05.20.08
human fertilisation and embryology – day two
Back to my BBC Parliament screensaver today.
Yesterday, as I commented, was a pretty good day for science, medicine, and Parliamentary democracy. Amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have forbidden continued research into stem cells and “hybrid” embryos (which aren’t really anything of the sort) were defeated by a hefty margin in the Commons, defeating the hardline religious stance and giving hope to countless people whose chronic illnesses could be cured in future by this research.
Today is even more contentious. Today, we have votes which directly affect IVF for same-sex couples and single mothers, and the abortion laws.
The first set of votes have already gone through, and once again Parliament has rejected the religion-influenced stance of its more hardline members. New clauses which would insist on the presence of either a), a father and mother; or b), a nominated father figure, have been rejected. What this means, in essence, is that there is now no legislative protection for discrimination against lesbian couples and single mothers at IVF clinics.
I’m cautiously glad that these amendments didn’t pass. My own personal views on IVF are deeply unpopular – while recognising the power of the biological urge to reproduce, I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people spending tens of thousands of pounds on expensive medical fertility treatments when millions of children each year (and hundreds, if not thousands, in the UK alone) need secure, loving homes to raise them. Adoption seems, to me, to be the moral choice – if perhaps the harder path to follow.
On the other hand, if we’re going to allow unfettered access to IVF to straight couples, then it’s absolutely fair that lesbian and single-parent couples should enjoy the same access.
The next set of amendments is being debated now – the controversial abortion amendments, which seek to reduce the limit from 24 weeks down to 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22 weeks, or to add clauses forcing women to look at womb scans before making a decision. There’s really no science to back this up, so we’re instead getting the spectacle of a debate where the proponents are either banging on about “science” they don’t actually understand or can’t substantiate, or are appealing to religious morality in high-pitched, holier-than-thou voices.
It was kicked off by Edward Leigh (Con), whose speech mostly consisted of apologising for suggesting nonsense (as well he might, the pillock) and has since descended into all kinds of ear-grating madness. I had to switch off when the amendment proposing that women be forced to stare at pictures of the foetus before making a choice was being expounded upon by some vile harridan from the Labour benches – all that ran through my mind as this smug individual made her ill-supported appeal was this somewhat heart-wrenching article about a similar policy in Oklahoma.
The fact that we’re even discussing this in 2008, half a century after the introduction of abortion, is astonishing. Bear in mind that only a tiny percentage (under 2%) of abortions take place in the last few weeks of the existing term, and then only for serious medical reasons – religionists on both sides of the house want to see that taken away, removing from women the freedom to choose, but also putting their lives and the health of any potential children into serious danger. (Plus, if you actually want to reduce the number of late-term abortions, the best way to do it would be to remove the requirement for two doctors to authorise an abortion, which presently holds up many of the procedures. There’s an amendment on the table to do that, but it seems unlikely to pass.)
The votes start tonight at ten. Fingers crossed for another stinging defeat for the religionistas.
Technorati Tags: abortion, BBC Parliament, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Nadine Dorries, politics, stem cell research
