Reduction in abortion limit would be a disaster for women
Yesterday was a red letter day for science, for medicine and for the hopes of thousands whose families are afflicted by disease. Stem cell research and the use of saviour siblings can proceed unimpeded, thanks to last night's victory in the Commons on the Embryo bill.
Today, it could be a different story. The vote on abortion is expected to be much closer, with a real possibility that the present 24 week limit will be reduced. That would be a disaster for women.
Both sides in the debate are dug in, and there is little prospect of changing minds over the issue of viability. Research published this month in the BMJ by Professor David Field of the University of Leicester shows that while survival rates of babies born at 24 weeks have improved sharply in the last decade, those born at 23 or 22 weeks have shown no change. In other words, advances in medical care have improved the prospects for those over 24 weeks but have made no difference to the outcomes for those born before that limit.
This cuts little ice with the pro-life lobby who argue that the limit for abortion should be set below the limit of viability - and as some babies of 23 weeks gestation have survived that shows the current limit is too high.
The only possible response, it seems to me, is to shift the focus of the argument from the baby to the mother, as Baroness Mary Warnock, architect of the 1990 bill, did so eloquently at the weekend. "We ought to pay less attention to the destruction of life by abortion and more to the quality of life of those who are allowed to live," she wrote.
Every life is lived by somebody and it is these living people to whom we should attach value and whom we should if necessary protect. Mothers who seek late abortions for whatever reason - because they have only recently discovered they were pregnant, broken up with their boyfriend or learnt that their baby has an abnormality - are among the most vulnerable in society. They have a right to our compassion and this is the good that must be weighed against the ill of lives lost.
Seeing it in this context does not make (late) abortion good - but it does make it less bad than the alternative.
Agree completely, it is not for the state or church to tell a woman how to live her life and what to do with her body.
The medical profession have asked that it remains unchanged, we should listen to them first and foremost and make any decisions based on their research and rcommendations. When the church can put forward scientific proof for their position then I will be prepared to listen to what they have to say. Until then let's just listen to those who know what they are talking about.
Posted by: flipped | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 02:03 PM
I have always been pro-choice, still am, but I do think the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks, unless there are good medical grounds to abort a foetus at a later stage - and breaking up with partner is not one of them!
Bad things happen in life but if they happen at an inconvenient time you have to act responsibly and humanely, where a developing life is involved. 20 weeks is plenty of time to come to terms with your condition, circumstances, whatever, and to make a grown-up decision.
The viability argument is a red herring. The decision to abort a healthy foetus, which has every chance of going full-term and being born healthy, is quite different to a foetus which is aborted spontaneously, often because it is not healthy or viable.
Posted by: Patricia | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 02:10 PM
Well exactly its not about viability its about the right to choose - the so called pro life lobby are dangerous individuals who have no right to impose there twisted morality on anyone else.
The science in terms of deciding whether a woman can have an abortion or not, is irrelevant, its about the right to choose.
The woman concerned has the right to choose - end of story.
Anyone who says different is in my book beneath contempt.
Posted by: Sparkymarky | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 02:11 PM
I don't see how anyone can be 'Pro-Abortion' but accept it as an unfortunate option in a free society. That said I think the 'right to choose' must also have its limits - it's not an absolute. Generally one should exercise that choice at a much earlier point by abstaining, using contraception or having an early abortion.
I would also argue that viability is a red herring. What matters is the balancing of the rights of the growing child and the rights of the mother. At some point that balance has to shift and I think that moving that point to 20 weeks is right because babies born naturally at that time would be given all the medical help they need to survive, even if for most it's a forlorn hope. Women who need a late abortion for good health reasons should still be able to get one. Now that abortion is more socially acceptable 5 months is plenty of time to sort out your life! After that point we need to protect the rights of the child.
Posted by: andrew holden | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 03:01 PM
If arguing for women to act responsibly and grown-up places me beyond contempt then it doesn't feel nearly as bad as I always imagined it would be.
Posted by: Patricia | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 03:08 PM
"Reduction in abortion limit would be a disaster for women" - but good news for the children who are otherwise be medically executed, with less though that a criminal in a Texas execution chamber gets.
Thinking about it the first part about it being a disaster for women is daft also. What's the difference between an abortion at 24 weeks and a live birth a few weeks later ?
Mothers who seek late abortions could hang on a few weeks and deliver the child for adoption. Why must the child die ?
Posted by: Man in a Shed | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 03:38 PM
The assumption is that because the fetus has a chance of survival before 24 weeks, we should lower the limit. But if a woman needs or wants an abortion, then the fetus has no chance of survival anyway! By definition, a fetus that will be aborted is NOT viable, regardless of the gestational age. After all, an abortion is not about having a baby, an abortion is about NOT having a baby.
There's been so many stories about "miracle babies" that survived after being born at 22 or 23 weeks. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with this abortion debate, because those were wanted babies. The viability of a fetus must be defined by the woman's willingness or ability to carry the pregnancy to term, not by whether the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the woman's body. That latter idea simply separates the woman from her fetus, which is very dangerous for women's rights. It's actually a huge anti-choice victory that gestational viability has been linked with abortion in this debate, because this gives personhood to the fetus and makes the pregnant woman invisible, or simply a vessel. When we focus on the fetus, women's views and needs become irrelevant, and women become bound to their childbearing role by law. Unfortunately, it seems that all of Britain has bought into the anti-choice view that women's key function is to be mothers and society must enforce that. The entire abortion law should be repealed as a profound violation of women's human rights and dignity.
Posted by: Joyce | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 04:21 PM
Late term terminations are rare as the majority of terminations take place before 13 weeks, but those who do seek terminations after this time can not be simple characterised as irresponsible, or childish. It is a huge decision which can not be taken lightly or rushed into.
There are circumstances that result in women not finding out they are pregnant until after they are months, instead of weeks, pregnant. These include:
* The continuation of regular periods despite being pregnant, the pill is well known to cause false periods.
* Periods may have previously stopped due to the use of certain contraceptives. I have used one that stopped my periods completely and another that made them very irregular, if I had fallen pregnant on either of these I would not have know until mush later in the pregnancy.
* Also menopause, puberty or stress also affect periods, which indicates these are times in a woman's life when she is ill prepared or able to continue with a pregnancy or deal with the great consequences of bringing another life into the world.
These circumstances are rare but so are terminations as late as 24 weeks.
The irony is that the early a woman discovers she is pregnant the faster she can obtain a termination, and the late she discovers this the long it takes to arrange due to the different procedures that are involved as the foetus develops.
My problem is the change is not supported by the medical profession, whose different governing bodies have warned against any change.
Posted by: Khyxan | Tuesday, 20 May 2008 at 04:38 PM
A foetus is not a piece of meat to be thrown out just because it inconveniences the mother (or father). If women want to exercise their right to choose then they have to do so before things get to that stage.
Find a partner who has had a vasectomy, or use other safe means of contraception.
Of course I accept that there are special circumstances (such as rape, severe foetal abnormalities) which need to be considered.
Posted by: Mark_IV | Wednesday, 21 May 2008 at 12:02 AM
I am frankly disgusted that the "human rights" of a 24-week-old organism, solely reliant upon its maternal host for survival, should be placed before those of an adult/young person.
It is genuinely disturbing in an age of alleged "freedom" that we should be subject to this kind of indoctrination. To allow the state to exercise its power to reduce women to submissive reproductive vessels is politically corrupt in the extreme.
With our already astronomical rate of teenage pregnancy, the reduced limit will undoubtedly exacerbate the problem. This, undoubtedly poses a threat to, particularly, naive young women who may not realise or be willing to accept their predicament until the state dictates that it is too late for them to seek advice. Surely it is in our interests to prevent an accidental pregnancy from destroying the lives of the young and vulnerable? Furthermore, a woman may, for whatever complication, medical or otherwise, be unaware of her pregnancy until physical symptoms become apparent.
If indeed the argument is supposedly based upon the issue of human rights, then surely it is the more humane option to prevent the birth of a potentially unwanted child than to advocate enforced motherhood.
Although adoption may be viewed as a solution, it is hardly the kind of stable parenting environment, which the authorities seem so very anxious to uphold.
Further, I deem it wholly irresponsible to slash the abortion limit whilst offering no further development in contraceptive services. The fact remains that all contraceptive methods may fail. And though it is the government's responsibility to improve family planning services, they appear, instead, intent upon systematically destroying every potential source of reproductive and female liberty.
Contrary to popular belief a woman's body is not the express chattel of the state...at least not for the present time.
Posted by: Faye Coulman | Wednesday, 21 May 2008 at 12:32 AM