Tuesday, May 20, 2008

No Need For Fathers , Abortion on Demand

As the title suggests , this is what the second part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill will create in the UK or at least solidify it . I am not a christian or jewish fundamentalist , so i dont come from an extreme relgious agenda ,its just i believe in a society where life is respected and fathers play an equal role . This will create a strong society and in the words of Iain Duncan Smith a leading figure of the right in the Conservative party and also an important member of the Centre of Social Justice a move from Breakdown Britain into Breakthrough Britain . This Bill encourages Breakdown Britain , and therefore it is my duty, whilst i cant vote on the Bill , to oppose it anway i can.

Firstly there is the abortion part of the Bill . Now i know of hardly anyone in the UK , who wants to take the dogwhistle of the American Religious right and call for an outright ban on Abortion. Much as i find Abortion horrid , i realise that it is needed to be legal , so we dont get the situation which we had in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s ,where woman got abortions through back door clinics and had their lives put at risk . However neither do i want a situation which we have today , where the abortion limit in this country is too high at 24 weeks ,and has encouraged an Abortion on Demand Culture , where Abortion isn't the last resort , but the first readily available option .Additionally Science has shown a foetus in the womb , has many human symptoms at 18 weeks , and can be born from this period. Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation. Surely all those mothers therefore must be in incredible distress , if they have an abortion after 20 weeks, it is a traumatic and unecessary operation . Furthermore the limit has created an abortion on demand culture , figures highlight this as the number of abortions carried out between 20 and 24 weeks has been rising in recent years. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks for normal babies will save almost 2,300 young lives per year. Science has made it possible to save lifes after 18 weeks , this is therefore why the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks , and that is why i am Supporting the Conservative MPS Nadine Dorries Amendment. After all the average Abortion time limit in the rest of Europe is 12 weeks . It seems a case to me of science advancing and the law not advancing with it . The 24 week abortion limit was created in 1990 , since then Britain has some of the highest levels of Abortion in Europe ,and technology has moved so lives from 18 weeks can be saved -if the limit was lowered it has been estimated over 2500 babies now being aborted could be saved . Im sure most people would agree that it is the Government's job to help save lives , not the other way round

There should also in my view be made amendments to make Abortion less attractive . Alternative options such as adoption need to be given more credence . At the moment Adoption is to hard , for example it is crazy that a white family , can not adopt a black child and vice versa - stuff like this needs to be made easier so adoption can be chosen over abortion and a life saved.

Another part of the Abortion part of the bill i fundamentally disagree with is the abolition od the requirement that you need two doctors to advice the women having the Abortion before the decision is made, and secondly that a nurse instead of a doctor can perform the Abortion . Abortion is an incredibly hard decision ,and therefore independent advice is needed to be given ,and this is what the two doctors provide , there role shouldn't be removed. A nurse's job is not to perform difficult operations or procedures on patients , this is a doctor's ,giving the termination process over to a nurse to me reduces the importance we place on the actual carrying out of abortion.

Then there is the other Ludicrous part of the Bill , to make it legal for fathers not to be consulted with IVF treatment and to be involved in IVF treatment and for it to be made legally binding for lesbian couples to have IVF treatment in replacement for this, in other words a single mother or a lesbian couple could have an IVF with no father figure . Now im not opposed to IVF , i think it has been a great scientific breakthrough , which has meant many families have been able to have kids, which otherwise would have been impossible . However i do have a problem with fathers being cut of this important decision , this bill would remove the requirement for IVF clinics to consider the needs of the father. If this bill did the same thing in relation to the women ,there would rightly be an outrage, therefore there should also be with fathers being removed,they are equally important to a baby's life as the mother is. No Mother can replace the father , so therefore it is necessary for a father to have a say in IVF . There shouldn't be discrimation against fathers , the rights of the child to have a father should be paramount. Babies could be produced without any biological access to their father , they would have no right to the father , the role of the father wouldn't be recognised, and it would be hard for them to track down their fathers. Figures from the Centre of Social Justice have recently shown that whilst there are thousands of Single Mothers doing a great job , those who have a mother and father comitt less crimes,and are more likely to have a better quality of life . This is why the amendment made in the 1990 bill towards IVF talking about " the need for a father " shouldn't be removed. The Archbishop of York was right when he said The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, did not agree saying that the Government was seeking to put the 'right to be a parent over the welfare of a child'. He said the proposals would mean the 'removal by design of the father of the child'. Baroness Deech is right when she says removing the clause would 'ignore the contribution made by half of the human race towards the upbringing of the next generation'. 'I know that plenty of children are brought up well without two parents but in an ideal world you need a mother, which is implicit in the law, and a father". To me to sum up on my opposition to this part of the bill , it undermines the importance of the father ,and will lead to further social breakdown in Britain.

I have no problems with Lesbians , what they do in there private life is none of my business , they can get married for all i care. However it is my sincerely held belief ,that the best position for a child is to have a father and mother - it's called traditional parenting . This doesn't even have to be done through marriage. From my personal experience -my parents are divorced , i have benefited greatly from still being able to see my dad on a regular basis . I dont Lesbian couples , unless there is a father figure should be allowed to bring up children , a kid with two "mothers" will become confused , the two women cannot play both the mother and father , it is simply not natural and detrimental to the child . This is therefore why i believe the amendment to make IVF much more open and easier for Lesbian couples should be voted down. For me it would be far better to keep the father's involvement in IVF there. This is why i back david Cameron in his stance when he says "Lesbian couples should be blocked from having IVF treatment unless they agree that a father figure would be involved in the upbringing of their child".

To conclude , this bill is rotten , it will lead to more social breakdown , and abortion on demand , no one wants this , so support in anyway possible those brave MPS who are voting against the bill.