Technological advancement in a contemporary context can now be harnessed to destroy human life as attested to by the legalization in 2002 in Australia of embryo experimentation. Technological advances in ultra sound technology are now demonstrating that the foetus, the unborn baby, is a living being.  However advances in ultra sound technology have not led to a corresponding respect for human life as the practice of abortion is now, sadly, widespread in Australia and throughout much of the world.

The late Dr. Bertram Wainer who was the leading ‘pro-choice’ (sic) advocate in Australia realized that inherent public distaste for abortion impeded acceptance of its practice.  Arguably, the contemporary widespread availability of abortion does not denote a social acceptance of the practice but rather the perspective that it is wrong to deprive women of the right to choose to have an abortion.  This opt-out approach toward abortion is akin to Pontius Pilate’s washing of his hands: “yes abortion is terrible but let us suspend our conscious recognition that a human life is terminated because it is wrong to deny a woman’s ‘right to choose’.”

The above reference to Pontius Pilate may not be helpful because opposition to abortion is often equated with a religious approach to public policy and a corresponding desire to exercise social control in relation to sexual activity.  The moral teachings arising from Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism all have a moral logic which recognises that humanitarian compassion is derived from respect for human life.  Religious beliefs are transferable to a secular context and this is why belief systems in human civilizations are primarily derived from religious ethics.  Controversy therefore emerges when there is a disconnect between religious inspired teachings and changing secular attitudes toward what constitutes human rights.

Bio-ethical issues such as abortion and euthanasia are unfortunately often conceptualized as religious issues instead of being human rights issues.  Therefore the denial of the ‘right’ to abortion or euthanasia is regarded by many in society as a denial of individual human rights without considering the fatal cost which is wrought on the unborn and the elderly.

Terri Hatcher, the President of Pro-Life Mississippi, appreciates that the intense struggle over abortion in the United States cannot be won by the pro-life movement unless and until abortion again becomes socially unacceptable.  Ms. Hatcher realizes that a success in achieving this shift public attitude will be derived from appealing to people’s innate sense of compassion and decency and from an accompanying appreciation that laws should have a humanitarian underpinning.

The uncomfortable but compelling truth about abortion is that it takes a human life.  Those advocating the legal availability of abortion have successfully shifted the focus away from this unsettling fact.  When abortion was initially advocated, it was on the basis that it would be an exception to the rule, eg in the cases of rape and incest.  Now that abortion is for all intents and purposes available on demand in Australia, the focus has shifted toward allowing women the right to ‘choose’ (the term ‘abortion’ is rarely used) and away from the outcome, the loss of innocent human life.  In Australia in 2007, over 80,000 abortions were recorded and there were only 59 domestic adoptions!

The challenge of promoting social action in Australia in relation to bio-ethical issues is a truly daunting one.  This is because people do not like to be reminded that abortion entails the loss of human life.  The eighteenth century British abolitionist, William Wilberforce, succeeded in eventually ensuring the abolition of slavery by appealing to people’s consciences.  Wilberforce, an independent Whig, was essentially a social democrat ahead of his time.  His humanitarian perspective took precedent over commercial and economic interests.

A contemporary challenge which confronts Australian social democrats is the struggle for equity for employees.  The motivation in pursuing this just cause should be derived from a humanitarian respect for every person’s right to live with dignity and self-respect.  Australian Groupers had a proud record in fighting for this outcome.  However, the question emerges: if one is motivated to fight for social justice, should there not be a core respect for the intrinsic value of every human life?