What I didn't mention before was that they were supposed to be voting on amendments to the Bill relating to embryo research and IVF access for lesbian parents - the pro-life/anti-choice lobby hijacked the debate and submitted amendments to the 24-week limit on abortion.
Thankfully the majority of our politicians realised that there was no need to change the law, as nothing has changed since it was made in 1990. This despite of the emotive tactics of the pro-life MP's, holding up pictures of foetuses and offering anecdotal evidence of "murder".
As the above link relates:
"Christine McCafferty, the Labour MP for Calder Valley, who tabled a separate Commons motion stating that the current abortion time limit is "scientifically and ethically justified", said: "The pregnant women herself is the only person who can make a responsible decision.
"Abortion should be a private decision between the patient and her doctor, just like any other medical treatment. Why is it so difficult for societies, even one like ours, to give the power to decide to those who carry the consequences?""
I can't put it better than that - it's easy to take a moral position when you don't have to carry any of the consequences. Much like people opposing "saviour babies" (when screening can be used to ensure that a new baby is a good match genetically to save the life of an older sibling) as messing with God - let's see what your position is when it's your child that has a deadly illness.The religious have acted in such a "we know best, God's will blah blah" manner over this, that it has reawakened by militant atheism - I had settled to a "live and let live" approach to religion, but then I see how they want to affect and dictate our lives. Atheists need to be aggressive about their position, it isn't enough to just let them be. Anyway.
It was good to see the party leaders continue the tradition of allowing their members to vote according to their personal ethics and consciences - for the last ten years we have seen very few 'free' votes from the Labour party, so I'm glad they allowed it for such an important topic.
4 comments:
I'm all for saviour babies. It saves the older sibling, and you love the new baby all the more for it. It's an awesome idea.
Does that make the UK harder to leave now?
*grin*
I don't know. Ever since I read that book My Sister's Keeper, that whole saviour baby thing creeps the hell out of me...
Still I am pro-choice. Let people decide for themselves for God's sake.
I wouldn't sacrifice one child's welfare and quality of life for another...
I also believe, after my biology studies, that our research is far ahead of our knowledge in these things and that is a dangerous thing. We have no idea what we're getting ourselves into.
Why must we always have to proclaim our superiority to nature?
Lay out your family tree and if you both have the same diseases, don't do it. If you don't see anything obvious, go ahead and play the gene roulette. That's what nature's all about.
Post a Comment