On CiF today Polly cites the current abortion debate as evidence that little has changed over the last 40 years and that a woman's sovereignty over her own body is still under attack from what she describes as the 'same old time-warped enemies'. She's wrong but first a clarification.
I completely support legal abortion. As mentioned below I abhor the absolutist (usually religious) view that it's always wrong and like Polly I'm angered by the hoops women are forced to go through to get an abortion - they should be relaxed in the hope that more abortions take place earlier when it's a less traumatic (note the word 'less') experience. The catalogue of misinformation and exaggeration on this issue is worrying and usually the preserve of people whose real motive isn’t just to shave a few weeks of the limit – it does need to be countered wherever possible. However, the sentence in Polly's piece that really troubled me was:
It's important to remember that the broad public support for abortion in this country (and the rejection of the emotive ‘murder’ tag) is built almost entirely on this viability issue. If people believe that a child has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb then their judgement about the boundary between a the woman’s sovereignty and the ‘rights’ of the foetus blurs very rapidly. And crucially that ‘blurring’ isn’t an ill-informed, Daily Mail or religious inspired prejudice – it’s a fundamentally human impulse. I understand Polly's concern because even if it's only in the hypothetical what does society do if we ever reach a place where viability is established before our ability to detect pregnancy in the first place?
Rejecting the viability argument altogether gives the ‘anti’ mob licence to frame the debate in their terms and forces those who simply want a humane and progressive abortion law onto very uncomfortable ground.
I completely support legal abortion. As mentioned below I abhor the absolutist (usually religious) view that it's always wrong and like Polly I'm angered by the hoops women are forced to go through to get an abortion - they should be relaxed in the hope that more abortions take place earlier when it's a less traumatic (note the word 'less') experience. The catalogue of misinformation and exaggeration on this issue is worrying and usually the preserve of people whose real motive isn’t just to shave a few weeks of the limit – it does need to be countered wherever possible. However, the sentence in Polly's piece that really troubled me was:
“Over the years more may survive younger, but that's not the point and it never was. Give in to that argument and the case for a woman's supreme right over her own body and destiny is lost.”This amounts to a rejection that 'foetal viability' has any impact on the argument and that's an extraordinarily dangerous view to take. Accept that premise and those who genuinely want to outlaw abortion altogether can run those of us who support it down the partial-birth abortion alley, referencing infanticide and all sorts of other emotive terms that add heat but no light to the debate. It's a very dangerous way to frame things.
It's important to remember that the broad public support for abortion in this country (and the rejection of the emotive ‘murder’ tag) is built almost entirely on this viability issue. If people believe that a child has a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb then their judgement about the boundary between a the woman’s sovereignty and the ‘rights’ of the foetus blurs very rapidly. And crucially that ‘blurring’ isn’t an ill-informed, Daily Mail or religious inspired prejudice – it’s a fundamentally human impulse. I understand Polly's concern because even if it's only in the hypothetical what does society do if we ever reach a place where viability is established before our ability to detect pregnancy in the first place?
Rejecting the viability argument altogether gives the ‘anti’ mob licence to frame the debate in their terms and forces those who simply want a humane and progressive abortion law onto very uncomfortable ground.
Labels: Politics
1 Comments:
I completely support legal abortion. As mentioned below I abhor the absolutist (usually religious) view that it's always wrong and like Polly I'm angered by the hoops women are forced to go through to get an abortion - they should be relaxed in the hope that more abortions take place earlier when it's a less traumatic (note the word 'less')
The problem with this is that the main component in the rise of contraception by killing unborn is the culture of acceptance of abortion generally . To do this would send the wrong message which must be of the seriousness of such a step and the necessity not to have unprotected sex with men and then hop for the best. This , might I remind you is the main and not very excusable reason the subject arises and it is obvious isn`t it that any move to make that more acceptable will add to the problem whereby the same proportion of unusual late cases arrive to perplex us
I agree with Polly that the viability issue is no ore than a convenient hanger for broader moral questions I am on the other side , but recognizing pragmatically there has to be alike somewhere that seems as good as any. He mistake is this ,. By conceiving a child and keeping it , you make a person ,as you do you have responsibilities and the person has rights along a spectrum . As with any undertaking your sovereignty over your body is not absolute , firemen and soldiers , for example enter such contracts with duty
I notice you object to my mention of shame call it a lower level of social acceptance if you like but I thibnk if you behave badly the appropriate word is shame
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home