Abortion Debate - May 2008

I have already used one of these blogs to express my misgivings about the Government’s Embryology and Fertilisation Bill with its focus on human / animal hybrids. In fact by far the greatest controversy was generated by the debates on abortion. Although abortion wasn’t even originally in the Government’s bill many of us saw it as the opportunity to put amendments in order to achieve a reduction in the current levels of abortion in Britain (now running at some 200,000 per year, which prompted one MP to reflect that the womb is the most dangerous place for a baby to be). The current limit within which ‘social’ abortions can take place is 24 weeks, as set in 1990. The original 1968 limit was 28 weeks.[ By ‘social’ abortion I mean one that is not sought on grounds of  abnormality, rape, or incest.]  I put my name to one of the amendments to reduce the permissible threshold but I voted for every amendment on the order paper in its turn: 12 weeks; 16; 20; and 22 weeks. The expectation had been that there would be a reduction in line with reported public opinion. Unfortunately it was not to be: even on the issue of a reduction of a mere two weeks in the time limit within which “social” abortions are permitted, we were defeated by a substantial margin of some 70 votes.
The bill had been whipped by Labour in the House of Lords but after David Cameron challenged Gordon Brown two weeks running at Prime Minister’s questions, and the bishops had weighed in, the Government relented and allowed its MPs a free vote. An analysis of the voting shows that, notwithstanding a free vote on an issue of conscience, the political parties still tend to vote as packs, for example, on the question of reducing the  limit from 24 to 22 weeks the voting of the 3 main parties was as follows

You can draw your own conclusions but I suggest that even though this is quite properly a free vote and not a party issue, a different party balance in Parliament might well give rise to a different outcome. 

The argument centred principally on the question of “viability”, namely the number of weeks gestation at which a child might be born and reasonably be expected to survive.  First, I think those who voted against a reduction on the question of viability, failed to properly appreciate the argument even within their own chosen terms: the evidence to the effect that medical advances have made pre-term children viable much sooner than the current 24 week limit, is overwhelming. Second, I reject viability as the principal determinate of the issue.  The reality is that no baby is viable even if it goes to the full term without the intervention of parents and clinicians to ensure that it is properly delivered; fed; and clothed.  I do not think it is persuasive to argue that a baby can be killed and removed from the womb on the grounds that if it were to be born at that stage it would be too premature to survive.

If viability is not to be the principal guide then what is?  Although many believe that a human being’s life begins at the moment of conception, if I am not mistaken, there is no overwhelming consensus about this. Many people have difficulty with the notion that a shapeless collection of cells, one MP referring to it as a blob of glup, is a baby and should be protected as such. I do, however, believe that there is a much wider consensus that has built up following the publication in recent years of  the images of  babies in the womb: most people think that a baby which rubs its eyes;  kicks;  yawns;  smiles;  and looks like a baby is indeed just that -a baby.  I am not aware of anyone that has gone to hospital for an ante natal scan being told by the practitioner that they can see their “foetus”.  They are told that they can see their baby.  The poisoning, dismembering and removal of such a baby from the womb, is a matter of profound public disquiet which Parliament ought to have addressed. 

This matter cannot now simply be left to rest.  Those of us who have been defeated must regroup and renew our efforts.  William Wilberforce was defeated many times over many years before he prevailed and saw the slave trade abolished.  That battle was first won, not in Parliament, but in the country at large.  It was only when the public consensus was overwhelming that Parliament responded to it.  Equally, I believe that the issue of abortion has to achieve a much higher public profile and level of public condemnation before members of parliament will bow to that public will. Currently people shy away from it. We don’t like to discuss it. We find ways of concealing the awfulness of it, our doctors prefer to talk about ‘terminations’ rather than abortions. Perhaps the most grotesque euphemism of all is the way the abortionists refer to their services as ‘family planning’.