Cameron wants lower abortion time limit

In a interview on Monday, Conservative leader David Cameron called for the abortion time limit to be lowered.

The interview, with the ever fair and balanced Daily Mail, said Cameron would vote for the deadline to be lowered as MPs discuss the proposed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Abortion is always a controversial subject. It became legal in 1967 with the Abortion Act, and the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990. Before this act came in, women would often resort to backstreet abortions, and often risk their lives doing so.

There's often extreme views on the matter of abortion. There's groups like the Prolife Alliance who believe abortions should be banned. Then there's the Pro-choice groups who believe it is a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy, who want abortion on demand.

The government currently says they have no plans to change the time limit and the Guardian reports that both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists do not believe the time limits should be changed.

The danger of changing the time limits for abortion is obvious. If a woman is denied a legal abortion, she will look for other options. How can this be beneficial for society?

The current law says there must be a risk for the woman's health or mental health, or the well being of her existing children for her to be allowed an abortion. This can cover all circumstances, from teenage pregnancy, to a woman who already has children who could not afford another.

I, personally, have always been very pro choice. I believe a woman should have the ability to choose whether or not to have a child. Without allowing this right, this could lead to more cases of infanticide, poverty or a generally low quality of life. Surely a woman forced to have a child she did not want will resent the child in some way in the future?

The pro life argument for reducing the time limit is that due to advances in medicine drastically premature babies can now survive. New technology shows videos of foetuses in the womb walking and acting like newborn babies.

It does have to be noted that it is only a very small majority of women who do have abortions past the 20 week point. In 2006, around 194,000 abortions took place, and of these only 1,263 were past the 22 week point. But these are probably the most drastic cases. For example, women in denial, who have refused to admit their pregnancy. Or even just women who genuinely were not aware that they were pregnant. There should be an allowance for these woman.

There's also more practical reasons why a woman may want a later abortion. Two doctors have to agree for the abortion to take place. If a doctor does not agree with abortion, or think the woman is a suitable candidate, then she has to be referred to another doctor. This practise obviously takes time. There is also the risk of possible delays with the NHS.

The fact that Cameron has re-ignited the debate about abortion at this time suggests that it could be an important policy in the run up to the next election.

Sources:
Cameron: Cut the abortion limit to 21 weeks
Cameron backs abortion limit cut
Q&A: Abortion law
Prolife Alliance
Abortion Rights
The Voice of the Pro-choice Majority

Elderly man attacked with machete

A 86 year man was attacked during a burglary in Longridge by masked men with a machete. He suffered deep cuts to fingers and is in hospital.

View Larger Map

A walk of Preston

Here's a video I made in Windows Movie Maker, showing you the sights you would see walking from Avenham Park to the Foster Building.

DNA drama?

In the news this week, two high profile murder trials have finished, with guilty verdicts for both. Steve Wright, was found guilty of murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich, and Mark Dixie was convicted for the murder of 18 year old Sally Anne Bowman in London. Both of these were convicted on DNA evidence.

This has led to calls for a universal database with all our DNA on. Currently, if you are arrested for a criminal offense, your DNA will be put on the database. There are currently about 4.5 million people's DNA on it.

As with everything, there are pros and cons.

The pro is highlighted by the Sally Anne case. Dixie was arrested in 2006 for assault and had his DNA taken. They made the link with Sally Anne and he was arrested five hours later. If there was already a database of all of us, Det Supt Stuart Cundy, the policeman in charge of the Sally Anne case, said he would have been identified in 24 hours. This, therefore, could speed up murder convictions, and minimise risk from re-offenders.

However, there is a obvious con. Does everyone want their DNA on this database? Personally, I don't. Why should the government be able to access the DNA of everyone? Recent stories of the government losing sensitive data, such as bank details of people on benefits, suggests that our DNA data would not be safe either. As technology evolves and cloning becomes more advanced, the government having this sort of data on all of us puts everyone at the risk of cloning, identity theft and general fraud.

Also, the ability to match criminals in this way would not necessarily cut down on crime, just make convictions easier for the CPS. A released murderer could murder again, and the DNA would not stop this.

Luckily, the government rejected the plans. For now.



Sources: DNA database debate urged
Man gets life for model's murder
Suffolk killer will die in prison
Nation of suspects fear on DNA
Mandatory DNA database rejected