The Implications of Reviewing the Abortion Act of 1967

There is ongoing debate at the moment concerning what path the review the 1967 Abortion Act should follow. Central to the debate is the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology who have just published a report on their findings concerning options that could be considered when government gets round to reviewing the act. At either end of the debate we have the pro-choice and pro-life lobbyists. It is encouraging that the question of whether a law that was passed 40 years ago is in need of review is not one that is being debated. And rightly so. The British society has seen enough progress and development since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed into law to render many aspects of it obsolete.

There have been quite a few articles written over the last month with regards to the ongoing debate. For example, Ellie Lee, in her article in the Pro-Choice forum, puts forward a list of reasons – all of which I agree with, why the abortion law is in dire need of a review.
Lord David Steel, in his interview with the Guardian puts forward the notion that abortion is being used as a kind of contraceptive pill. This notion is naïve in many respects, key of which is that it seems to suggest premeditation on the part of the women who decide to terminate their pregnancy. Studies have show that this is categorically not the case. The majority of pregnant women who decide to terminate do this for any number of reasons, most of which are influenced by socio-economic reasons.
Jennie Bristow, in her article in the spiked-online website, questions the usefulness of science in its ability to understand the complexities of the pre and post abortion process that every pregnant woman who decides go through with an abortion is faced with. Jennie Bristow blames what she calls “bad science” for creating more confusion in the abortion debate and giving pro-life lobbyists a lifeline with which to wage the war against abortion. It is easy to share the sense of frustration that comes across in her article at the pivotal role that seems to have been given to science by all involved in the debate. Nevertheless, referring to “bad science” is a bit naïve because there is no such thing as bad science. There is just science. It is simply a tool - language if you like, that we use to try to understand the dynamics of our own existence and that of the environment in which we live. Science is a process of collecting and analysing data by comparing it with an expectation that is founded on a logical and rational premise. Thus, the results of science can be interpreted in as many ways as there exist an expectation of what the results should be. This is where it becomes a potentially dangerous tool in the hands of lobbyists with narrow-minded agenda.

It is interesting to note that in all the articles written, all the questions that were put forward revolved around the theme of who should have precedence in deciding how the existing abortion laws should be changed – government, doctors, science or the pregnant women themselves. However, not one of the articles has asked probably the most important question of all; What role does our current understanding and indeed definition of the term “life” play in influencing the debate. This is a complex question that requires careful consideration. It is obvious that our perception of the world we live in is a direct reflection of our understanding of the human being, the environment and the dynamic interaction between the two. In other words it is our experience of the self and the external environment that defines the world around us. And it is this understanding that colours our moral and ethical outlook and places boundaries on what we define to be right or wrong, good or evil.
To complicate matters further, it is generally agreed that whilst science defines to a large extent our understanding of the world we live in, it is not yet advanced enough to understand thoroughly the complexities of the Mind and how Mind works with Matter to define how we realize our own existence. Consequently, it is difficult to arrive at a general consensus of what is meant by the term life. At what point is a cluster of Matter – which is what the human being really is, said to be alive? When it breathes in air for the first time and cries out loud as in the case of a newborn baby? Or when it kicks in the womb? The reality is that science currently associates life with the exhibition of certain properties of Mind – cognition, response to stimuli, and so on.
This is a limited view of a limited picture of the nature and reason of our existence and should not be used as a primary argument to influence what direction changes to the 1967 abortion act should take. Yet, it is the backbone of the arguments used by pro-life lobbyists.
The good news is that over the years there has been a change in public perception of what is meant by the term life. Thanks to the combination technology, the media, the advent of oriental philosophy and so on, this change in awareness has accelerated rapidly over the last ten – fifteen years. Increasingly the human being isn’t just seen as the sole repository of life... this has also being extended to the environment around us. Holistic Medicine and Alternative therapy are two examples of educational disciplines that advocate the use of therapies like Acupuncture, Feng Shui, Meditation, Neuromuscular Therapy, etc, all of which have the goal of harmonising on some level, the link between the human mind, body and the external environment. In other words, we are forced to redefine our understanding of the concept of life.

With regard to the law itself, to my mind, any argument on proposed changes by government must place emphasis on protecting the rights of the individual to free choice. The question of morality and ethics must always come second – not an easy task because of the entanglement between all three; human beings almost always make choices that are influenced by their moral and or ethical outlook. This however doesn’t alter the fact that in any democratic system, any law that is passed must accomplish the twin tasks of taking into account the rights of the individual and aligning it with the goals of the system - harmony, growth and development. This is the essence of democracy. This has to be the backbone of any argument presented by pro-choice lobbyists. Of course if the implementation of that freedom of choice has the potential to impact negatively on the system, for example, too many unwanted births would place unbearable burden on the resources of the system, then it is to be expected that the system will take steps to prevent this by curtailing to varying degrees the rights of the individual. Luckily in the UK today this is not an issue. The system in place to counsel, guide and provide a medically safe environment for pregnant women is more than adequate enough to accommodate abortions should they choose go down that path.

To summarize, yes the 1967 abortion law is in dire need of review primarily because it curtails the right of choice of the pregnant woman. The government can only raise its head proudly if it upholds the principles of true democracy at all times which is to ensure freedom of expression and equal rights to every citizen within the limits of its resources.

The dilemma of Africa

History has shown that a large percentage of the problems that African societies are faced with today originated from Africans being unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time sitting on a land that was and still is replete with vast natural resources. It was the close proximity of these resources that drew the eye of the Europe during the expansionist period of the 15th, 16th and especially 17th and on through to the 19th century. The European explorers, who acted out the twin roles of ambassador and spy, formed the forefront of the British, Spanish, French and Portuguese empires bent on expansion and economic dominion, as you would expect any thriving nation to do.

At first, the inhospitality of Africa’s terrain – the desert and jungles, made for an unattractive prospect. Malaria also proved a formidable enemy. It struck down all non-indigenes with a brutality that gave pause to the enthusiasm of the explorers. This changed with the discovery of quinine by Livingstone. In the meantime, Africa provided a much sought after currency for Europe which needed cheap manual labour to drive the agricultural industry which was the time the primary determinant of economic might. Thus was born the slave trade.

The abolishment of slave trade in the 19th century did not in any way slow down the interest of Europe in Africa because by now Europe was in the grip of a manufacturing revolution. Manufacturing was the future and the powerful nations wisely saw that whoever controlled manufacturing could control global economy. Again, Africa was the perfect target by virtue of its proximity and natural resources – tin, gold, diamonds, copper, iron ore, etc. Thus, scramble for Africa began anew. The English, Spanish, Dutch, French and Portuguese nations vied with one another to establish stakes in territories. They achieved this with the use of vague promises, deception and eventually overwhelming military force. Africans of course had very little say in all this. They had inferior military capability. All resistance was brutally crushed. The enemy was here to stay and there was nothing they could do about it. In the end, Africa was carved up into colonies, states and countries, in line with the interests of the colonial powers. When power to self-govern was given back to Africa, it failed miserably for two reasons: Africa had grown up to quickly and were thus as children when it came to matching the developed nations in terms of economic and political nuance on a global scale. The second and perhaps the most compelling reason is that the developed nations, by virtue of their experience and economic nous, endeavoured to ensure that Africa stayed committed to acting out the role of supplier of cheap natural resources to the West in return for manufactured goods. Africa was sucked into committing itself into trying to sustain a lifestyle that it could neither afford nor reproduce.
This is the source of all the problems in Africa today. Insurmountable debt, poverty, and wars have contributed in decimating the region further.

What is the solution to this? It is simple. Africa cannot compete on the global stage because it is still unable to harness its resources to make the transition from simply exporting its resources to the highest and most friendly bidder to retaining these same resources and using them to drive its own manufacturing industry. Africa must harness her own resources and do all in her power to drive her own manufacturing industry. This is not a pipe dream because Africa has vast reserves of cheap labour and natural resources, vital ingredients to drive the manufacturing industry. This is the only way it can establish enough leverage to compete on the global stage.

The Middle East and Asia

The nations of the Middle East and Asia, just like Africa, have a distinguished history of empires that have contributed much to the Sciences, and the Arts. However, going back over the last three hundred years it is without doubt that the Middle East and Asia could so easily have faced the same problems Africa went through at the hands of Europe. The reason why this is not the case is simple. Asia was too far way and had a hostile terrain with no obvious abundance of natural resources, while the Middle East had a very hostile terrain – the dessert, and certainly had no natural resources to boast off.
And so by the time crude oil was discovered, the Arabic nations had learned from the African situation and had taken steps to counter any attempts by the West to dictate terms of trade. The remoteness of Asia had enabled it to escape in a large measure the domineering influence of the West. This gave each Asian nation the room to dictate the pace of its own growth, thus making it easy to join the ranks of the developed nations with a little help from the west, for example Japan and South Korea, or simply by brooking no interference whatsoever and utilising its own natural resources, for example China and North Korea.

What this tells us is that the world is a stage against the backdrop of which are the various clusters of nations, each vying for dominance in accordance with the dictates of the principle of evolution and in response to the phenomenon of demand. It has always been thus. It is the human nature. Some nations have the short end of the stick while others have the juicy end. From a global perspective, the issue then becomes not why this is so today, but how a balance can be found so that each nation has an equal bite at the stick.

Is this possible? In a random system, NO it is not. However, in a system where the elements that compose it are sentient beings with the power of choice that are capable of consciously interacting with and more importantly, CHANGING the self and environment through interaction, YES, it is definitely a possibility. How? One has to realise that each nation is an independent entity that is subject to two types of interference – internal and external. The idea would then be to keep the external interference to a minimum. The effect of this would be that from a global perspective, no one nation will be given the opportunity to define a personal yardstick with which to measure global economic progress and development. This makes sense because the evolution of any nation of people is a dynamic and organic process. Therefore, the perception of concepts like development, progression, wealth, and so on will vary from nation to nation depending on a variety of factors like geographic location, traditional and cultural values, etc. This being the case, it is obvious that the existence of so many differing cultures and belief systems will serve as an obstacle to the so-called peaceful and global equality propaganda that is touted by the G8 nations who have personalized the definition of the concepts of development and progression to the exclusion of the views of all other nations. This is the dilemma of the 21st century. Humanity need to come to terms with this quickly or risks self-destructing.