Good News! On the 22 October in Parliament
none of the abortion amendments were discussed or
debated (it seems because the government intervened to make sure that
there was no time for this), therefore the law remains the same and the
situation will not
be eg minimised, which seemed to be on the horizon and would have
reflected a different attitude and
would mean that more women would be left without support (ie a
liberalisation).
More support
is needed for women such as that which the positive amendments were
trying to introduce, but there would have probably been
little time to discuss this in Parliament and it appears from comments
made in
Parliament that
Labour MPs were being strongly encouraged to vote in particular ways
and therefore it would not have been really a free vote.
If
Lifecharity (and perhaps other organisations like it that already
exist) offices/centres
became more numerous they could fulfill this needed support role in the
same
way.
There is some bad news related to other amendments that mean that there
has been a liberalisation regarding eg mixing human embryos with
animals and it seems that there is loophole regarding human
cloning, which means that the law here has been described as
'macabre' (since no other countries believe it is right to do this) and
reflects a lack of respect/value on human life at the embryo level
(because they do not see it that way).
Some good progress has been made however in that things were going in a
certain direction and this has been halted. Let's hope they start
going in the opposite direction with realisation of the risk re: eg
condoms and other contraception and more support for women who find
themselves in this situation (also curbing of materialism which may
blind people to the things of real value).
More Great
News!!! (UPDATE: 5/10/09) see:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vital-embryo-research-driven-out-of-britain-1797821.html
This I would guess is because as Pro-life commentators pointed out,
apart from being wrong, this research was going nowhere and was just a
waste of money.
******************************************************************
Here is the up-to-date (out
of date now - see above) report by Christian Concern for Our
Nation:
http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=635
Just in case you are interested in the detail here is the link to
Parliament’s website to a page that includes an important amendment
missed out in the above report (by Edward Leigh - it has been changed a
little bit now).
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/120/amend/pbc1200310a.3061-3062.html
Here is another related one:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/120/amend/pbc120070908a.3023-3029.html
(by Angela Watkinson)
However you can write to your MP and say what you think without knowing
the details of the amendments, which we are not really expected to
know. (It seems that some MPs take more notice of a letter eg my
MP said that e-mails get “lost.” I don’t know if that means that it was
not read or just that they did not respond, which they are expected to
do really, at least if you ask a question.)
Here is a good page of a website (from the Christian Medical
Fellowship) that relates to several of these amendments including the
one mentioned above:
http://www.cmf.org.uk/ethics/informed_consent.htm)
What it misses out is that in Parliament there are MPs that consider
that information for women, or say time to think things through, are
just to be labeled as “obstacles” to women obtaining an
abortion (this is because they think that it should be on demand and
seen
to be normal and as an entitlement [and it is women who are left to
cope with eg failure in condoms - at least 3% of women using them will
become pregnant
each year, when these are promoted as something safe] as opposed to the
way the law is now which is not quite like that, however at the very
least there are a number of women who really do need support and this
would be to ignore them). This
appears to be because of the struggle between those considered to be
“Pro-life” and those considered to be “Pro-choice”. They may be
too busy fighting for these things to bother looking in detail.
Actually it is the deliberate tactic of many people "Pro-choice" to
resist anything that will lead to a reduction in the number of
abortions (regardless of the reason) in case this leads to a rolling
back.
Information for women and that which would in many instances give them
a real choice I think could/would be:
Information on benefits to which they are entitled (and housing
options)
(this would obviously make a difference because otherwise some people
will think that if they do not have an abortion that they may be
destitute).
Information on organisations that can provide ongoing help with
equipment (this has been shown by research, by those who argue for
Pro-choice, to have an effect that can not be underestimated - in
their research on very young mothers who they found mostly to be very
happy in their role as a mother) and with other “problems” that may
need financial help and with housing, as well as information on
adoption (eg Lifecharity for all of these, as well as others such as
Care Confidential)
Information on where they can obtain professional counselling should
they need help by talking things through (given the crises that a woman
may feel that she is in)
Also:
Apparently for all other operations people are given information
regarding the consequences. Consequences are disputed because
there can not be a scientific study in a laboratory. However we
have to remember that it was disputed a long time ago that smoking was
related to lung cancer. There should be some kind of sensitive
warning regarding harmful effects. It is only right really that
women are given proper information and because this information is
given by the abortion “industry” themselves it is
inconsistent as well as biased (I am reluctant to say information
regarding the abortion procedure should be given but again this is only
right).
Indeed there is concern from those who know much about
this subject regarding how much the huge profits that are made are
affecting the law (In 2007, 89%
were NHS funded, of which 57% were carried out in the private sector.
Private sector institutions have costs to minimise and income to
maximise; interests which compete with the provision of impartial
information). Personally I know very little about
this
(and so it is worth investigating perhaps, but not stating I think),
except that
Anne Ferundi of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (The UK’s
biggest abortion provider I think) is a big defender and argues for the
points for more abortion but often in a way that is not unhelpful for
those trying to protect the child (and the mother) eg by questioning
the arbitrary notion of “viability” that is continually spoken about as
though it is relevant. (My view is that just because a person is
dependent on another does not mean that they should automatically be
treated as a non-person. Her reason for arguing the same thing
however I think would be with the idea of increasing the time limit on
abortions.) There are often things in common eg these leaders who
propagate the pro-choice view are very much aware that abortion is
a back up to contraception ie they are aware of the statistics - with
perfect use there is at a very minimum a 3% chance of pregnancy each
year - see World Health Organisation review of research, which
is not common knowledge given the message used in advertising condoms.
What pre-borns look like, because of course this is hidden, is not
common knowledge. Given the awareness of the availability of
abortion in society and the debate regarding whether the preborn is a
person (scientists agree that the person is created at conception) I
think that the most obvious thing to present to a person that will make
a decision is a picture of the pre-born development so that they have
evidence to make their own decision regarding this. Because some
may feel that having a baby is a total non-option however, it is
important I think to notify women simultaneously
of the help that is available (and why not?), in order not to induce an
unnecessarily heavy pressure.
*********************************************************
On Sunday 5 October the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and
Wales gave out an information sheet for those who came to church
regarding the HFE Bill. This explained very well all about
it. Here are some ideas from that sheet:
There may be financial pressures so strong that a woman 'feels
psychologically forced to have an abortion.' (The Gospel of Life, paragraph 59).
It is important to find practical ways to support women so they are not
rushed into making harmful choices but are helped to make
life-affirming choices.
What is the law at present?
The Abortion Act 1967, as amended in 1990, allows abortion up to 24
weeks if tow doctors certify that the risks 'of injury to the physical
or mental health' to the mother or her other children, are less with
abortion than with childbirth. If there is a substantial risk
that the child is disabled, then abortion is allowed up to birth.
The abortion must be carried out by a doctor and in a hospital or
premises specifically approved by the Secretary of State.
There are 23 amendments.
The key amendments are:
* to remove the 'mental health' clause and permit abortion on demand up
to 24 weeks
* to remove the need for two doctors to authorise abortion (the idea of
two if for them to check each other)
* to allow nurses and midwives to perform abortion, even late surgical
abortion.
* to permit abortions anywhere that the health services are offered
* to allow abortion drugs to be take at home without medical
supervision (this means that girls
as young as 14 could be allowed to take abortion pills at home, alone
without any medical supervision.)
* to extend the abortion law to Northern Ireland
* some positive amendments to ensure that women have access to
counselling
(my MP thought that
counselling is just to persuade people to keep the baby, however,
LIFEcharity have only British Association of Pychotherapist and
Counsellor trained counsellors who follow an ethical code. It
would also be up to the doctors to explain to women the services on
offer).
What are the arguments of those who
wish to see abortion made easier?
Their argument is that by making abortion quicker and easier they are
helping women. They allege that the current system causes delays.
What are the counter arguments?
.....Abortion, at whatever stage of pregnancy , is a serious decision
and not one that women should be rushed into. The system should
provide breathing space, access to counselling and information about
alternatives, so that no woman feels forced to choose abortion.
The requirement for a health-related justification; for two doctors to
sign; for a doctor to perform the abortion; and for it to be done in a
hospital, reflect the seriousness of abortion. Removing these
requirements leave women and unborn child exposed to great dangers. We
should be taking abortion more seriously not less seriously.
What can be done?
If conscientious people do not act, there is a very real danger
that the law on abortion will become even worse than it is now.
It is important that as many people as possible write urgently to their
MP. If you have time you might also write to the Prime Minister.
You can find the name of you MP online at
www.parliament.uk/people/index.cfm or from the House of Commons
Information Office 020 7219 4272
You can write to you MP at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or
email through www.writetothem.com
What should I write?
Letters are most effective when they are written in your own words and
express what you are most concerned about. For example, if you
are a nurse, say so, and say if you would not want nurses to do
abortions. Most of these amendments would make abortion more
widespread, would lead to women having less time to think before
abortion, and leave women facing abortion at home and alone without
medical supervision. They would also remove the last vestige of
protection for the unborn child. How do you feel about this?
Pray because it all depends on God but work as through it all depends
on us.
Further information can be obtained from www.catholicchurch.org.uk
**************************************************************************************
I will just add here that the other thing for me that caused confusion
regarding this Bill was the idea of animal-human hybrids, which are
created by taking the egg of an animal and replacing its nucleus with
that of a humans (it is possible to do this from tissue however this
area does get quite complicated and I do not know all of the
details). This was because the question is often raised regarding
the status of a person that would be created in this way, as though
they would be subject to prejudice. However, at the moment by law
they are to be destroyed after about two weeks. Another factor is
that it is believed by some that their exists a natural barrier that
would stop the mixed creature developing at all ie if the law were to
be changed. From what I have gathered most scientists even apart
from the ethics do not consider this to be a worthwhile
endeavor. As far as I understand it, it is the public who are
funding this too.
Apart from the belief that animals and humans mixed together is wrong,
as well as the view that “saviour siblings” are wrong (this has already
been voted on and passed) because of how the child could be used to
donate blood, marrow and part organs and jeopardise their health
possibly severely and with no consent given (I think there are natural
siblings in this position too) especially with the fears that people
have about
what this will lead to in the future, one of the main concerns
regarding both of these areas is the embryos that are thrown away
during the process in the latter case and the embryos (mixed) that are
experimented on in the former.
Another important aspect of the amendments is the discrimination in the
UK law against the disabled in that for disabled pre-borns it is legal
for an abortion up until birth (even where the disability is
negligible). There are amendments that have been created to
change this in various ways.
Not all of the amendments will be voted on. (The Speaker
will decide.)
If you have any question or comment: michris111@yahoo.co.uk
. Contacting your MP is another possibility. They can also
be contacted by telephone at the House of Commons. Voting will
happen on 22 October 2008.