I haven’t commented as yet on the Embryology Bill going through parliament at present. Dale’s take, however, pushes even MadNad’s for vacuousness.  It screams to be screamed at.

Let’s begin with:

This isn’t going to be a long post on the whys and wherefores - you can get that elsewhere, but I think anyone who writes on a public platform should say how they would vote on these issues if they had the chance.

Then why are you posting? There’s little point in expressing an opinion if you’re not going to support it in any fashion whatsoever.  I am, frankly, not interested in simply what someone thinks - I want to know why they think it.  How can you engage with a simply statement?  There’s no reasoning to go over, no debate. Nothing worth listening to.

Dale says, “You can get that elsewhere.”  He’s right.  I can.  Why should anyone bother coming to him for any of it, then?

Actually, the refusal to explain here seems more to disguise the irrationality of his objections. Observe:

On human-animal hybrid embryos I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I would vote against them. The whole concept fills me with a slight sense of horror.

I’m sorry?  You’d vote against them because they make you feel…squaemish?  Wow.  Never mind the advances in research the human-animal hybrids could bring.  Never mind that this research could eliminate diseases which are generally assumed to make people very squaemish.  Never mind that this could actually help people.

No.  It fills you with an unexplained “sense of horror.”  It must therefore clearly be banned, because we always ban things which make us feel a little ill, no matter what good they do.

Oh look.  The House of Commons just voted against the ban.  336 to 176.

I always thought the concept of ’saviour siblings’ must be something which involved a mutual support pact involving Wendy and Douglas Alexander, but it appears not.

Droll.  Will you tell us the one about the chicken and the road next, Iain?  That’d be side-splitting enough to disguise its complete and utter irrelevance to the post.

I have slightly more sympathy and understanding of this, but there is something about it which makes me profoundly uncomfortable,

“Something?”  That’s hardly specific, and doesn’t get any more so.  Without any explanation of what that something is, surely it translates as: “I don’t know why I’m arguing this, but I have this gut feeling which flies in the face of everything tangible and rational that can be said - so I’ll go with it, naturally…”

I accept that medical advances have brought untold joy to parents who might otherwise never have conceived, and further medical advances have saved untold hundreds of thousands of lives.

So, in practical terms, you agree it’s a wonderful thing?  Yes.  And yet, and yet…

And yet, I can’t reconcile and inner belief I have that tampering with natural human science in this way is wrong. I don’t have religious beliefs, but there’s still part of me which agrees with religious teachings on this issue.

He accepts that this research does much good.  He accepts, in short, that there’s no material reason why the research should be rejected - but his own squaemishness, again.  He objects not because of the sadness or pain it might bring, but because of an, “inner feeling,” for which he provides no rational explantion.

How do you even begin to refute that?  An irrational inner feeling will remain an irrational inner feeling, with no explanation which can be targetted and dealt with.  Perhaps it’s best to keep it on a purely practical level, and ask what precisely is wrong with, “tampering with natural human science”?

Nature does not care about humanity, either way.  It is not a living entity, does not have emotions or feelings, and simply cannot care.  It is indifferent because it is unthinking.  Only we care if we live or die - and if it’s by tampering with that uncaring natural science that we do live, what’s the problem?

We would be nowhere if we didn’t.  Disease is natural - aren’t we interfering with natural human science when we take drugs to treat it?  Pregnancy is sometimes the natural consequence of unprotected sex - aren’t we interfering with natural human science with contraception?  Certain advances have only been possible through tinkering with the apparent natural state of affairs.  “Natural human science,” has yet to provide a solid reason why we shouldn’t do so.

The 20/24 week abortion debate has illustrated all that is wrong with political debate in this country. Pro-Choice supporters have railed against the 20 weekers, accusing them of being totally anti-abortion, which in some cases may be right, but certainly not all. And some of the 20 weekers have failed to recognise that there are actually arguments on the other side which need addressing.

This much is true, and a fair point.  The debate has been hijacked - by both sides.

What I do not understand is that the Conservative front bench has now put down an amendment on 22 weeks, for reasons no one has quite been able to explain. Frankly, it’s a fudge. Either you believe in the status quo, or you think the limit should be much lower. This amendment smacks too much of the lowest common denominator.

This does seem odd.  Could it be tactical?  There have been amendments tabled up and down the abortion timeframe, from 12 weeks to 22.  The idea is to get the desired change by looking like a sensible average; the 12 week limits proposed add to the illusion that change is necessary, while making the 20 week amendment look nice and liberal.  Abortion limits thus get cut without the cutters being seen as vicious anti-abortionists trying to crush women’s rights.

Now, back to the bullshit:

I unreservedly back 20 weeks and I make no bones about the fact that I would like to see it lower than that. Virtually every other European country has a limit of between 12 and 14 weeks.

Your point is?  That a law is the same in lots of places does not mean that it is right.  Virtually every other European country drives on the right side of the road - let’s switch, it makes sense by Iain’s rule.

Each law needs to be assessed by its own merits, not an international consensus.

Their abortion rates are much lower, so is the level of sexual activity among under age teenagers.

And that, of course, must be linked to lower abortion limits.  It could have nothing to do with better sex education schemes, lower ages of consent (15 in France, 14 in Germany and Italy, 13 in Spain), different cultures and attitudes (sex before marriage is, I’m told, frowned upon in most traditionally Catholic countries, and abortion even more so…) - or any one of the other factors which play a role in people in different countries getting pregnant at different rates.

Nope, it must be the high abortion limit over here.  That damned permissive society, letting those damned randy teenagers fuck and fuck and fuck like rabbits.  Give them an inch and they’ll forget their condoms!

It is a proven fact that foetuses can survive at 20 weeks - not all, but some do.

It’s also a generally accepted fact that women who abort foetuses do not want the child.  There’s a choice.  You can let a scarcely living, almost certainly non-sentient cluster of cells die - or allowing it to grow up, potentially unloved and unwanted.  Some mothers will love the foetus if it survives, yes.  But some - many, perhaps - won’t.

It’s a horrible choice, but surely it has to be made?

If you live in an area with a hospital with superb neo-natal facilities the survival rates are obviously much higher than if you live in a catchment area without one.

Absolutely correct.  But what’s your point?  That surely has more to do with the debate on postcode lotteries rather than abortion.

Finally, though, a note of reason:

It’s on occasions like this that Parliament should come into its own. Although I have reasonably unchangeable views on the abortion limit, I would genuinely like to have listened to the full debate on the other two areas before finally making up my mind. I suspect many MPs are doing just that.

At least he concludes on something we can agree on.