MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field - amongst others - forward their belief that women do not currently have enough guidance or information made available to them before undergoing the operation. Under their suggestions, women would have to seek council before legally being allowed to have an abortion performed.
This amendment smacks of a sinisiter adgenda in itself. Rather outrageously, it suggests that a group of MPs have a secret moral imperitive to denote women's freedoms under a darker definition.
This last concern of mine isn't simply a fundamental opposition to the wielding of an opinion that clashes with my own (for it is true that I view a woman's right to choose as being of equal importance to the rosta of human rights that govern all of our ethical standards). No, mine is a position borne of the stipulations that accompany the proposed parliamentary bill; namely that any organisation offering guidance to women would be required in law to be seperate from any who offer the proceedure itself.
On initial glance the bill seems to wield a sickly arrogance to suppose that women do not already have the tools and effeciency to investigate the health implications under their own steam. This is not a proposition that reveals its benefits easily and requires a thorough thinking through; not least because there is an unquestionably humanitarian concern that underpins the sentiment.
I can see the obvious welfare implications in wanting women to have all of the facts to hand. I do not believe for one moment that it is worth supposing that every single woman has access and/or the impetus to investiagate themselves into the psychological and physical afteraffects of abortion. It seems entirely justifiable to patronise the majority if it means that an uninformed and at-risk few get the help and support they need.
It is in the nature of this help that my worries lie. If we remove from the equation the help and advise of groups directly involved in providing terminations (and obviously somewhat clouded by financially-vested interests) you end up with a select remainder of people who by definition do not. This pool of lendable ears - it is fair to assume - could largely be compiled from people who are involved in related dialogue from an opposing agenda. As an example of this, a group touted this week as being a potential beneficiary of patients is linked to a figure known to have both significant governmental influence and a personal commitment to the preservation of life from the moment of fertilisation.
By withdrawing the opinion of those who do advocate abortion, we might find ourselves entirely under the influence of those who do not. To give a such a stance full and unopposed reign during such a distressing and confusing time for a woman, we would be performing them a gross misservice on a personal level. Nationally we may also discover a collective hoodwinking by those advocating impartiality and responsibility, but who act under private religious or political predelictions.
(Edited Monday June 6th at 16:41 GMT)
