Old battles and new opportunities

There is plenty of ammunition surrounding the second reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill: a new study is published on, some might say, a timely basis, concluding that babies born prematurely between 20 and 24 weeks do not have a greater chance of survival despite technological progress. There are quite a few variables to take into account with such studies: the level of facilities, the causal factors underlying such births, etc. Not sure if this deserves the article that the Grauniad provides on the eve of a vote.

When the attitudes of MPs are examined, they tend to remain confused and undetermined. None have been vulnerable to the lobbying of various groups, and, apart from pro-life campaigning, there are no obvious faultlines:

The Guardian's survey suggests that MPs will not vote along party lines or in "pro-science" or "anti-science" camps. Many MPs said they would support one or two of the aspects of the bill on which they have a free vote, but not all of them.

Most of the contentious issues will be supported: saviour siblings, lesbian access to IVF and  animal -human hybrids. These positive outcomes attest to the diminution  of the 'yuck factor'  and a pervading yardstick of utility in assessing the advantages or disadvantages of these developments. 

The pro-life lobby has been most active in attempting to reduce the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks and confirming the need to have a father during IVF, a process that will discriminate against lesbians and single women. Ian Duncan Smith's invocation of social breakdown does not gel with the vision of two women poring over a catalogue. The conflation of social and biological is designed as an easy hit, denying certain people the right to have a child so that he can make a political point. Shameful.

Duncan Smith has recently spoken out on the issue of the importance of fatherhood and attacked the new bill for 'hammering a nail into the coffin of the traditional family'. Without fathers, boys join gangs and teenage girls become pregnant, he said.

But that claim was rejected by Gamble: 'This has nothing to do with the fertilisation bill. Most of the children he is referring are not the products of IVF. This is a simple attempt to discriminate against single women and lesbians.'

To sum up, the bill has renewed old battles. We do not see differentiation in terms of principle on the center ground although the efforts of pro-life activists obscure deeper faultlines. Given the choice between the alleviation of suffering and the strange sympathies of a small minority, MPs will opt for the compromise by which this muddling policy has achieved its notable successes. If the Pope calls the result evil, then we know that the right decision was taken.