Bite 2b - Laws regarding abortion in other countries

Since many Canadian pro-choice activists link full access to abortion at any stage of the pregnancy with full and equal human rights for women, I thought that it might be instructive to look at laws regulating abortion in other western liberal democracies with a commitment to full women's rights.

1. United Kingdom - In 1967 the Abortion Act legalized abortion under certain circumstances, and amendments were made in 1990. Currently the Act permits termination of pregnancy if two doctors are of the opinion in good faith:
a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

2. United States of America - The 1973 Supreme Court ruling gave American women the right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, and regulated the procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health." In the third trimester, a state can choose to prohibit abortion, except when necessary "for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

This decision arose out of the famous Roe v. Wade case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court chose not to deal at length with the related controversy of the personhood of the fetus. Rather it took the following position:

A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized...as persons in the whole sense" and thus the fetal child are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability (source: Wikipedia).

3. France - Abortion is legal on-request in France in the first trimester. Abortion has been decriminalized since the passage of the Veil Law in 1975. After the first trimester, two physicians must certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

Since 1994, French law has required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centers decide which birth defects are severe enough to make abortion after the 12 week limit permissible.

4. Germany - Abortion in Germany is legal, but only when done before the 3rd month of pregnancy. Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.

5. Sweden - The current legislation is the Abortion Act of 1974. This states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever. After the 18th and until the 22nd week a woman needs a permission from the National Board of Health and Welfare to have an abortion. Permission for these late abortions is usually granted for cases in which the fetus or mother are unhealthy.

6. Switzerland - Abortion in Switzerland is legal during the first trimester, upon condition of counseling, for women who state that they are in distress. It is also legal with medical indications – threat of severe physical or psychological damage to the woman – at any later time.

Persons performing illegal abortions are subject to payment of a monetary penalty or imprisonment of up to five years. A woman who procures an illegal abortion is subject to a payment of a monetary penalty or imprisonment of up until three years.

7. Denmark - Abortion in Denmark was fully legalized on October 1, 1973,[1] allowing the procedure to be done on-demand if a woman's pregnancy has not exceeded its twelfth week. The patient must be over the age of 18 to decide on an abortion alone; parental consent is required if she is a minor.

8. Finland - A 1985 bill allowed abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy for underage women and up to the 24th week if an amniocentesis or ultrasound found serious impairment in the fetus.

Abortions are provided free-of-charge in hospitals. It is illegal to perform abortions in clinics, though doctors are empowered to provide abortions outside of hospitals in dire circumstances. Illegal abortions are very rare because in practice a woman can get an abortion on demand.

9. The Netherlands - Under the act, termination of a pregnancy must be given careful consideration: a woman and her physician must agree that her circumstances are compelling. The doctor must inform her of other possible solutions. To give the woman time for reflection, there must be a lapse of at least five days between the woman's first consultation with her doctor and the actual termination of the pregnancy.

In the Netherlands, abortions are performed until approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy; however, as a result of the ongoing debate among physicians about the viability of the fetus, abortions are only rarely performed after 22 weeks of pregnancy. Abortions after the first trimester must be performed in a hospital.

10. Australia - Abortion in Australia remains a subject of state law rather than national law. The grounds on which abortion is permitted in Australia vary from state to state. In every state, abortion is legal to protect the life and health of the woman, though each state has a different definition.

The only state with a law that is similar to Canada's abortion on demand regimen is the Australian Capital Territory. Abortion law in the Australian Capital Territory was for many years governed by case law and the criminal code of New South Wales. However, in 2002, it became the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalize abortion in full, when the Stanhope ALP government, with the assistance of Green and independent members, passed the Crimes (Abolition of Offense of Abortion) Act 2002, removing abortion from the criminal statute books altogether.

By way of contrast, in Queensland abortions are carried out as "therapeutic miscarriages", performed by specialists, upon request of the patient after an appointment with their local GP. An abortion is lawful in Queensland if carried out when there is serious danger to the woman's physical and mental health from the continuation of the pregnancy.

Bite 2a - Ignorance of the law regarding abortion

Before going on to the topic of what information is necessary for women to make an informed choice in our pro-choice environment, I want to look at how much Canadians do or do not know about prevailing laws--or lack of same.

In my last post, I explored the Supreme Court ruling that left us where we are today; i.e., with no law governing abortion whatsoever. Canada is unique among western nations in having abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, including partial birth abortions. Remember, Canadian women do not have a constitutional right to abortion as Americans do. The law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are silent on the subject.

But what do Canadians actually know about this state of affairs? First of all, this rather startling reality--80% of Canadians don't know what the law is--or isn't. Many polls have explored this, but lets look at the latest from the respected polling organization Angus Reid, taken in early January 2010.

All right, if 80% of Canadians don't know what the legal situation is governing abortion, simplistic questions like, "Do you agree with the laws governing abortion?", or, "Do you think that our abortion laws should be changed?" don't mean anything. Respondents can't give a proper answer because their basic premise is likely wrong.

Fortunately, Angus Reid delves much deeper than this superficial level. Here are some major findings:

1. 43% of Canadians believe that a woman can have an abortion, with no restrictions, only during the first trimester of her pregnancy.
2. A further 14% believe that not only is abortion limited to the first three months, but only if there is a danger to her life, if she's been raped, or the fetus has serious defects.

So there are 57% of Canadians who believe that abortion is limited to the first trimester of pregnancy. But there's more.

3. 10% of Canadians believe that a woman can have an abortion anytime during her pregnancy, but only if her life is in danger, she was raped, or if the fetus has serious defects.

So two-thirds of respondents believed that there were significant restrictions placed on the availability of abortions, either to do with the time within which it could legally be obtained, the circumstances under which a doctor could perform the surgery, or both. [As an aside, abortions for danger to life, or for reasons of rape and incest amount to only 5% of all abortions obtained.]

Now, some would say that it is our responsibility to acquaint women more fully with their rights (I guess I'm doing that right now). Should women know what the state of regulations concerning abortion really are (or complete lack of regulations to be more exact) they would swing behind the prevailing ideology; i.e., Canada should remain as the only western country with abortion on demand with no restrictions.

To get a better read on Canadian attitudes, Angus Reid in fact told respondents what the legal framework actually is, and then asked them some more questions. Armed with the proper knowledge concerning our Canadian situation, respondents then supplied the following regarding their attitudes and beliefs:

1. Knowing the real situation changed virtually nothing. I noted above that 67% of women were under the mistaken belief that abortion was restricted either in time, in reasons for abortions, or both. Having been apprised of the actual legal framework, only 30% of respondents said that they supported it--women should be able to have an abortion at any time with no restrictions.

The majority of respondents still felt that having restrictions was desirable. Here is how they answered:

2. 24% would accept abortion on demand with no restrictions for the first trimester, and thereafter only in the case of danger to health, rape, and serious fetal defects.
3. 15% would limit availability to the first three months.
4. 13% would limit availability to the first three months, and then only in the case of the horrid triumvirate--health, rape and fetal defects.

That adds up to over half of Canadians who could, more or less, accept abortion during the first trimester only. It is fair to say, however, that only 5% would abolish abortion entirely.

5. 6% would allow abortion at any time, but only in the case of the three conditions.

Beyond this, respondents felt that the following further conditions ought to prevail:

1. 41% would restrict public funding for abortions only to medical emergencies.
2. 53% would require parental consent for females under 18 who want to abort (right now no such consent is required).
3. 79% would make it mandatory for health workers to provide information regarding alternatives to abortion.

And finally, female respondents were more likely then men to support our prevailing legal framework--but only half of the women indicated this.

These findings appear to me to make the link between unfettered access to abortion, and full human rights for women, somewhat more tenuous. Presumably the 70% of respondents who accepted restrictions limited to time and/or medical factors believe in women's rights. Yet they did not feel that this belief was diminished by accepting some restrictions on access.

Interestingly, as I have noted before, heroes such as Madame Justice Wilson and Dr. Henry Morgentaler* (Order of Canada), believe likewise.
-------------------------------------------------------------
*Morgentaler was greatly criticized by some abortion advocates because he would not permit the abortion of unborn babies at his clinics beyond 24 weeks gestation. His position was, “We don’t abort babies, we want to abort fetuses before they become babies … around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that.”

Bite 2 - Women and the right to abortion

The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision, a matter of conscience. I do not think there is or can be any dispute about that. The question is: whose conscience? Is the conscience of the woman to be paramount or the conscience of the state? I believe, for the reasons I gave in discussing the right to liberty, that in a free and democratic society it must be the conscience of the individual.
Justice Bertha Wilson, Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Morgentaler, 1988.

No one should debate my rights over my own body.
Tracey Ho, Director, Univ. of Victoria Students' Society, 2008.

There are many incorrect beliefs about the legal status of abortions in Canada. Some people believe that Canadian women, like their American counterparts, have a constitutional right to an abortion, and that this right is absolute. Others believe that a legal abortion is available only up to a certain point in the pregnancy, such as the end of the first trimester.

In fact, abortions in Canada are limited only by the availability of a doctor who will perform the operation, and by the availability of a hospital or clinic where the surgery can take place. There is no law placing limits on whether and when a woman can obtain an abortion. But there is no constitutional guarantee for abortion either. There is no law whatsoever. We have abortion on demand in Canada because there is no law (since 1988) prohibiting it.

Justice Wilson (quoted above), somewhat of a hero is pro-choice circles for her reasoning regarding "a woman's right to choose," actually took a more conservative position on government restrictions on access to abortion than in fact prevails in Canada. Citing relevant American legislation, she wrote as follows:

For our purposes the most interesting development in this area of American law are the decisions of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and its sister case Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). In Roe v. Wade the Court held that a pregnant woman has the right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. This conclusion, the majority stated, was mandated by the body of existing law ensuring that the state would not be allowed to interfere with certain fundamental personal decisions such as education, child-rearing, procreation, marriage and contraception. The Court concluded that the right to privacy found in the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of liberty ``. . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" (p. 153).

This right was not, however, to be taken as absolute. At some point the legitimate state interests in the protection of health, proper medical standards, and pre-natal life would justify its qualification. Lawrence H. Tribe, Professor of Law at Harvard University, in his work entitled American Constitutional Law (1978), conveniently summarizes the limits the Court found to be inherent in the woman's right. I quote from pp. 924-25:

Specifically, the Court held that, because the woman's right to decide whether or not to end a pregnancy is fundamental, only a compelling interest can justify state regulation impinging in any way upon that right. During the first trimester of pregnancy, when abortion is less hazardous in terms of the woman's life than carrying the child to term would be, the state may require only that the abortion be performed by a licensed physician; no further regulations peculiar to abortion as such are compellingly justified in that period.

After the first trimester, the compelling state interest in the mother's health permits it to adopt reasonable regulations in order to promote safe abortions -- but requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals, or only after approval of another doctor or committee in addition to the woman's physician, is impermissible, as is requiring that the abortion procedure employ a technique that, however preferable from a medical perspective, is not widely available.

Once the fetus is viable, in the sense that it is capable of survival outside the uterus with artificial

aid, the state interest in preserving the fetus becomes compelling, and the state may thus proscribe its premature removal (i.e., its abortion) except to preserve the mother's life or health (emphasis added).

Interestingly enough Canada's abortionist laureate, Henry Morgentaler, agrees with this view. He will not permit abortions in his clinics after 24 weeks.

The Chief Justice of the day, Brian Dickson, admitted that his court had not written the last word on the abortion issue, nor did he rule that abortion on demand was the only way of satisfying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He pointed out that the Court was dealing only with specific Canadian legislation that placed certain restrictions on the availability of abortions and whether this legislation was constitutional. The majority found that it was not. But Dickson went on to say this:

During argument before this Court, counsel for the Crown emphasized repeatedly that it is not the role of the judiciary in Canada to evaluate the wisdom of legislation enacted by our democratically elected representatives, or to second-guess difficult policy choices that confront all governments. In Morgentaler v. The Queen, [1976].....I stressed that the Court had "not been called upon to decide, or even to enter, the loud and continuous public debate on abortion." Eleven years later, the controversy persists, and it remains true that this Court cannot presume to resolve all of the competing claims advanced in vigorous and healthy public debate. Courts and legislators in other democratic societies have reached completely contradictory decisions when asked to weigh the competing values relevant to the abortion question. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Paton v. United Kingdom (1980), 3 E.H.R.R. (European Court of Human Rights); The Abortion Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court -- First Senate -- of the Federal Republic of Germany, February 25, 1975, translated and reprinted in (1976), 9 John Marshall J. Prac. and Proc. 605; and the Abortion Act, 1967, 1967, c. 87 (U.K.) (emphasis added).

Well, that's a lot of legalese, but it is worth wading through. Canada has no law pertaining to abortion. But the key Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the last law regarding abortion ever enacted by a Canadian Parliament did not in fact say that there was no place for laws placing restrictions on access--quite the opposite.

Nevertheless, opposition to the pro-life movement in Canada is founded, in the final analysis, on the conviction that restrictions on abortion are incompatible with a woman's charter rights. No Canadian court has ever ruled as such--but this is the position taken.

In my next post, I'll attempt to deal with the ways in which the pro-choice sorority goes beyond anything the courts or the Charter prescribe in attempt to muzzle the pro-life movement--and in doing so placing restrictions on a woman's right to an informed choice.

Bite 1 - What are equality rights for women and men?

Women's rights belong to a broader category called "equality rights." These are part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms introduced in the early 1980s by the Trudeau government. For those readers who are unfamiliar with this bit of Canadiana, a brief explanation follows from the (now defunct) Court Challenges Program of Canada:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a statement of our basic human rights and freedoms. Some of these are: the right to free expression and freedom of belief, the right to vote, the right to a fair process and trial if you are accused of a crime, the right to educate your children in your mother tongue, if you are from an official language minority community, and the right to equality. The Charter became part of Canada's Constitution in 1982.

The CPP goes on to explain what equality means:

Equality means giving every person equal respect in society. Sometimes, people are treated differently or unfairly because of things like the colour of their skin, their religion or a physical disability. This is called discrimination. Many groups of people through history have suffered discrimination. Equality means that all people are treated fairly, without discrimination.

Equality rights have been utilized in sorting out many societal and legal anomalies. Two illustrations of laws that were deemed to be in conflict with equality rights follow (again from the CPP):

1. A law which says that an Aboriginal women loses her legal status as an Aboriginal person if she marries someone without this status, but that an Aboriginal man may marry whomever he pleases without affecting his status

This law creates a direct difference in treatment on the basis of sex (gender) by singling out Aboriginal women and taking away their rights.

2. A law which says only married and opposite-sex common law couples can get certain tax breaks

This law creates a direct difference in treatment on the basis of sexual orientation by singling out people in same-sex relationships and denying them tax breaks.

But for our purposes we will focus on women's rights, particularly as they relate to life issues such as abortion.

The single most significant moment in the development of women's rights goes back to the famous Persons Case of 1929, nicely summarized by that invaluable source Wikipedia:

In 1927, five women from Alberta petitioned the Supreme Court [of Canada] to decide whether women were included in the definition of the word "persons" as used in the British North America Act (Canada's de facto constitution at the time). Hinging on this decision was whether women could be appointed to the Senate or not -- the body which approved divorces among other decisions important to women. The Supreme Court, interpreting the Act in light of the times in which it was written, ruled in 1928 that no, women were not "persons" and could not be so appointed.

The five women, led by Emily Murphy, appealed the case to the Judicial Committee of England's Privy Council. In 1929, the five Lords of the Committee ruled unanimously that "the word ‘persons' in Section 24 includes both the male and female sex.…" They called the earlier interpretation "a relic of days more barbarous than ours."

As the Virgina Slims tobacco company put it in their famous 1968 marketing campaign aimed at young professional women, "You've come a long way, baby." Of course, for Virginia Slims, this meant that women now had the equal right with men to inhale, and suffer a premature death from,  carcinogens. But the slogan was based on the growing feeling among women that they were beginning to be all that they were meant to be in a society previously dominated by the male of the species.

Much has been accomplished in this area of equality of the sexes since 1929. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, for instance, makes this claim:

Canada is a world leader in the promotion and protection of women's rights and gender equality. These issues are central to Canada's foreign and domestic policies. Canada is committed to the view that gender equality is not only a human rights issue, but is also an essential component of sustainable development, social justice, peace, and security. These goals will only be achieved if women are able to participate as equal partners, decision makers, and beneficiaries of the sustainable development of their societies.

Judging from the list of women's rights organizations in Canada, however, many clearly feel that further progress is necessary. You can view this list at http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/diana/organizations.htm.

Women's rights have been expanded in many ways besides voting (or smoking). With respect to abortion, we must look at the key Supreme Court of Canada decision of 1988, again from Wikipedia:

In the R. v. Morgentaler case in 1988, Canada's abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bertha Wilson, the first woman on the Supreme Court, had been appointed in 1982. Section 287 of the Criminal Code states that abortion is a crime. However, section 7 of the Charter says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Henry Morgentaler, who was trying to establish abortion clinics, forced the courts to rule on this issue, and in 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that section 287 of the Criminal Code was of no force or effect.

This is where we will pick up in my next bite--er, post. What is the link between abortion and women's rights as the Supreme Court saw it?

Women's rights, Part 2--one bite at a time

I have been doing a good deal of thinking since my last post of Dec. 9/09 regarding the topic of women's rights (or better, equality rights) and how it relates to life issues, particularly reproductive rights and abortion. The lead up to Christmas has been an understandable distraction and time-consumer, so I have not been able to do anything like the research that is necessary for such a complicated subject.

But I have decided that I will have to break up the analysis into several individual studies. Otherwise I would have a post whose length would surround the block. So we'll eat this 800 pound gorilla one bite at a time.

My focus will be on women's rights in Canada for the obvious reason that I am a Canadian. But I will from time to time compare and contrast the Canadian situation with that of other countries, including the U.S. and Europe. I expect to learn a great deal from this study, and hope that you will as well.

But for now, I wish you all a blessed Christmas, a restful family time, a giving and receiving of love however expressed, and a sense of hope and purpose in the New Year.

Women's rights, part 1.

17th to 20th century North American society, historical revisionists to the contrary notwithstanding, developed to the largest extent on the basis of European values founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview as it was understood during those years.

Canada's aboriginal population was seen by the dominant culture as deficient in that it lacked this same basis for living. Consequently many, many aboriginals were forced into the residential school system to wring this deficiency out of them and to churn out individuals like unto ourselves. Immigration policy also reflected this bias. Present-day multiculturalism is a very recent departure from this preference for sameness based on our European heritage.

That is not the same thing as saying that Canada was a Christian country. Had it been, would we have ever treated other human beings the way we dealt with the First Nations, Inuit and Metis, not to mention women, immigrant Chinese labourers and their descendents, Japanese residents during WW2, and others who were oppressed in a variety of ways and denied full citizenship in such matters as voting and holding public office, entering into contracts, even being recognized legally as persons?

Slowly these societal sins are being addressed and their odious results set aright. Even Canada's prisoners vote now. The United Nations has published universal declarations on any number of rights issues, including those of women, children, and aboriginal groups. Canadians, by and large, applaud these efforts.

In other words, as we recognize that all people are equal and deserving of equal respect, we are becoming much more a Christian nation in terms of what we value.

A major sticking point, however, is in the area of women's rights, particularly within the context of what are often referred to as 'life' issues (e.g., abortion, reproductive health, etc.). I'm thinking of two problems here. One is the feminist understanding of the Judeo-Christian position on women; i.e., that women are subordinate, even inferior, and therefore not eligible for full and equal rights. This has led feminists, for the most part, to dismiss moral evaluations of women's rights issues based on the Christian heritage, even though that heritage has been the dominant moral philosophy for most of our history.

[I invited the director of a large and respected non-profit devoted to helping women to attend a "resource fair" I was setting up to acquaint women with organizations exactly like hers. She rejected me outright, solely on the basis of my affiliation with a pro-life organization, insisting that we were nothing more than a religious group that holds to the subordination of women.]

The other is that equal rights means that any inherent differences between the male and the female (e.g., that women bear children and men don't) are to be ignored in defining what 'equal' means. Equality brings with it the idea of uniformity. Equal = identical.

[For another example of this notion of equal = identical, one can consider the GoTopless campaign which urges us to stand up for topless equal rights. Here is the justification cited by this group from their website:

GoTopless Day always falls at the Sunday closest to Women's Equality Day, Aug 26. It is indeed on Aug 26, 1920 that women earned their right to vote on the basis of Gender Equality. In 1971, the US Congress has made Aug 26 into a nationally recognized date and named it "Women's Equality Day".

In a record-setting conflation, a woman's right to vote and a "right" to go topless have been lumped together as deserving equal constitutional protection:

It is only logical that GoTopless Day protests (or celebrations depending on the legal status of your city) would fall around Women's Equality Day since the right to go topless for women is based on gender equality as their right to vote once was.

See http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Video+GoTopless+returns+Vancouver/10145458/story.html for a video report of this years topless day in Vancouver on Aug. 24/15.]

I am not a philosopher nor a legal expert. I'm not even a theologian, although I am a seminary grad with a masters degree in biblical studies. Therefore, I can't bring to this dilemma a highly sophisticated analysis of the sort it deserves. But I would like to throw out a few ideas resulting from 62 years of broad exposure, an academic career, and the role-modeling of some pretty savvy women.

I'll take a crack at the Judeo-Christian view of women in this post, and then a stab at equal rights in the next. Prayer would be appreciated.

OK, back to the (for me mythical, but for some literal) Garden of Eden. I treat this part of the Old Testament as I do Jesus' parables; i.e., as a vehicle for much rich theology. Genesis chapter one has man and woman created in one fell swoop:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness". . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them (Gn. 1:26-27). Here 'man' simply means mankind (or better, humankind), further defined as male and female. No suggestion of subordination can be found. Their origins, nature and task are identical.

In Genesis chapter two, however, the creation story is repeated with considerable detail added regarding the order of events (on Day 1 this, on Day 2 that, and so on). The notion that somehow woman is inherently subordinate to man in God's perfect world derives, for some, from this account. In fact, it turns on one word: helper.

Man (in this case meaning the male, Adam) gave names to all livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper (or in the older English versions, helpmate) was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman with the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' (in Hebrew, ISHAH), for she was taken out of man" (in Hebrew, ISH) (Gn. 2: 20-23).

Two problems arise. One has to do with a complete misunderstanding of the word 'helper' or 'helpmate,' which many have viewed as putting Eve in a subordinate category to Adam, and by extension women to men. But what does helper mean?

1. Helpmate is a very poor construction as it puts together two words, 'help' and 'meet', and greatly distorts the meaning. 'Meet' means suitable, complementary, making up for some lack, a companion. Help meet (or in more modern English, suited to) Adam means giving something to Adam that complements* his combination of skills and attributes with others that are necessary to make humankind not only perfect, but complete. Each of the partners was perfect, but there were some differences between them that required their full cooperation for completeness to be achieved. I'm sure that this notion is behind St. Paul's reference to the act of marriage making a man and a woman 'one flesh'.

2. The term is used only four times in the Old Testament, and twice it refers to God. In another instance it describes a powerful military ally. It carries no sense of subservience (quite the contrary!).

It is not possible to derive any idea of superior/subordinate, or even first among equals from this biblical passage. The rub, to quote Shakespeare, comes in Genesis chapter 3, in the section describing God's curse upon his creation as a result of disobedience:

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you" (Gn. 3:16).

Instead of giving birth to more perfect and complementary male and female babies, Eve was now saddled (and her female descendents along with her) with the pain of contributing to the pool of fallen human beings, physical pain being a strong reminder (and powerful metaphor) for this unhappy fact.

But even worse, the physically more powerful Adam (and his male descendents after him) will now take advantage of weakness of any sort for personal gratification. We see this immediately in Genesis chapter 4 in the murder of Abel by brother Cain. It is also seen in the systemic subordination of women by men throughout the biblical record. Note that God is not prescribing this state of affairs in Genesis 3, but simply describing what is the inevitable result of sin and its distortion of human relationships.

Therefore, by Jesus' time woman were not much more than chattel. But Jesus was constantly bewildering his disciples and his male opponents by treating women as if they mattered and even including them among his associates (e.g., the Samaritan woman, Martha's sister Mary, and the woman who washed his feet with her hair).

St. Paul, probably the most intelligent and best educated of Jesus' earlier interpreters, got it better than the original twelve apostles. Paul was a man with no concern for privilege. He was prepared to make any number of accommodations to culture as long as in doing so he could find ways to spread the Good News without losing a hearing from the get go. For instance, he was a Roman citizen but never presumed upon this privilege when being hassled by Roman authorities. He encouraged his followers--male and female--to emulate his approach, even if it meant setting aside personal rights.

But there were times when he clearly drew the line. Space does not permit a suitable explanation, but those familiar with the biblical record will recognize Paul's stand for equality in his contrasting the situations of the Gentile Christian Titus versus the Jewish Christian Timothy in the matter of circumcision, his remonstrations with St. Peter regarding the latter's avoidance of Gentiles, and his insistence that his Christian Gentile friend Philemon treat his runaway slave Onesimus, who was converted under Paul's teaching, as if he were Paul himself.

With respect to women, Paul insisted that the followers of Christ would now take society back to the state of perfect unity between men and women found in the Eden-story: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

Consequently, Paul told men and women to submit to each other (Eph. 5:21). He numbered certain women as "fellow labourers who contended at my side" (Philippians 4:2-3). He refers to a woman named Junia in Romans 16 (the feminine form of the name, Junia, is found in the older manuscripts, with the masculine form, Junius, coming much later) as outstanding among the apostles. Women are identified in the New Testament as prophets, teachers, and deacons.

My bottom line is this: Whatever faults feminists find with the Church and modern understandings of the biblical teaching on women, the Bible is clear that women and men are equal in every respect--not identical, but equal. Judeo-Christian morality is not based on any presupposition that women deserve in some way to be disadvantaged vis-a-vis men. It just isn't there.

Next I will attempt to take this biblical view of equality and apply it to the current scene with respect to women's rights. But first, I had better get a couple of good nights' rest and perhaps a fortifying goblet or two of Australian red.
----------------------------------------
*When I say 'complements', I am in no way referring to a school of thought concerning the relationship between men and women labelled "complementarian". This view, as opposed to the egalitarian position I hold, takes this form: Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. I reject the complementarian view outright as unsupportable scripturally.

TIGER, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night...

...not to mention the fire hydrants.

Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods has joined a distinguished group of well-known, well-paid, well-coddled athletes who treat marriage vows, and the women that go with them, with the same elan as they do their competitors; i.e., an eagerness to brush them aside--to score, as it were, at will. Step aside Wilt (the Stilt, no pun intended) Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Mike Tyson, and all the rest of you serious adulterers and fornicators; Tiger has now joined the club (again, no pun intended). Mr. Privacy is now just another Mr. Privates.

What does any of the above have to do with the life issues to which this blog is dedicated? Simply this--right to life does not mean simply the right to breath. The right to a beating heart. And certainly not the right to be used or abused as another sees fit.

Let me give you some theological background to explain myself further. God created for a purpose. Creationism has nothing to do with six days versus eons of time. God can create as He pleases. The difference is sovereignty, direction, and purpose versus randomness, accident, and blind chance. God created everything in the cosmos as an expression of his wisdom, power, justice and love. And he put humankind at the head of it as His stewards (which is what the term 'dominion' in Genesis means).

The great tragedy of humankind's 'Fall' from grace in Genesis chapter 3 is not that henceforth some humans were destined for Hell and that the soft life in Lotus Land was over. No, it is the introduction of relationships characterized by superiority/subordination, injustice, and exploitation, plus an abandonment of God's values of love, justice, dignity, fidelity, and community.

Now the weak would exploit the strong; labour turned from a happy and creative activity to one of drudgery and monotony; plenty became scarcity; and childbearing's travails were greatly intensified. Love, justice, fidelity, and community now fought for space with self-love and lust, injustice, adultery and hyper-individualism. Human dignity became another attribute to be withheld or destroyed.

Back to the right to life. If all this term means is that no one has the right to take the life of another, then one could accept just about any context for living that life as long as no murder took place. Pro-lifers could ensure that abortion and euthanasia were made illegal, dust off their hands, and say, "Our work is done." If that is all right to life means, I'm out.

The right to life is the right to a life of love, of equality, of justice, of dignity, of faithful relationships, of creativity, of supportive community--the right to a life worth living. Tiger Woods' wife, Elin Nordegren, has been robbed of most or all of these things by her husband's lifestyle choices. He was very right to label his adulterous relationships as 'transgressions', not just 'mistakes' as do so many sinners when caught with their pants down do.

Most women who decide to abort do so for someone else's reasons, not their own. I have learned this from so-called pro-choicers just as much as pro-lifers. What are those reasons?--boyfriends and husbands who don't want to support a child; families who don't want to be embarrassed; employers who don't want to extend maternity leave and benefits; builders who don't want to provide affordable housing; drug pushers who don't want to lose customers; governments who don't want to fund daycare. One could go on and on. The grim reality is that (mostly young and single) women are left to cope on their own with a crisis pregnancy. A sign on a stick brings little direction, and even less comfort and hope, at a time like this.

What is our task as members of the right to life world? To rid ourselves of permissive abortion laws? Or to address full on the conditions that rob women and and their unborn children of their chance for hope, health, dignity, love and justice--the abundant life as Jesus called it?

There are a lot of Tigers out there. I'm not satisfied to provide them with a series of exploitable women to use as they want. There is no room for Tigers in a life of abundance.

That's the life concerning which I am decidedly pro.