The UK Parliament recently rejected the argument to reduce the upper limit of abortion for non-disabled children, despite reports that babies have a greater chance of surviving before 24 weeks. Dawn Primarolo, the health minister, essentially argued that there was no evidence that technology had made a difference to the abortion debate.[1] How true is this?

There has been extensive progress in the medical and scientific understanding of pre-natal development since 1967 and we now have much greater knowledge of the damaging psychological impact of abortion.^[2]

Studies have given evidence of the foetal pain of abortion,^[3] an improvement in survival rates for those born before 24 weeks^[4] and a link between abortion and breast cancer.^[5] Some of these studies have been disputed, but more and more studies continue to validate these links. Many politicians and experts, including the House of Commons select committee, have preferred to overlook this evidence rather than consider the developing medical consensus of the damage of abortion to both the unborn child and the mother.^[6]

Abortion is on of the most important (and contentious) issues Britain faces. Every year, 200,000 unborn children die by induced abortion, where they do not have the ability to defend themselves. These children, who have the dignity of being members of the human race, do not have the ability to speak for themselves. Sadly, it appears that the UK parliament has little interest to speak for them. In the last 18 years, parliament has spent more than 700 hours debating foxhunting legislation as against just 3 hours spent debating the value of unborn children.

This cannot continue. Nine out of ten MPs favour a continuous review of the law and that is largely due to the difference that science and technology has made. Professor Stuart Campbell created 3D images of babies that struck hearts and minds and helping millions to see the human face of unborn babies.^[7] His pictures show babies in the womb sucking their thumb, yawning and smiling. This has helped to communicate the human nature of the foetus and counter the argument that it is a clump of cells.

Similarly, Doctor Bernard Nathanson has used the technology of broadcasting to show action and reaction inside the womb. His film shows how a baby, just prior to being aborted, gives considerable stressful signs and attempts to avoid being attacked by the tools of the abortionist.^[8] It shows how human life is present in the womb and can even struggle to live and communicate there. This caused a radical change in heart for Doctor Bernard from being ardently pro-choice to firmly pro-life and his film has changed the hearts of thousands of others.

With such comprehensive legislation preventing discrimination of the disabled in society, why should we be allowed to discriminate inside the womb? In allowing abortion up to and during birth for ‘serious disability’, the Abortion Act is at variance with The Disability Discrimination Act, which aims to end discrimination against the disabled. The Disability Rights Commission has questioned the discriminatory nature of our abortion legislation. Abortion legislation cannot be revised in isolation. Compassionate alternatives such as housing, adoption and counselling for those involved in this trauma, need to be developed and provided if abortion time-limits are ever to be changed.

But changed they must be, as science and technology reveal ever more of the human lives we are ending.

Robert Colquhoun is a recent graduate of philosophy and history. He has worked for the World Youth Alliance in Brussels, a NGO promoting the dignity of the human person.