable to improve the possibility of saving the lives of some of these children by the selective abortion of some others. Professor Kypros Nicolaides, head of foetal medicine at King’s College Hospital, London, who has taken over this case of multiple pregnancy, said that most people faced with a multiple birth opted for selective reduction, and while he said there were no right or wrong decisions, he added: “I am not aware of a single case in history where somebody successfully delivered eight babies.” (The Times, 13/8/96). In 1987 septuplets were born 26 weeks early and they all died within days of each other.
Abortion ethos
These matters have highlighted the “abortion ethos” which is involved in IVF and some other methods of infertility treatment, that is, those working in these fields of infertility treatment appear to think nothing of destroying embryos. There is an implicit acceptance that those who agree to undergo this form of infertility treatment will allow selective abortion if need be, or that stored human embryos will in due course be destroyed if they are not used. This, in turn, is making abortion become so acceptable that a gynaecologist and a mother think little of selectively destroying a healthy infant, and some take it for granted that some of the octuplets should be selectively aborted. However, it may be that the developing skills and resources in neonatal medicine will result in a happier outcome than some envisage. This is a medical and a moral judgment.
When our Church responded to the Warnock Report in 1984, we envisaged the events which are only now impinging on the national consciousness. Because of this abortion ethos, we were unable to ascertain what could be legitimately utilised from the IVF programme and we did not recommend it to our people (see Synod Proceedings 1985, pp. 2,17). Whatever good in the future the Lord may bring out of this evil climate, we cannot recommend this form of infertility treatment as long as the abortion ethos pervades it.
The jury is still out on many aspects of this modern revolution in human bio-engineering. In 1984 our Religion and Morals Committee recommended that the deliberate production of spare embryos and embryo freezing should be outlawed. We called for the Abortion Act 1967 to be repealed and legislation enacted to prohibit abortion with one exception: where a continuing pregnancy will result in the loss of the mother’s life.
In May 1985, the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland passed a Resolution on IVF which stated: “We also wish to express our strong reservations regarding In Vitro Fertilisation (the test-tube baby technique) and our condemnation of the present IVF programme which includes the destruction of human embryos, which is apparently an essential part of the test-tube baby programme. We urge the Government to introduce legislation as soon as possible to give full protection in law to the unborn child at all stages of its development from fertilisation.”
In 1987 the Religion and Morals Committee responded to the consultation paper “Legislation on Human Infertility Services and Embryo Research” which concerned the setting up of the Statutory Licensing Authority which now regulates practice in this field. At that time we said:
“We are unconvinced that the magnitude of the problem of infertility (which these techniques are designed to alleviate) warrants the proposed Statutory Licensing Authority. We fear that establishing such an authority will create its own demand by extending the indications for IVF. It will also be an attempt to give an air of respectability to these unscriptural and God-dishonouring practices.”
We believed that control could be adequately performed by the Secretary of State who would be more accountable to public opinion than a Voluntary or Statutory Licensing Authority, and who would offer more independent and objective control.