| MP Explains Decision to Back Abortion Reform |
| Friday, 23 May 2008 | |
|
After attempts to cut the upper limit for abortions were rejected by MPs in Parliament this week, one MP has expanded on his reasons for backing the controversial proposals.
Lib Dem MP for Southport John Pugh was one of 71 members backing even the most drastic changes, which sought to bring the upper limit for abortions down to 12 weeks from the current limit of 24. In explaining his reasons for doing so, Dr Pugh was keen to stress that a reasoned, sensible debate on this most emotive of issues was in fact possible - though he admitted that this was not necessarily borne out by the way the issue was discussed in Parliament: "Such debates are invariably emotive" said the MP during Tuesday's debate. "Slogans replace arguments; the absolute right to life is starkly set against the absolute right to choose; rhetorical assassination replaces reasoned arguments. It is to be regretted that in the run-up to this debate, personal remarks by Members about Members have served to disfigure and to some extent to inflame debate. "Despite profound moral differences however, there is some common ground: we all believe that the abortion rate in the UK is far too high; we would all prefer a world in which there was no abortion, nor demand for it; we all recognise that our laws are among the most permissive; and we all qualify the rights that we claim—even the Catholic Church sanctions therapeutic abortion, and even pro-choice charities object to some choices. Where we differ is over the grounds, and consequently the limits, of abortion." Dr Pugh went on to argue that "irrespective of any religious view, the justification for abortion becomes enormously harder from the moment when the foetus becomes conscious or responsive to pain", an argument that formed the basis for his own commitment to lowering the legal limit: "We cannot be completely certain when that moment occurs, and I therefore believe that a precautionary principle should apply; where consciousness may exist, we must act as though it does. "Frankly, there is no basis for giving anything a right other than that it is conscious, and there is no more significant event in the life of any being than becoming conscious. There is a long and undistinguished history of denying full consciousness, or degrees of sentience, to those whom we choose to exploit, whether it is animals, fellow primates—or slaves. I accept, however, that the area of foetal sentience is a grey one and that the Bill Committee, sadly, does not want to build the law around it or to apply a precautionary principle." The current law is built around what is termed "independent viability", as opposed to notions of conciousness. This is defined as “the capacity of the foetus to survive - even with assistance - outside the womb”, a definition Dr Pugh believes more than justifies periodic review of the law: "Everyone agrees that such a definition self-evidently must cover different cases as medical technology improves, and need not be related, should not be related, to a fixed gestation period. "There is a statistically significant increase in the survival rate of premature babies at 24 weeks and an increase, although not a statistically significant one, in respect of 23 weeks.However, morality in this case is not a numbers game; the exact percentage surviving is not the big issue. "The moral reality is that someone who aborts a baby at 22 weeks, might be - they cannot know that this is not the case - aborting a baby or foetus that is viable within the narrow meaning of the legislation - which is indisputably the case - and in any other sense. "There are people in our world who are in no way inferior to us in capacity, intelligence and beauty, despite being born at 22 weeks. That is a fact, and it ought to give us cause for reflection." The speech can be viewed below. FreeVideoCoding.com Get the full text of the speech here. Those wishing to know more about the issues involved may find Embryology Bill: the key points on the BBC website useful. |