Wednesday, May 21, 2008

This Political Week

It's been slightly emotionally painful for me for a no of reasons. For a start I disagree with the move to back hybrid embryo research. I appreciate the motives behind it but I feel that in making moves and leaps in scientific and medical research we must keep to a strict code of ethics, or else we will end up in all sorts of dubious corners. Put basically, it boils down to human dignity.
For similar reasons I wanted to see the move to lower the abortion limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. This is also for the simple reason that if a child can survive birth at around that time, then in my view it is wrong to terminate it whilst still in the mothers' womb. Likewise I hear what the pro-choice lobby are saying, but if there is any vestige of reasonable hope to save a life, then that option must be taken. I don't take these views lightly and I am keenly aware of the emotive feelings, arguments, and pain on both sides.
Then there is the by-election in Nanwich and Crewe on Thursday. I have to say that whilst I hope that Tamsin Dunwoody wins and wins well, we have not had a brilliant campaign. The toffs incident was not just a miscalculation, it was a squib and a very silly move. Times have changed and in any case Labour has had it's fair share of toffs. The way to attack Cameron and his ilk is on their delivery, their record, and their publicity stunts.
And as for Alan Milburn, he had better think carefully, Labour is in no mood for a civil war, not least from the usual suspects, and in any case I don't think a change of leader is welcomed!


Anonymous said...

I was so saddened to read this post. You seem to have betrayed all possible reason on this issue. My wife's a committed Christian and I'm a lapsed Catholic and we both agree that much has surrounded these recent debates that are dangerous and fundamentally hypocritical.

I feel betrayed that someone like you has forgotten why we have to rely on science for answers to these difficult questions. Furthermore I think you fail to understand why the 1967 abortion act was introduced.

The availability of abortion is, and has always been, a question about poverty. If you're rich enough the availability of abortion has never been an issue. The restrictions imposed by the governing elite on the general public are both patronising and facile.

I like it that your faith leads you in moral judgement on issues. But I find it impossible to understand why you thought so little about these particular issues. This has always been a phenomenally difficult and nuanced debate but I believe you have failed to understand the real heartache the lies at the heart of these issues.

Shame on you.

Paul Burgin said...

I am sorry that I have upset and offended you, but the stance I take on abortion is not a light one. The reason I supported the proposed move from 24 to 20 weeks is because some infants have survived birth at that age range, not all admittedly, but some and if a life, any life be it the mother and/or child can be protected, then I support that.
Nor did I lightly post on this issue because, I know if anything I know the heartache that is felt on this issue on both sides. But if I ever have a friend who gets pregnant and considers an abortion, whilst I would not hide my views I would not inflict them on her and I would do my level best to be as helpful and supportive for her as I can. Even if it means traveling to the clinic with her.

Man in a Shed said...

Anon - Poverty doesn't justify the termination of young lives in the womb, especially when that termination involves pain to the executed child, and emotional damage to those involved in the procedure.

It would take little, very little, for these children, terminated in later abortions, to be allowed to live by being carried for a few more weeks then adopted (there are now shortage of people wanting to give good homes to babies).

The shame is on our country for throwing away these lives because they are socially and politically inconvenient.

The problem is that it has become an article of faith on the left, that the late gestation termination of children is the female parents right.

Why does the child have no rights ? Indeed why does the Father have no rights ? There are ways around the unwanted late pregnancies that do not require giving 24 week children lethal injections and then cutting up their bodies bit by bit - to avoid the legal embarrassment of them being born alive.

Anonymous said...

This is indeed a very emotive subject, but de-humanising unborn children isn't the way forward. A child is a devleoping human being from conception - the moment at which is begins to develop into what it will become. from a Christian point of view, God knows us even from before conception.

Why do womens rights mean the right to end another life? Why do men get no say in this?

If people want to avoid pregnancy they should use effective contraception or else abstain. Actions have consequences.