The Abortion Debate

Well of course this is in the news at the minute, with the potential for a reduction in the limits for abortion; so called “social” abortions, at any rate. And I do have VIEWS on this. Really strong views. As many people do in this particular area.

I did find it disappointing that the hybrid embryos have been allowed. It is a dehumanisation of which we should be wary. If you take a hazelnut and put it in a walnut shell, it is still a hazelnut. Putting a human embryo into an empty animal egg does not alter the fact that it is human. At the very least, a potential human. It is unknown whether these hybrids could ever implant and grow to full term. That means that potentially even the act of putting the “material” into the animal egg is in fact basically fatal to any potential life that could come about. But we should remember the definition of life. Growth, respiration, feeding. These are the basic things that we all agree make something alive. These are things which occur in a developing embryo even from the time we choose to call blastocyst. Whatever it is, it is alive.

That is a different debate from the abortion one. The arguments for cutting the limit include the fact that babies born prematurely are now more likely to survive than they were 15 years ago. On the pro-choice side, they say that rates of survival have not improved below 24 weeks and so that is a reason for leaving the limit alone. But if we look at this argument more closely it is easy to see the flaws.

For a start: babies born prematurely are not the same as babies who are aborted. At least 90% of babies (yes, I will be sticking to this emotive term rather than the dehumanising “foetus”) who are aborted would in fact have been carried to term. They would have been born healthy. They are healthy babies, their mothers are healthy mothers. On the other hand, babies born prematurely usually have problems. This is why they have been born prematurely. In some cases it is the baby itself that has or develops a problem, and is effectively ejected by the mother’s body as non-viable. Mostly this happens by 12 weeks, but can be later depending on when these defects cause a problem. In some cases it is because of a problem with the mother, often causing a dysfunction of the womb or cervix. So some of those babies will in fact be healthy but the mother’s body has failed in mid-term, or some will be unhealthy because the mother’s body has failed earlier, resulting in poor development of the baby. Depending upon the nature of the problem and the health of the baby itself, it can be possible to save their lives from a very early stage.

Another point to bear in mind here is the very fact that the limit is currently 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, the survival rates have increased dramatically. Before 24 weeks they have shown no great change. But one of the reasons for that is likely to be the fact that 24 weeks is the limit. Doctors have an obligation to do everything they can for a baby born at 24 weeks plus. They have no such obligation for a baby born at 23 weeks and 6 days. So this fact in itself will mean that babies below 24 weeks are far less likely to have the interventions seen even just a day or so later, thus reducing the survival rates which could quite possibly be higher.

To simplify, and sum up: aborted babies and premature babies are actually 2 different sets of babies. At least 90% of abortions over 12 weeks would in fact have resulted in a healthy, full-term baby. Premature babies are likely to be born because of the problems they have and it is an amazing thing that so many of them are able to survive these days at all. Finally, the cut-off of 24 weeks affects the treatment of babies born prematurely before that time and so reduces their chances further by it’s very existence. If the limit were reduced I would expect survival rates for at least another 2 weeks’ worth (ie, from 22 weeks) to improve, purely because babies were now considered viable from a younger age.

I have done my best to try to describe the way I see this argument. Personally I think abortion is wrong full stop. I can see the difficulties and understand why people do it, but that doesn’t make it right. Thankfully I have never been faced with this situation myself. At the end of the day, whatever I may believe, I don’t know what I would do in a given situation. I can take the moral high ground, but I know that reality can throw us a curve ball, so I never judge people by their actions. Well, I try really hard not to anyway. 

Today’s Big Debate

My poor son came out of school a bit troubled today. This is nothing unusual really, as he really, really hates school, but there was a bit more to it than that. He was troubled because today he had to sit through a sex education video. He’s 9.

This video, from the little he told me, went into quite a bit of detail about the actual act. This, as far as I’m concerned, is not something he needs to know yet. He’s 9.

Sex education has been discussed quite a bit today, it was on “the Jeremy Vine Show” on radio 2. I actually missed most of it, but had I heard it I might have phoned in and told them what my son said the other day. Because on Wednesday he was late into school and missed the video. Of course there was a strike yesterday and the school was closed, so I hadn’t had a chance to speak to his teacher about this issue. But my son had spoken to me. He said he though it was terrible and really shocking that he was to be given sex education. “If I’d thought about I would think maybe in about year 9, nearer to when you might be doing that kind of thing, but not in year 4, Mummy,” he said to me. Which is a pretty cogent argument from a 9-year-old.

To be honest, he sounded a bit traumatised when he told me about it. He tried not to look or listen, and he doesn’t want to think about it. Well, he wouldn’t, would he? He’s 9.

I realise I keep mentioning his age. This is because it is important. I am really unhappy that he has had this rather shocking video shown to him. He’s not too pleased about it either. Add to that the fact that he is Autistic, and probably in many ways has a younger mental and emotional age than that (usually he seems about 2 years younger than he is), I have to ask what the hell is going on.

And I thought that schools had to tell you when they were doing sex education and give you the opportunity to see the material and a chance to withdraw your child from Sex Education lessons. So it was all the more surprising, as I hadn’t heard a dickie bird from them. I am hopping mad, actually. The more I think about it the angrier I feel. I think I am going to write to them to express my displeasure.

And if he has nightmares I might even consider suing.

Teachers on Strike? Again?

Well, it has been a long time. The last teachers’ strike was when I was in Secondary school. That was, of course, also over pay, but I seem to remember a work to rule strike then. The teachers refused to do things like supervising at break times, running after school clubs and taking us on trips. I certainly don’t remember it getting as far as school closure.

What makes me laugh, though, is the comment I have just read. A teacher said something about using the might of the union, and the power to strike, to “defend state education”. Laugh? I nearly choked on my tea. If this strike happens, let us be clear, it is about how much teachers are paid. How much of a rise they get this year. It’s not as if they are particularly low-paid these days, but inflation being what it is I suppose it is only reasonable that pay increases reflect the rise in the cost of living. But the defense of state education? Pull the other one.

The thing is, there are so many things wrong with state education now – the national curriculum, SATs, league tables, sex education for 8 year olds – that it is hard to see what there is left to defend. If teachers truly cared about “the Defense of State Education” they should have all walked out years ago. They complain about the burden of paperwork, but do they walk out over that? No, because they get an afternoon off teaching in order to fill out forms. They complain that the SATs are not a good thing, that the children are over tested, and many of the other things that parents also worry about. Have they walked out over any of that? No.

The reason is that having a heavily prescribed national curriculum and regularly imposed national tests actually makes the teacher’s job easier. Do they have to decide what to teach the children? Do they have to work out what to test them on? No, it is all set out for them. There are books and online resources galore. How many children learn stuff out of an actual text-book these days? When is the last time you saw one of those once-hallowed items? I can’t actually remember, but computer print-outs of worksheets are everywhere. That’s all they seem to do these days. How much imagination does it take for a teacher to hit the print button? Does it really make them worth £25,000 a year? My son has been able to find and print stuff from the internet since he was 5. (Which he did not learn in school, but taught himself at home). Can he be paid £25,000 a year please? Do these people really need to be graduates?

So no, they don’t want to defend state education, they want to defend their lazy, unimaginative, well-paid lifestyle with 13 weeks of holidays a year. If I had a cushty life like that, I’d want to defend it too.

Vague xx