Bridging the divide

Changing debate

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says the Commons vote on abortion has left many people ‘deeply uneasy and perplexed, profoundly worried about the direction we are now taking'. He regrets the outcome but welcomes the ‘sincerity and thoughtfulness of the discussion.’ He calls for the establishment of a statutory National Bioethics Commission ‘to discover the deeper truths that enable us to secure the common good with justice for all, especially the disadvantaged and disabled, the elderly and, yes, the unborn too.’

The Cardinal's approach is a conciliatory attempt at bridging the concerns of both science and religion. The scientific argument of the abortion limit was on viability and the availability of resources. The religious conviction is based on respect for life in the womb from the moment of conception.

Few now support the Cardinal’s line of no abortion from the point of conception. The Commons bid to cut the limit to 12 weeks was opposed by 393 votes to 71. There is no realistic chance of the Commons accepting the Cardinal’s argument and returning to the misery of days when abortion was illegal.

A National Bioethics Commission might be useful but it should not usurp parliament’s decision-making role. Imperfect as it is the parliamentary process is the most accurate expression of the views of the nation.

Certainly no body should be established that would elevate the role of the Church to the power it enjoys in Ireland and Malta. In the 18 years since the Alton Bill, the opinion of the churchgoers has changed.  In 1990 ten per cent of my constituents contacted me.  The debate was bitter, inflamed by the tactics of SPUC. This time, about 50 constituents contacted me. Their arguments were couched in heartfelt but reasonable terms.

The Cardinal emphasises that religion should be an element in the continuing debate but should not be given ‘special privilege.’ There is common ground on ‘a vision of humanity in which every human life has infinite value and dignity’.

At a recent funeral in Newport the memory of a Bettws priest the late Father Sean Sedden was recalled. He brought a group of sixth formers to see me in the Commons in 1990. They eloquently and movingly made their case against abortion. I told them of a close friend who had a child whose sixth month life was one of constant pain. A second child was expected. Only tests late in the pregnancy could detect if the child and parents were to suffer a repeat of the same torments. To deny the possibility of a legal abortion in these circumstances would be cruel and oppressive.

Happily the child was healthy as the amniocentesis test proved. I valued the friendship and support of Father Sean Sedden who was a passionate advocate of developing world problems and other idealistic causes. Tragically there was no happy ending to his story.

Not much of plot.

The plot-seeking press army turned up only some mild and ambiguous comments from Margaret Beckett and Lord Desai. Unreported were the hundreds of Labour MPs who told the reporters to shove off because here was no seething insurrection.

Will the Sunday Papers find a real backbencher that is playing into the Tory’s hands and demanding Gordon’s scalp?

MPs will not meet until a week Monday. Harriet Harman is due to address the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party. The wound of Crewe will be healing and a rational debate will take place.

I’m not expecting any great excitement on Labour’s leadership stakes for a long time.

Comments

[valleylad]

If I thought for one minute that the god bothering nutters actually believed their own PR, I might have some sympathy, but I don't. Those voting to lower the limit were doing so as they believed outlawing abortion (their goal) to be impossible so voted for what they viewed as the next best thing.

As such they are hypocritical scum.