That oh so obvious liberal bias!
Just watched some crap reporting on the embryology bill on the BBC. Hybrid embryos are apparently made by mixing human and animal DNA….really? Here I was thinking it it’s just human DNA in an animal cell with maybe a tiny tiny bit of animal DNA floating around (which is more than likely identical to some part of the human genone anyway), as opposed to mad scientists making humans with elephant trunks for giggles.
The debate on abortion was in it’s entirety an image of a fetus at twenty weeks, telling us that campaigners saying the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks and some scientists say this shouldn’t happen (doubtless because they’re mean and hate babies). Naturally, no explanation as to why they think 24 weeks is preferable i.e. that there has been no increase in survival rates for infants born before 24 weeks in the last decade, that some life threatening abnormalities can’t be detected until the 20-21st week and so on. That there are real practical reasons for 24 weeks apparently doesn’t match up to a neat video, nor apparently does the fact that some campaigning for a reduction have openly spoken in favor of an even lower limit (15 weeks or so) and that their support for 20 weeks isn’t a result of a practical change but more a case of what they think they can sell people on this time round. It’s really amazing how every time something like this comes around it’s the lying opportunists who almost always get seen as the principled ones as opposed to those immoral, shiftless scientists who insist on supporting their position with, you know, actual evidence.
Then there’s some rewording over IVF treatment which legally recognizes same-sex couples as parents of children conceived during their relationship. This section was dominated by concerns over ‘traditional’ family… because as we well know that, just as the existence of gay marriage threatens the very existence of heterosexual marriage, gay people raising children means that no straight people will bother any more, there’ll be anarchy in the streets, cats and dogs together at last, a Tory government, etc.
And because posts with a one line remark at the end always seem more reasonable, here one is.
Posted on May 12th, 2008 in BBC |
May 13th, 2008 at 12:06 am
I’m sorry alex, I think you are being slightly short-sighted and reactionary in this description of the Beeb’s presentation.
If we take the presentation of the HFE bill in conjunction with the later discussion of violent street crime on Newsnight we can see how we are evolving a new moral debate in our country where individual and social responsibilities need to be recognised and lived up to in order to balance any dependancy on our universal rights.
The idea of a ‘traditional’ family unit, which was undermined by the nihilistic transformation into a slave farm for economic purposes in the post-war period, is reestablishing the relevance of the functions and purpose represented within its’ composition - even if contemporary society has evolved to the level where the form of the family is less doctrinally rigid.
I think it is important that liberals do not cede this opportunity to understand the evolving nature of social debate (and with it the popular electoral advantage that follows) to the more conservative members of our communities who have an eventual tendency to bow to the inevitable reactionary pressures to return to their so-called golden ages where repression and retaliation were the norm.
The swingometer is swinging - don’t fight it, use it!
May 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
But short-sighted and reactionary is what I do best!
I’m not sure if I disagree with you on any key point there, which suggest I’ve either misread you or you’ve misread me. I’ll confess to not seeing the newsnight you refer to but my problem with the social debate I saw here was that there really wasn’t any, whilst the pros of hybrids were discussed in a separate segment there was no discussion of why 24 weeks is a better boundary than 20 weeks for abortion, just a graphic of a fetus at 20 weeks (looking very baby-like) without any mention of the vital infomation about viability that the whole debate depends on. That’s not an informative segment and it wasn’t something that would have taken a whole lot of work to correct.
Likewise the section on IVF only referenced the conservative framing of the issue that legitimizing homosexual parents is tearing apart the foundations of society when in fact it’s building them up. The current conservative position that families are good but we’ll do everything possible to exclude certain people from being able to form them makes no sense whatsoever - yet no other viewpoint was presented. The whole thing was a pretty poor description and discussion of the issues and I stand by that.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Exactly, there was no disagreement.
My point was that by sticking to established orthodox positions regarding either side of the political debate you put the ball back in your opponents court and cede any intellectual advantage.
If we are actually looking to progress the debate and satisfy all sides we have to look at the fundamental truths which each side emphasise and see if there is any way to reconcile them through synthesis.
I’m instinctivly and consciously against prohibitions, so I wholeheartedly disagee with the anti-abortionist lobby, but I also understand why abortion shouldn’t be considered equivalent to contraception - so from a personal perspective I need to find an adequate compromise.
In truth I’m pretty open to the specifics, being no expert, but I also want to know the full relevant details in order that I can make my mind up and stand up for them - so in this regard the Beeb’s segment could have provided a more in-depth framing, although time pressures are obviously frustrating - maybe there can be separate space found in their schedule to focus on the issues of important bills, rather than the more immediate power implications for the government of the day.
Do you want to start a campaign for a different sort of ‘The Bill’?
I also agree that we liberals ought to do more to advertise our liking for good family units, however diverse or unconventional, over the strict conservative distaste for anything but the narrow and restricting traditional nuclear family, however with the bad examples of Mark Oaten’s dishonesty through to Brian Paddick’s denial (until they came clean) to continually point to, it is hard for us to win any ‘moral’ arguments.
For us to continue to get closer to taking political office it becomes increasingly necessary to demonstrate our leadership abilities (as CK did over Iraq) and to take a lead we need to change the terms of these debates, rather than saying just “I’m for 20,” or “I’m for 24″.
We need to show a little more imagination to go with our well-documented dedication.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I’m afraid you’ve lost me, how on earth would compromising on principle (especially when your ‘orthodox’ position is based on solid arguments) be demonstrating good leadership? Perhaps this is unfair but looking to ‘progress the debate’ through compromise always seemed to me an euphemism for avoiding actually having a debate.
The 24 weeks position is a well developed balance between the rights of mother and child based around the fact that consciousness is physically impossible before 26 weeks and it’s brought down from that to 24 to be extra safe.If survival ever becomes possible far below 20 weeks the 24 week argument is still a strong one on these grounds, Just because it’s an orthodox position doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The 20 week position on the other hand is a self-admitted wedge strategy aimed at driving the cutoff ever lower. I really see no need to look for a compromise position here.
Now you’re right in saying 20 vs 24 weeks shouldn’t be the only issue in this debate (it was the only one addressed in the original BBC section I was talking about so it’s the one I brought up) and as luck would have it, it isn’t: Campaigners have been pushing to ease restrictions on women obtaining abortions in the earlier part of pregnancy (which currently can lead to around 7 week waits on the NHS). We’re not just playing opposition here, we’re actively trying to make it fairer. I don’t think there’s any lacking in imagination or ideas here or that we’re playing into our opponents’ hands in any way by sticking with our fundamentally good position on this.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
I didn’t want to get into this too in-depth, but parties and individuals may reach different positions from similar starting points - so while I accept 24 weeks is the current scientific consensus, it may change.
I also don’t think that it necessarily compromises any principles to integrate fundamental positions taken by different sides into a workable practice.
The point about leadership is important, because the threads of principled arguments need to be disentangled in order to show which are compatible, and which only seem like they are, before current practice can be agreed upon and accepted with good grace.
I agree that the 20 week position is a wedge strategy - the point of which is to gain initiative in the attempt to demonstrate leadership by religious conservatives, which is possible partly because the 24-week camp has previously made concessions in order to seek the real-world solution that was arrived in earlier debates.
As it is I think the arguments for 24 weeks are to be supported, but the proponents for this liberal position are failing to use the issue to demonstrate their grasp of statesmanship (rather than lawmaking) - which has consequences for the parliamentary centre-of-gravity, and ultimately on future majorities.
Why not simply take the criticisms about ‘foetal pain’ etc. on the chin and make the case for 28-30 weeks’ limit?
Or is opposing conservatives and avoiding splits on the ‘left’ more important than taking the opportunity to restate the liberal case, by more accurately and more clearly defining what it is that we, as liberals, stand for?
Wherever and whenever our opponents attempt to divide opinion by driving a wedge through society, we should take the issue and turn it against them by showing the complete range and diversity of opinions - that’s democratic pluralism at work, and a better means of protecting liberal answers.
So yes, making things fairer and easing restrictions on early term abortions are part of the real-world answer, however our struggles to make the case for these aren’t helped by our inability to combine this with an inferred message for liberal votes and liberal seats in westminster world.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
NB I chose to perk up on this because the consistent theme of your blog is about how to get liberals into government - more ideas, please.
May 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The trouble is from my perspective we’re already at the reasonable extreme, going much about 24 weeks really is pushing the lack of pain or lack of consciousness argument.
I’m also slightly shocked you’ve managed to discern a consistent theme from the blog, I’ll try to be more unpredictable in future.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hehe.
Well, I don’t think the debate is reasonably formulated - it requires comproimise rather than conciliation.
I’d rather the focus was shifted away from legislation as a means to justify the legitimacy of sanction and create the agreed requirements for standards on advice and have it regulate consent.
Abortion law in the UK already allows for various exemptions above 24 weeks, but only requires minimal non-specific medical consent.
Personally I’d remove the prohibition and require physiological, psychological and perhaps sociological tests, which could then provide means to investigate how to prevent a recurrence.
May 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I should add I think viability is a flawed basis for deciding upon this most emotive matter, and the exemptions prove that it isn’t the prime concern of legislators.