The abortion debate: who's having a good day or bad day

It’s life affirming that MPs have chosen not to cut the 24-week abortion limit or confirm the need for a father figure to be produced for IVF procedures, although it's not good news for everybody.

A good day for

1. The idea of women as grown-up people capable of making intelligent decisions. Perhaps best described by Kathie Guthrie, a consultant gynaecologist, in the Observer on Sunday:

'People think abortions are what little girls or feckless women have, and that's just not true,' says Guthrie. 'For some women their circumstances are such that the only solution for them, after heart-searching, is to turn to abortion. To patronise women this way is treating them as if they are not capable of self-determination and decision-making, which is not credible in Western society today.'

2. Non-traditional families. Britain’s politicians really want to save the family, the cornerstone of society. As long as the family looks exactly like theirs.

3. Science. Survival rates for babies born at 20 and 22 weeks haven’t changed. This is agreed by almost everyone, excerpt perhaps those who have heard an inspiring story about a very premature baby surviving against all odds or those who find it dovetails with their political agenda to think so.

A bad day for

1. Self-righteousness. Perhaps the worst thing about anti-abortion campaigners is the self-righteousness that seems as if the abortion is happening to them alone. Only they feel the pain of loss, only they understand what it really means.

2. David Cameron.  Flabby reasoning (see Science, above) and a backward step for the image of the modern Conservative.

Speaking before the vote yesterday, the Conservative leader said he was swayed by the thought that some babies could survive at a younger age than 24 weeks.
“I think the reason, personally, why I want to see it come from 24, definitely to 22, is because there are now children surviving being born at 22, or 23 weeks. It is very difficult to have a system that is aborting foetuses at that age when children are surviving.”

3. Patriarchy. People seeking IVF will no longer have to name a male so as to sanction their decision to have a baby. Now if only women didn’t have to get the approval of two grown-ups/doctors after they’ve decided to have an abortion.

4. Science. Fewer than 1% of abortions are done after 22 weeks; as Rachel Johnson said in the Sunday Times: Women don’t have terminations at five months because they suddenly want to get into a pair of white skinny jeans; they do so because they are desperate. So why are we talking about this again?

Comments

[Whimsey]

I think it's a very valid point as to whether it's worse for a child to have no father-contact at all or contact with a lousy one! I guess I'd opt for the first, in that having a lousy one is probably more likely to screw you up than not having one at all??

But that isn't the same as a mother not offering a father to a child, as would happen, wouldn't it, where a mother never tells a child who its father is, or doesn't know.

[Whimsey]

OneOM, it wasn't you who used that phrase but the original article, viz: "It’s life affirming that MPs have chosen not to cut the 24-week abortion limit..."

[oneopinionatedmother]

Wouldn't you make them do it simply if the children wanted to see their dad?

i suppose so...though i'd be so angry at him for not *wanting* to see them, i'd probably not want him to have the pleasure of their company...poor little mites.

linking back in with the main argument - all these stats that show how beneficial the role of a dad can be - don't they just reflect that having a *good* dad is beneficial, than just any old one that shows up??? I always feel these statisitics are being interpreted in an over-simplistic way as supporting the 'stay together for the good of he kids' case, rather than merely reflecting the fact that where two people have a good relationship - their kids benefit. Where they don't - divorce is not a cause but one of many possible negative effects of that problem. Negative effects that make life harder for the kids whether their parents split or not.

[oneopinionatedmother]

I find it singularly tasteless that the term 'life-affirming' is used to defend late abortions.

hmm...I expressed myself badly.I mean that although every abortion is regrettable, it's nice that just for once - just once - after years of increased regulation, Id cards, spy-camera bins and all the rest of it - the government has decided *not* to poke its nose and further weight its arm in cases that really need a gentle touch, time and individual consideration.

[Whimsey]

Whatever the morality of abortion, I find it singularly tasteless that the term 'life-affirming' is used to defend late abortions.

Whatever abortion is, it is never 'life-affirming' for the terminated foetus.

Those who kill their unborn children, even when it's entirely morally justified (as indeed it can be), should always at least have the common decency to face up to the fact they are taking a life.

Even if, say, I were to kill a human being who was threatening to kill other human beings (which must be the ultimate justification for killing I would think?), I would never ever stoop to calling my act/decision 'life-affirming'. A human has died, a life has been taken - that is always a tragedy, even if justified in the circumstances.

[Whimsey]

"Why would one force someone into seeing your kids when they have proved themselves unworthy of doing so?? "

Wouldn't you make them do it simply if the children wanted to see their dad? Though I agree it can't be nice for children to know their dad doesn't want anything to do with them any more. Poor kids.

[oneopinionatedmother]

on counselling for abortions - personally i feel it should only be optional - some people just don't want to discuss their private thinking with strangers. I find the notion of mandatory counselling offensive - it could only lead to additional harm for some people and shows a patronising view of women seeking abortions ie 'not knowing their own mind'.

[oneopinionatedmother]

@supermother -

a friend of mine split up with the father of her 2 kids. only 4 months later he dropped visits (as 1/3 dads do after a split). My take on this was 'good riddance to bad rubbish' as a man who has no wish to see his own kids obviously isn't worth the bother. She felt differently though- most adamantly so.
Why would one force someone into seeing your kids when they have proved themselves unworthy of doing so??

[oneopinionatedmother]

@bernadette - abstention? how will that stop married couples finding at the 20 wk scan that the foetus suffers abnormalities that may make it impossible to have any kind of life outside the womb? It won't.

Bernadette - 'damage to their reputation'? much though I admire Jane Austen, I don't share the mores of her time.

My reason that not lowering the limit is life-affirming. It buys time for pregnancies in doubt - one I heard of: a woman found her pregnancy had under-developed lungs. At 20 wks. This gave four weekds to scan again and make a decision then - a 5% chance that the pregnancy would be viable - without the need to go to court to get an abortion. She held on for that four weeks - i don't know the outcome but i think the point is clear. In tricky decisions like this, the more time the law allows the better.

re: fathers. i'm with supermother - any woman can have kids intendng them to have a loving father and get let down - causing damaging feelings of abandonment. IVF kids born to single or lesbian mums are in the same position to begin with -with no feeling of having been let down. Statistics actually show women who choose to parent without a male involved do better than those who end up single(though impossible to disentangle linked socio-economic factors)

[AmyA]

Seriously late to the party, but just wanted to add my name to the list of those who feel the original blog post was patronising and rather offensive in its equation of intelligence to sharing the writer's opinion. I am indeed broadly 'pro-life', but I'm not riled up about abortion per se here, just the lazy assumption that all intelligent women must be 'pro-choice'.

Also, I have never understood, even when I was 'pro-choice' in my younger days, why abortion should be considered a woman's 'right', to have 'control over her body'. With all due sympathy and respect, whether you agree with abortion or not, it's a fetus's body we're dealing with, not some sort of growth or organ. This is a perfectly valid and intelligent way to see it.

I really enjoy the Alpha Mummy blog and the intelligent, friendly chat and debate - just please remember to give your diverse readership some credit!

[Eluned]

I completely (but respectfully) disagree Sho. Children are given sex education lessons younger and younger and there must be thousands of different contraceptives available, a lot of it for free. It's attitude, not lack of supplies and services that's the problem IMO.

[Sho]

Here's a revolutionary idea: why not do away with limits anyway?

We should do more to educate and prevent unwanted pregnancy. Failing that there should be a bit more information and availability for the morning afte pill.

Failing that it should be easier to get to the right place to get the right advice as early as possible in a pregnancy.

After all that: if there is a medical need for a termination at week 23 weeks and 6 days - is that so very terribly far away from 24 weeks and 1 day? People, as has been repeatedly mentioned here, do not have late abortion willy nilly. Is there any reason to assume that if there was availability it would be any different?

[sarah]

"Gavi"

Even if the term is very premature?? Aw bless natural justice is a terrible thing.

[sarah]

do people think that the decision to cut the abortion time limit from 28 weeks to 26 and then to 24 was wrong?

[Jane2]

SM
Maybe your children's father will change his mind. When the children have grown up, (and he himself is old), he may well feel entirely differently, and want to make contact. This does happen.

Also your children have had a considerable amount of their childhood with him. (All of it in the case of the oldest, from biographical data you've posted before).

Also, all the siblings live together because you were, until the divorce, a nuclear family.

So, your children have infinite advantages over the child of a sperm donor. (Ugh! So impersonal).

Possibly the two most salient points in this entire debate (and both have been made below) are:
(i) Every woman takes a chance when she decides to have a child
(ii) If a woman really wants to have nothing to do with chance, there is always the option of total abstention.

Legislation to accommodate an infinite variety of bad situations would be utterly stifling, and there would, even then be a number of people who would lose out because no legislation can accommodate every eventuality, and much of it would be unenforceable.

[supermother]

On the question of fathers sadly vast numbers choose (not forced but choose) to have no contact with children after divorce. Is it worse for my 5 to know they have a father who lives near but chooses not to see them than for my sister's sperm donor children because mine have an active rejection and hers have never had a change - just a normality of a sperm donor father?

I certainly think most children like to know about their genetic heritage and that includes about a donor father with donor sperm where the husband is infertile. My sister has been sent photos of the donor when he was a boy and is in touch with other half siblings in the US and also has registered so that if the father chooses (his choice) he can contact the boys when they are 18.

Iain Duncan Smith has written in the Times letters today about the need for children to have fathers. Yet if children need fathers why don't we change the law to force fathers to play their part in families, to make them see children after divorce? Father have a right to apply for contact but the children have no such right.

[Wordbird]

Terminations after 18 weeks are almost always because of medical reasons. It takes time for tests to be performed on a foetus to show medical problems that often make it kinder to terminate than to carry to term.

I speak from experience: a dear friend had to make the incredibly difficult and brave decision to abort her pregnancy because her daughter had appalling, agonising abnormalities that would have resulted in her experiencing a very short and painful life. I think she did what a kind and caring mother had to do and I know that it broke her heart.

I don't think the time limit should be lowered.

[Blueberry]

The original post seems to me incredibly flippant in its approach
(one line in particular grated: "This is agreed by almost everyone, except perhaps those who have heard an inspiring story about a very premature baby surviving against all odds" - surely these "very premature babies" are the whole point in this particular debate, regardless of one's views). I like reading this blog and the comments that it encourages but sometimes I think the journalists that post ought to grow up and find a more mature way to express their views (they could do this and still provoke a debate, which I know is what they are aiming at, I am sure).

And to borrow a phrase from the original post, I think, Jean Jones, that what you have shared about your experiences, has been by far the most "life affirming" thing written here. It's inspiring.

[Eluned]

About the 'right to a father' thing.. firstly I think 'right' is the wrong word because shit happens; my sister lost her husband when she was five months pregnant. It was absolutely awful and my nephew has missed out on having a kind, generous and honourable man for a dad and all the obvious benefits of having a father-son relationship but his human rights have not been abused by not having that relationship. However, to go out of your way and intentionally, deliberately conceive a child that won't have a father figure or know where fifty percent of their heritage lies is deplorable IMO.

As for abortion, I'm definitely an anti. I might explain further when I'm feeling a bit more able to delve into such a depressing issue.

[Katharine]

I think the main problem with lowering the abortion limit to 22 weeks is where this will all end. Will we end up criminalising women who have abortions after 12/13 weeks? It's fair to say that if you experience chemical contraceptive failure and / or have ireegular menstruation, you may not even know you are pregnant until 9/10 weeks (due to the way the weeks are calculated also - the foetus may only actually be 5/6 weeks old), by which time it will probably be too late, because some doctor will take it upon himself to take the moral high ground with you and delay the procedure until beyond the time limit. Unless you have been in this situation in a country where there is no abortion allowed or where it is made extremely difficult, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Apparently it's hard enough to get booked in under a midwife in the UK if you find out about your preganancy later than "normal", so goodness only knows what the position would be for abortions.

I for one certainly don't want to return to the days where nurses are repairing the damage done by backstreet abortionists or having ladies die on the operating table as a consequence of a botched abortion. Yes, this really happened! I have relatives who saw this, but the details are too gruesome for general consumption (think complete mess and septicaemia).

Ladies, it's really time you all woke up and tried to stop this before it's too late otherwise why do we have the vote?

[Sho]

Georgia, my mum very nearly did have an abortion when she fell pregnant with me but didn't. She was lucky, her family supported an unmarried mother throgh the pregnancy and birth then tried to persuade her to have me adopted. She refused and they supported that too. Back in the early 60s that was a big thing.

Back to councelling - that should be a given pre- an post-abortion (and miscarriage and stillbirth). This is one of the places where all the laws in the world won't work - I have never heard of someone skipping gaily off for an abortion and then having no side effects.

Anyway - the point I wanted to come back to is this. We're on the Alpha Mummy blog where the bloggers are currently running a sex survey. How many of us have replied "urgh! I don't have sex it's horrible and disgusting"?

Or how many of us think that sex is a very nice passtime and, quite frankly, would not turn the opportunity of more?

I've always been of the opinion that sex is fun. It is better if the girls and boys doing it are informed about all their options - including not doing it if they don't want to.

Telling teenagers to abstain is a head-in-the sand approach which borders on the criminally stupid. Sorry if that offends people.

[Jean Jones]

Oh, right, Gavin. So if a baby, or even a person (and yes, that IS ironic) 'isn't wanted', then they have no rights at all? At that rate you might as well have a gas chamber attached to every hospital ward to get rid of all the inconvenient people littering up the world. Arguments like this one are exactly why we need laws as to when a foetus is deemed to acquire the rights of a human being. And I can't believe that actually needs to be said.

[Gavin]

What does the number of weeks a baby can survive outside of the womb have to do with when the abortion limit should be anyway ?

If a baby is wanted it will be carried to term, even if the term is very premature, if the baby isn't wanted the it isnt wanted. How is forcing a women to give birth going to improve the world ?

[Giorgia]

Abortion is not a right. Abortion means ending your child´s life. You dont have the right to end anybody´s life. Imagine if your mother would have had an abortion : you would not be here. Of course abortion needs to be legal and strictly disciplined, but any attempt to reduce this practice must be appreciated and praised. Any stricter abortion regulation should not be seen as an attempt to reduce women power over their bodies, you can express it by using pill and other contraceptive methods. Abortion might be necessary in a very limited number of cases, and, if it is, surely not after 24 weeks, but at the very beginning of the pregnancy.

[Claire Copland]

I have never posted on anything like this but feel i should this time. It is not unfeminist or unsympathetic to want the abortion limit reduced; i don't think anyone would question a later abortion for medical reasons. However, babies are surviving at 23 weeks - i personally know a family whose son was born at just 23 weeks, he was very poorly but is now an entirely normal 3yr old with no problems.
I myself had an abortion when i was 18 yrs old and 8 weeks pregnant, i received no councelling. I went on in later years to have a stillborn baby at full term, i didn't get any councelling then either. I am now lucky enough to have a healthy baby girl.
I do believe in abortion strongly and the rights of women to choose must never be taken away. however, an abortion at 24 weeks, when not for medical reasons, is traumatic for the hospital staff and unacceptable morally. Surely 22 weeks would be a better cut off point now that babies survive at 23 weeks?