"We need to resist the belief that the
value of human life lies in physical perfection"

These are the words of Joanna Jepson, the curate who is took West Mercia doctors to court after they sanctioned a late termination.

Abortions after the 24-week limit are only permitted in cases of severe disability. The reason given on the documentation in the Jepson case - an abortion carried out in the sixth month of pregnancy - "cleft palate".

Abortion is an emotive issue. And for Jepson, herself born with a jaw defect, the circumstances came particularly close to home.

Amidst such controversy, is it possible to find a more balanced view?
And what of the wider area of "Genethics"?

In July 1983, the Church of England's General Synod (the key church decision-maker) concluded that "all human life developing in the womb, is created by God in His own image and is, therefore, to be nurtured, supported and protected."

This booklet collates the different statements the Church of England has made in response to developing legislation. Particularly enlightening in the Jepson context is the Church's active participation in the reduction of the limit from 28 weeks (the 1967 act) to 24 (1991).

Does it matter morally at what stage of development the abortion takes place? This is just one of the questions considered by the so-called Progressive Christians. The book provides a factual backdrop to key ethical issues, and offers material for further reflection and discussion.

Borne out of the acutely controversial US context, the section on Abortion provides a careful background to the debate. Consideration is given to statistics such as the average rate of illegal abortion in Latin America (one for every two live births), and abortion-associated mortality rates in East Africa. The currency of the present controversy is exposed by reference to the history of abortion law. Judged for a long time to be a wholly private and personal matter (the first known law permitting abortion was passed in England in 1327), abortion regulation was introduced in 1803 to prevent abortion post-quickening - the time when the mother first feels the fetus' movements.

The biological explanation of spontaneous abortion sheds more light on the Jepson debate: Approximately 69% of all fertilized eggs "miscarry" in the first few weeks of pregnancy. This is understood as a natural screening process, effectively reducing the number of babies born with hereditary defects. Does such an interpretation offer a biological precedent to legitimate the abortion of a disabled fetus? Or does the miraculous survival of a genetically "imperfect" fetus beyond the initial stages command continued respect and protection?

Allen Verhey takes for his starting point the writing of Margaret Farley ("Liberation, Abortion, and Responsibility," Reflection 71, May 1974). In an extended essay he offers a thorough appraisal of the biblical texts that are used and, he suggests, largely abused in the abortion debate.

This is a book which engages fully with the complexity of the issues, as Verhey shows just how superficial the general understanding to many of the arguments - for and against - can be. He challenges, for example, the reductionist view that talks of being for or against women's "Choice" noting that the Pro-Choice lobby is headed by white middle-class men, for whom a woman's "choice" is simply a euphemistic term that masks their personal relief from unwanted responsibilities and accompanying guilt. This is a case made - according to Farley's criterion - "in bad faith".

Who are the appropriate decision makers? Whose interests should be considered? If tests are available, are we obliged to take them - or not to take them - by the needs and demands of our families?

Lainie Friedman Ross, in her essay, From Peapods to the Human Genome Project brings clarity to the ethical conflict faced by the administrators of the new genetics. Medicine is no longer a wholly private matter as the knowledge gained from tests will inevitably have effects beyond the local nuclear family. How can we begin to make moral decisions in this broader context? It helps, Lainie would argue, if we start by asking the right questions.

Thomas Murray's What are families for? Getting an Ethics of Reproductive Technology is perhaps the most pertinent piece in a collection of essays covering topics as diverse as sexual selection, clones and treatment for HIV. In just eight pages, Murray undertakes to define the defects in procreative liberty as a theoretical framework, and make a clear case for his preferred alternative: the concept of human flourishing.

The clearest deficiency of procreative liberty, according to Murray, is its total disregard for the child so-produced. Moreover, as a methodology that concentrates on the twin elements of control and choice, procreative liberty fails to offer a healthy focus for family values.

In comparison, human flourishing offers broader scope. From the start, human flourishing as a model, gives proper space to the male experience, rather than concentrating attention solely on the liberation of women's social roles. Murray's proposed framework also permits different accounts of a situation - albeit "not all... equally convincing" - rather than a blanket moral response. It is, in that sense, more immediately human.

We may struggle to understand disability within the framework of God's design, but as genetic engineering opens the way to designer babies, the decision to screen disabilities is transparently a human one.

"If we were to employ [the petri dish and the DNA chip] to treat and enhance future children, would we come to view them as products of our own making, rather than as gifts and creatures made in the image of God?"

In this percipient question, Cynthia Cohen & Mary Anderlik suggest just why the Church is essentially at odds with a designer gene culture; taken to extremes, genetic engineering inevitably threatens the creative dogma of Imago Dei, undermining Christian cosmology. Their essay, Creating and Shaping Future Children, invigorates much of Murray's case.

It is an exposition of the impact of genetics underpinned by a historical appraisal of Christian marriage and its dual focii: companionship and procreation. Setting hypothetical quandaries in conversation with Anglican theology, the authors question how we may differentiate between responsible and loving choice - where genetic engineering may create possibilities - and the attempts to control destiny through abuse of creative powers.

"Contemporary Anglicans still see children as gifts from God, rather than products, projects, or possessions of their parents."

Perhaps the question that faces us is just how far we are prepared to take reponsibility for acting like God.