Moral maze

Thank you to R for encouraging me to listen to this week's Moral Maze (till next week here, on the issue of abortion.

Mad Mel didn't storm out of the studio (R- that was Valerie di Phillipo running for a plane), but MM did manage a small hissy fit against Valerie de Phillipo (Planned Parenthood) and attempted to claim the higher moral ground in a debate dominated by liberalism. Claire Fox and Rosie Boycott were agreed about the appropriate 'locus' for choice, so fine points about sentience and viability as criteria for gestational limits assumed prominence instead. Even the male Catholic panel-member hung back (to his credit), leaving Mad Mel to play the reactionary.

Sir David Steel was the other conservative witness, and showing his age, pomposity, Church of Scotland ties and his title by supporting reduced time limits and restrictions of 'abortion on demand'. Because father knows best. Nonetheless, all British and Irish women owe him a debt for the Abortion Act- thanks Dave.

Ann Furedi (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and Valerie di Phillipo (Planned Parenthood International) were very convincing and human witnesses, in my opinion, both acknowledging the lack of a good option but reminding that the person who lives with the decision, their family and and their doctor are in the best position to make this difficult decision. It was Catholic male panelmember who pointed out that while abortion statistics are available, evils prevented by abortion (e.g. poverty, effects on other kids) don't have a convenient metric.

The pro-life witness Ruth Davis was embarrassingly Countryside Alliance, sentimental and plain inarticulate. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind. You have to listen to know what I mean.

Mad Mel did her best to smear Ann Furedi and Valerie di Phillipo as inhumane, immoral and evil along with most of their clients, largely a feckless, brutish and in need of moral directives, apart from Mel herself and her pals. MM's main tack was to attempt to show these witnesses as amoral abbatoir workers, but it didn't come off too well. Especially when Mel bizarrely included an anti-seminism allusion by quipping that Planned Parenthood had its roots in the Eugenics Movement. Even Michael Buerk's round-up of MM's argument (a few abortions, just to rape victims or deserving pals) - that it had the 'virtue of simplicity'- was backhanded. Ha! In fact, it was humanity, compassionate sadness and acceptance of responsibility, especially from AF, that came over strongest from the pro-choice witnesses.

Incidentally, photos of foetuses on websites like christiangallery do not disturb me in the way intended, since I watch Nip/Tuck to fall asleep. Same with photos of Iraqi casualties- I'd rather know.



Another incidental is that both Mad Mel pronouncing on abortion at the Moral Maze, or David Aaronosonovavitch arguing for ID cards on the back of the Iraqi occupation here speak to the rights of the individual as directly contrary to the rights and maintenance of society. There are perhaps times and environments where this might be true, but as a general rule- no. Both are adept at aiming for the chinks and discontinuities between different organisational levels- foetuses, individuals, 'races' and ethnicities, societies and global dynamics- to support their party lines and personal opinions. Shame on them.

Addendum: -
A nameless friend describes Mad Mel as 'demanding kid gloves, but going in with Doc Martens'. Nice.