Dawn Primarolo will be questioned today by the Commons Science & Technology Committee over medical advances since the Abortion Act in 1967 and the impact these may have on the termination limit. Among others (Nadine Dorries) the Pro-Life Alliance are arguing for a reduction in the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks while the BMA and RCOG think the limit should stay.Abortion is one of those topics that tend to get discussed in the abstract and at the extremes, effectively avoiding the complex reality that legislators actually have to deal with on the issue. The casual ‘pub’ debates generally revolve around the legitimacy of terminations by women who have been the victim of a sexual attack (where a vast majority agree) contrasted with those who appear to treat an abortion as little more than another contraceptive option (where the majority become less tolerant). This polarisation just distorts the issue and adopting positions built on either of those extremes is easy but ultimately fruitless - it certainly doesn't help us arrive at a solution that addresses them all. The other thing that tends to influence the debate is personal experience. Those without children or experience of pregnancy will argue in the abstract since in effect they can do little else. Those with children, whatever their previous thoughts, will at least acknowledge that it’s a far more complex issue in reality than it appears in the abstract.
As with most things I’m deeply hostile to the absolutist position. For women who have been the victim of a sexual attack or whose life would be threatened by a full-term pregnancy abortion is justified and we should have some provision for it. Opposition to terminations under these circumstances can only be ideological in nature and like most situations where people elevate theory above outcome it's cruel and inhuman and no civilised society should tolerate it. The problem then is that if we restricted abortion to these situations (something which is actually very difficult to do in law) then back-street terminations for less extreme situations would simply soar. Tony Blair once said:
On balance I think we should at least review the limit. This isn't because I have any expertise on foetal sentience or viability (I haven’t) - it's just that in the spirit of the quote from Blair above we should recognise the gravity of the act this law permits and make sure we take account of changes in medical science, social awareness of sexual health / contraceptive issues etc. There is also precedent of course since the original act had a limit of 28 weeks which was reduced to 24 in 1990. And the whole debate needs to be framed against the numbers of women seeking abortions over this timeline - I don't have the figures to hand but the number of abortions that actually take place beyond 16/18 weeks is very small which curiously is a fact both sides in the debate deploy in support of their position.
Quick final personal observation. My wife and I had out first child in summer '06 and by the time Joseph was 24 weeks (the current legal limit) we’d had a couple of scans and seen little fingers & toes, started buying clothes etc. The notion that up until this stage someone should still be in a position ‘choose a termination’ just sits very uneasy with me and while I realise that’s not a very specific or reasoned objection it’s something that, as I mentioned above, I suspect most parents would understand. For that reason it seems at least reasonable for MP’s to discuss the time limit issue since well before even the 20 weeks now being proposed the vast majority of people have had more than enough time to make a decision, difficult though it may be.
As with most things I’m deeply hostile to the absolutist position. For women who have been the victim of a sexual attack or whose life would be threatened by a full-term pregnancy abortion is justified and we should have some provision for it. Opposition to terminations under these circumstances can only be ideological in nature and like most situations where people elevate theory above outcome it's cruel and inhuman and no civilised society should tolerate it. The problem then is that if we restricted abortion to these situations (something which is actually very difficult to do in law) then back-street terminations for less extreme situations would simply soar. Tony Blair once said:
‘every abortion is a tragedy but that doesn’t mean it should be prohibited'and however distasteful the thought of people being neglectful of their contraceptive responsibilities simply because they have another ‘option’ is, it happens and any legislation has to be understood in that context.
On balance I think we should at least review the limit. This isn't because I have any expertise on foetal sentience or viability (I haven’t) - it's just that in the spirit of the quote from Blair above we should recognise the gravity of the act this law permits and make sure we take account of changes in medical science, social awareness of sexual health / contraceptive issues etc. There is also precedent of course since the original act had a limit of 28 weeks which was reduced to 24 in 1990. And the whole debate needs to be framed against the numbers of women seeking abortions over this timeline - I don't have the figures to hand but the number of abortions that actually take place beyond 16/18 weeks is very small which curiously is a fact both sides in the debate deploy in support of their position.
Quick final personal observation. My wife and I had out first child in summer '06 and by the time Joseph was 24 weeks (the current legal limit) we’d had a couple of scans and seen little fingers & toes, started buying clothes etc. The notion that up until this stage someone should still be in a position ‘choose a termination’ just sits very uneasy with me and while I realise that’s not a very specific or reasoned objection it’s something that, as I mentioned above, I suspect most parents would understand. For that reason it seems at least reasonable for MP’s to discuss the time limit issue since well before even the 20 weeks now being proposed the vast majority of people have had more than enough time to make a decision, difficult though it may be.
Labels: Ethics
4 Comments:
We finally ( and after a long ordeal ) had our first child only two years ago .... things do not seem the same and the subject of abortion is one where I have entirely chnaged my views.
TO me this must be a quasi religious or at least metaphysical problem . If you look at the embryonic development of a human , the human child is born whilst still , so to speak , an embryo .
Were you not struck by how little difference there was betwen the thing in your arms and the thing on the scan .
Reading about it the other high Apes would have the baby unborn until a much layer stage in its development. This is fact about the unique place of humans is highly suggestive BTW in that the mind is exposed to an enviroment before it is " Hard wired " so to speak.
There is then , no special reason why a child should not be exposed to the baseball bat if it inconvenient until a stage long after , birth .The question of viability is a cosy fiction . Many mal-formed children would never survive alone.
These are the sorts of reasons that people of faith have extreme views that are obliged to articulate in a false medical language in order to reach a false compromise . I am tired of such people being regarded as crazed by the modern know all. Not to be disgusted at dropping a life in the bin is inhuman and I have great respect for those who make a firm stand . I suspect they are the most sane
The answer in our unhappy reality then is to push the time backwards and create the enviroment where that is as easy as possible.
Start with welfare.
Re invent working class community and allow some of the attendant shame for poor behaviour to seep in with it .
I `ve meandered a bit there . Sorry
Heard a professor called Campbell on PM programme and he reinforced my view that a 24 week foetus is almost the finished article which it really is a crime a crime to abort. 20 weeks should be the absolute upper limit and even then I'd never accept it personally. Several people urged such a course on me when I was a young man and if I'd taken that awful course I'd have been denied a wonderful child and much happiness.
NM - you have an unerring ability to appear reasonable and measured up front, lure me into a line of thinking and then say something so jaw-droppingly inappropriate and wrong that I'm temporarily disoreientated.
"Reinvent working class community and allow some of the attendant shame for poor behaviour to seep in with it"
'attendant shame' - really NM? Shame on you for that I'm afraid...
Skip - thanks for the honest reply. I have to say my own views on this did change a little after we had our first last year - it just changes the perspective you have. If the evidence support viability before 24weeks the limit should be reduced.
Once you have had a child it does change your perspective completely about abortion. For every foetus has the possibility of being just like that child you hold in your arms.
That said, others should have the choice but I do agree that 24 weeks is far too late to be doing this procedure. Neonatologists are saving 25 week babies routinely and are pushing the boundaries on earlier ones too. I think 20 weeks is too late as well.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home