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

[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?

[Delilah]

I've just seen Lou's email - examples like those are what has led me to believe what I do about abortion.

I think Lucy's point is a very good one. I don't think it's the law that promotes abuse of abortion; it's deliberate or hapless ignorance about babies and science, especially contraception.

I support limited abortion because I think that the deliberate production of orphans - parentless or unwanted children - can be as morally repugnant as murder. IMO only the mother can make the final decision on which option produces less evil overall. The right to choose to have a baby regardless of the father's wishes or presence can be part of that decision. The availability of contraception and sexual rights are issues too, especially for some women who seem incapable of using contraception effectively. I don't think it's our business to make the mother's decision easy, but to ensure that it is well-informed, and then to support the mother once the decision is made.

[Lou]

I never really comment on these blogs but this is quite an interesting debate.

I have been living and working in a African country for the last year where human rights are almost non-existent and not recognised. Most women in this country have no say or power whatsoever over their daily lives let alone family planning.

When arriving at a health clinic with a sick child, health workers will in the course of the visit ask them if they are aware of contraceptive methods and whether they want to start family planning. Most women will say yes but will then have to go home, talk to their husbands and if their husband refuses (which is usually the case), then they carrying on having children. There are massive myths purported as to side effects of contraception, including condom usuage - incredible considering the high rate of HIV in the country (14%). The average woman has 6-8 children, children who are born over their resource limit, will die in infancy or grow up physically or mentally stunted.

I reckon we should be counting ourselves damn lucky we come from a western society where in general rights and choices are available to all. We should respect every indiviuals choice to exercise that right, whether it be to have a child or terminate the pregnancy at whatever stage allowed and for whatever reason. These kind of decisions are best made by the individual themselves when they have access to informed and non-biased information.

Not wanting to sound self righteous, but just to put another view point out there.

This should be an intersting addition, there is quite an innovative IVF method in this country. It's called "Hyena with a stick". If as a man you realise you may be infertile after some months of marriage, and your status in society is directly linked to your fertility and ability to reproduce you may resort to this tatic....

You ask a man from the neighbouring village if he will have sex with your wife to impregnante her. If he agrees, you wait at the appointed time, he comes to your hut and leaves a stick outside the front door signalling that work is still in progress. When you come back later the stick should be gone and your wife should have concieved. Extremely common practice, which of course leads to higher HIV infection rates, if you consider how many more women this hyena will sleep with.

On the human right to have a father, this is not a right, but possibly an emotional need. Food, Water, Shelther, Education, Health access are rights. Everything else is needs. Here if the mother dies, it is highly common for the children to be placed in an orphanage or in a relatives care. The husband will then go and re-marry and start a new family without his children from the first. These children are then classed as orphans. So who has the rights there when the father abdicates them? Life is never black and white but telling someone they should not have a choice is wrong.

[Ad-Mum]

It is true that survival rates for babies born at 20-22 weeks have not changed, BUT babies DO survive at 23 weeks, and increasingly often.

It has always been the case that a disabled child can be aborted at any point, and there is no plan for this to change. However, I do personally believe that the limit for abortion of perfectly healthy babies should be reduced from 24 to 22 weeks.

It seems inhuman to expect doctors, nurses and midwives to do everything that they can to save the live of one 23 week old baby whilst deliberately ending the life of another.

What about the rights of the medical staff, many of whom claim to find performing late abortions on healthy babies terribly traumatic?

If only a tiny proportion of healthy babies are aborted between 22 weeks and 24 weeks surely reducing the limit is not such a big deal? It would also encourage there to be more done in the way of educating young women and speeding up the NHS procedures in order to meet the reduced time limit.

This issue isn't as black and white as Jennifer makes out. There is a grey area, and - in my book - that grey area is 22-24 weeks. And wanting a reduction to 22 weeks does not make me unintelligent or antifeminist.

[Jean Jones]

Oh, agreed, AM. But things aren't like that now and very few people realise that. And that included me until I had to find out about it all. The perception that A Disabled Child Ruins Your Life and is 100%, always, unequivocally, here and now, a Bad Thing seems to be almost universally believed and I want to say that that is no longer necessarily true. It changes your life, sure, and it means you change too, but in my case and I'm sure that of at least some others that turns out, in the end, not to have been 100% bad. The situation you describe was bad, no doubt about it, but that was 50+ years ago and things have changed a great deal.

[Annamac]

JJ, as you've said yourself, Down's is far from the short straw. Depending on the histories of the parents, their ages, their financial situation, their level of education and articulacy - and also where in the country they are - some disabilities are liveable with. And some, in some cases, aren't. I, FWIW, was talking about someone with profound physical and mental disabilities and severe epilepsy, who eventually also went blind as a result of drug "therapy" (read: chemical cosh). Working class family, 1950s Glasgow. 3 children under 5. Mother has a nervous breakdown and remains on heavy-duty anti-psychotics for the rest of her life. Of course, one would hope that things would be very different today with regard to the treatment of a profoundly disabled child and support for the family. But of course this all left its mark on my husband - who was more inclined to make his decision re: testing for foetal abnormalities based on the legacy in his family rather than anything else.

[j]

Lee, my personal view is that I would like the option to end my life early if I am hopelessly ill, without having to resort to DIY. That said, I am very aware of the dangers posed, especially by severe mental illness and addiction, to the ability of people to make decisions they would not later regret. So I would have heavy controls around it.

[Lee]

I find it odd that we live in a country where abortion is allowed but euthanasia is not. Surely similar arguments can be used for both. Disability, hardship, risk of painful death should the operation not occur.
It would be interesting to know whether those that support abortion, certainly at the later stages, also support euthanasia. With this in mind, now that the government have voted to continue to support the ending of the life of an unborn child when given just 6 to 8 weeks more they could survive on their own (and have no choice one way or the other), whether they should now vote to allow the ending of the life of an adult who with just 6 to 8 weeks more could find themselves in severe agony and not survive (and can decide for themselves).

[Lucy]

Sho, you mention 'a safe, clean termination in a safe clean clinic. With councelling afterwards'. I am pro-choice, myself, but I do want to point out that an awful lot of people receive either no counselling, or some very minimal 'so, you ok then' type questions from a doctor with no specialism in counselling. This is not, obviously, what is recommended, but it does happen and it is extremely cruel.

The attitude of (some of) the health and social services is often that abortion is an 'easy' or 'obvious' route for nice middle-class girls. I have personally heard a doctor, when questioned as to adoption or keeping the baby, advise: 'Well, adoption's not such a good idea - you'd never really give up the baby. And only girls who are half-expecting a baby choose to keep them, not girls who have plans for education'.

This seems to me a really serious issue that should be at the centre of the debate. I think it is partly the reason why anti-abortion campaginers still sway people with the argument that abortion is an easy fix for feckless women - because many GPs genuinely seem to think that abortion is 'easy' or 'non-traumatic'. Certainly, I have been informed by (a different) doctor that healthy women rarely suffer post-abortion stress, or 'only if they have other problems they're already upset about'.

I am really not trying to change the subject; I think this is important and relevant.

[bernadette]

I think this article is deliberately provocative and can't be what someone really thinks. How can not reducing the time limit for abortion be life-affirming? It means doctors must continue to butcher unborn babies who are almost developed enough to survive birth.
The high number of teenage pregnancies is not related to information or availability of contraception. Sex education takes place at school and contraception is available free at any number of places - I noticed some in our local barbers the other day. We need to offer our children some moral teaching; give them the option of abstention as a healthy and wise choice, which it is. The earlier kids start having sex and the more partners they have, the more they are at risk of std's, infertility and cervical cancer, let alone the damage to their reputation.

[Jean Jones]

"brother and is of the opinion that the situation destroyed his mother's health and ruined family life."

I am not going to dispute AM's husband's feelings and opinions, far from it. But I do, very strongly, suggest that it is at least possible that having a disabled sibling is in some ways a good thing, as long as the parents know that the other children's needs must be given as much importance as the disabled one's. And it IS possible to do that, as long as BOTH parents weigh in (and, to hark back to the SAHM debate, this is one very good reason why rushing back to paid employment when the kids were young was not a viable option - there is a limit to what a person can do and I am no superwoman).There were many times when my kids were growing up when my husband took the older ones out on outings that wouldn't have done for the disabled one, and indeed on holiday with them alone - if you ask my older ones now what were the best holidays they had as kids, they will always mention the time Dad took them to a theme park for 3 days, the accommodation being a tent at a campsite where the people in the next tent arrived back drunk at 2am and proceeded to have loud and uninhibited sex. Brings the house down every time, and indeed nearly brought the tent down at the time...but I digress. My older kids now have something that few young people of their age have in terms of tolerance for divergences from the norm and the knowledge that (here we go again) material success isn't all that matters. And we are a very close family. As to mothers' health being ruined - well, what does that mean? Depression? Physical health? All I can say there is that things have changed a lot in the last 30 years, and there is nowadays a lot of help and support to be had if you look for it and don't refuse it on the grounds that it's for those who can't cope/can't afford to pay their own way. Oh yes, we did that to begin with too. You learn as you go along. As i say, I am not disputing how AM's husband feels, just suggesting that it's not inevitable that's that's how things are with a disabled child.

[Ed.]

I'm not really decided on where I stand on abortion but I can't help feeling science has taken a real kicking from the choice lobby. I keep hearing that the proportion of abortions after 22 weeks is very small - what kind of an argument is that? If something is wrong it's wrong once or a million times. What relevence is scientific proportions? Gangland killing isn't okay because only a tiny number of the population are affected. The other thing is this study showing that there is no change in survival rates in the last 10 years in Trent so there's no reason to alter the limit set in 1990. Did I miss a decade or something? Was 1990 just 10 years ago? Is Trent the whole UK? The reality is that this is about ethics and rights of mother and foetus and both sides are abusing the science of it to try and claim the moral high ground.

[J]

agree, adoption is a wonderful thing all round when it is possible.

[Mary]

I'm adopted, happy and successful. I know it sounds self satisfied but I'm so glad to be alive and not aborted.

[Eve]

When you look at the statistics, veyr few women indeed have abortions after 20 weeks.... so a cut in the limit wouldn't really affect the total number. On my opinion the best way for the government to cut the number of abortions is to improve contraception services, more access to morning afterpills, and better awareness for everyone what contraceptive choices are with a push towards longer term contraception as a back-up - like a coil.

[Annamac]

"a dad figure somewhere in the picture is a basic human right".

Hmm, well, I assume what is meant here is that it is a "basic human need to know who your biological father is/was". Certainly it is undoubtedly better to know who one's father was/is and to know something of their personal history both for health reasons and to help you get more of a sense of you are and where you come from. I wonder very much about how the so-called "snowflake children" will cope as they grow up (they are the children who result from the adoption of frozen embryos). Presumably they eventually get given the details of their actual original biological parents.

As regards the original post, I think it is right that late stage abortions should be available in cases where there are extremely severe implications for the health of the foetus or the mother. I see it as the more humane choice for conditions which will inevitably result in the death of the child a few days or weeks after birth. Also, there is undoubtedly a very grey area regarding disabilities which are severe but will not necessarily result in death in infancy. My husband grew up with a very profoundly disabled younger brother and is of the opinion that the situation destroyed his mother's health and ruined family life. He was adamant that we should have every test going during pregnancy and would certainly have advocated a termination should the tests have indicated any sort of disability. Luckily they didn't.

[Sho]

Caitlin made the point that I thought as I was driving to work yesterday: if children have the right to a father, let's ban divorce too.

It doesn't happen in a lot of cases, but know one woman who was abandoned during her (third) pregnancy because the father "wasn't ready for children". She is now a single mother of 3 who would rather be in a realationship and sharing the burdon. In drunken moments she has let slip to her mother that she wishes she'd gone the abortion route.

Even so. My my point is: how many of us posting here had to live through the time of back-street abortions? Knitting needles, hot baths and gin? Would you rather that in our daughters' future, or - all contraceptive advice and precautions having failed - a safe, clean termination in a safe clean clinic. With councelling afterwards?

We need more information - not necessarily about the viability of unborn babies at 20, 22, 24 etc weeks. But of help that is available for families with a disabled child, exactly what each conditions means in terms of care, life expectancy etc. We need to inform our sons and daughters about the realities of life. Not cross our fingers and hope that they don't get it wrong.

[J]

Thanks Gipsy, you said it so well.

Of course I think fathers matter. Or second dads, or second mums, if you are gay. Families matter, decency and loyalty matter, respect for both parents matters, including a donating dad (I dont think they should be liable for child support if they donate). I know arrangements where a gay couple have phoned a friend and he becomes the unofficial godfather (official ones being a bit tricky- have you tried arranging a baptism for a child born to a gay relationship?) I think that is a very good set-up.

The medical argument is pretty poor, to be honest- so many conditions are not reliably inherited, and if they are reliably inherited then you can be screened anyway (breast cancer etc).

But we see so much damage from family breakup all around us, and yet we have more compassion and common sense than to interfere. We all know someone on a second relationship. Do we go up to them and say, "sorry, families need fathers. Dont care about the fact you are in love with your new partner. Dont care that your previous wife doesnt want you back. Dont care if you have had more kids. Get back to your first family right away, it's their basic human right to have you there?"

Of course not. So why would we say to a woman in a stable, loving relationship, "dont care if you are gay. you'll have to grit your teeth and have a one-night stand- or as many as it takes to get pregnant- assuming you can find someone to agree to do it. Sorry, families need fathers, otherwise were keeping motherhood to ourselves".

On the basis of the arguments put forward so far, I think that the ethics of a gay woman conceiving a child are no worse than the ethics of a straight woman conceiving a child with a man who has been a father in a previous relationship. If you are going to argue from the "damage" argument then it is clearly worse to encourage family breakdown by taking on a man who has been married before. We "should" force them to stay in an unhappy marriage instead, since families need thjeir fathers at all costs.

Are you saying that? I'm not. I dont think people should feel bad if they marry again. But I dont think that a society which respect that choice (as I do) is in any position to say that gay women cant be mothers because of the damage to family life.

[Gipsy]

Maddilon - the person who has posted a comment has their name appear below the post, not above it. I don't think that Kierensmum, who is pro-choice, is the person you're upset with.

[Gipsy]

There's been a lot of talk about the right to have a father, and I'm a bit confused as to what the exact point being made is.

In the UK, the law changed so that sperm donors don't remain anonymous - their children can find out who they are.

So I'm not sure why this has been brought up here. The change in the IVF law was to remove the obligation to have a male role model as part of the picture - in cases where the couple are gay, or a single woman wants to do it herself, this was usually through donated sperm and a male figure who wasn't the genetic father but a friend or a close relative such as a brother.

By removing the obligation to have a male figure, they're not taking away the child's right to know who their genetic father is/was. That is an entirely separate issue.

[Maddilion]

OOOOH, I was only going to read this and not comment, but Keiransmum made me mad - what a pathetic thing to say!

I feel pregnant on the mini-pill, twice. So I was using proper precaution, I had to ask myself long and hard about whether I wanted to keep the pregnancies both times. The first I was in a destructive relationship, desperately trying to get out; if I had kept it, I would have been tied to the eejit for ever, the second I had just moved to another part of the country, using all my savings to set up home with my soon to be husband. Both times were hell to live through. I will never forget lying on the bed sobbing as they put me to sleep for the second one.

Don't imagine that it is an easy choice for anyone, it bluddy isn't. I know I made the right choice for me, and I had the support of my Mum which made it easier. But do you really think people who have had a scan and found out there is something severely wrong with their child (not a cleft palete, like someone hitting the news a few years ago) and have the heart-rending decision to make would appreciate having to make it really quickly, to fit in with a 20 week deadline? Yes it is horrible subject, but it's about 1% of pregnancies that are terminated past 20 weeks, not the hundreds that are portrayed in the media.

I am sick of smug people thinking that it's easy; it's a form of contraception; it's awful how many teens are having children these days; it's terrible how many single mums are dragging their children up while popping babies out like smarties while smoking, drinking coz 'It's my life innit'. You can't have it both ways, either give people proper contraception advice so they can make informed choices, or don't make it so easy to dodge the system and appear to breeze through claiming benefits willy-nilly, while other families who desperately need help can't get access to equipment, people, support or proper funding.

And don't get me started on the Irish girl who was raped and had to beg and plead to have a termination.

[Astrid]

Lazy Mummy,I am sorry if I offended you but the things you mentioned are exactly where I draw the line. I work hard, pay lots of taxes and then see the money being spend on rather unneccessary things.
Lifestyle related illnesses are the number one cause of the problems the NHS has today and correct me if I am wrong but you live in the US where the problem is even bigger.
Would you perfer a dirty hospital or lack of nurses because they can't afford them so that someone can have IVF treatment?
As to the secondary infertility, yes that could happen to me, but should I not then be happy with one child and not go through all the horrible procedures of trying to have another one. Even if that was the case, I would never expect the state to pay for that, if I can't afford to pay for it myself maybe I cn't afford another child anyway. (I shall now go and hide as well!)

[Jane2]

Sorry, I totally stand by the statement that a father is a basic human right.
Doesn't have to be there all the time, doesn't have to be a husband, doesn't have to be alive, even.
Caitlin, I find your comments about fathers not being allowed to join the army offensive. There are people still around today who lost their fathers (whether in body or mind) during the many wars of the 20th century, and those fathers didn't have a choice.
One needs to know one's origins.
Even if the fathers are b*******, the children need to know that, and know that at least half the human race has the potential to behave abysmally. It's part of being human.

[J]

should clarify that by "basic human right" I mean something so serious that if you dont provide it, you are abusing your child and she/he shold be tken from you. Things like food, freedom from sexual abuse and torture, and basic healthcare.

I dont think you should devalue the term by using to mean, something nice which we should all aim for, (if we are straight).

[J]

agree with Caitlin. A dad- or a mum- is not a basic human right. What about children brought up by their widowed fathers? should they go into care?
I stand by my views: the very very small number of gay women who will benefit from this will make good parents. This anger should be directed towards the behaviour of the straight majority from which 99.9% of all broken families come. If you feel the need to be so firm about the right to a father, let's start with fathers and mothers who have affairs, before we attack men and women who have done nothing wrong, except fall in love the way they were built to do.

[sylvia]

how about women try not to get pregnant in the first place? sounds like a logical solution to preventing unwanted pregnancies.

[Lazy Mummy]

And one final comment before I become the AM pariah of the week (sorry KM, your joke about cannibalism doesn't qualify - it was brilliant tho')..

Astrid, your remarks about infertility were offensive and ignorant and also came across as rather smug. Certainly, some portion of infertility is lifestyle-related, but by no means all, and if (like some of the AMs here) you'd suffered from it, you would probably be a little more sensitive in your comments. To paraphrase what JJ has said about parenting a disabled child, until you've been there, you don't know what you'll be capable of/want to do.

Just for a moment, imagine you hadn't got pregnant easily and had wanted to investigate why you were suffering from infertility to at least get a diagnosis, possibly even treatment of some sort. (And it might happen to you in the future if you try for more children - secondary infertility is more common than people think). Would you want to pay those costs yourself? Would you be able to afford to? How is treatment for lifestyle-based infertility any different than treatment for lifestyle-based lung cancer, diabetes, heart disease, drug/alcohol dependency, obesity-related gastric bypass surgery? Should we make those people pay for their treatment too? After all, their illness is largely self-inflicted/correlates with what we know to be an unhealthy lifestyle (often with a far stronger correlation than the infertility ones). Where do you draw the line?

[Lazy Mummy]

On a related subject, I personally find sperm/egg donation to be really offensive. Frankly, I'd adopt before doing either. I couldn't imagine carrying someone else's egg. It wouldn't be my child in my body so what would be the point? Frankly (also), I'd rather my spouse had a child as a result of an affair (with someone other than me) than do egg/sperm donation. At least the child would be created out of passion!

On the other hand, the place of IUI/IVF for couples using their own genetic material is different AFAIC.

(Ducks head below parapet, awaits onslaught).

[Lazy Mummy]

Late to the party here, but...

Downs...I wholly agree with JJ about downs. I know I'd abort if I had a foetus with one of those genetic mutations that meant the child would die shortly after birth anyway, but not for downs. Also, I haven't said this before, but I really appreciate JJ and J's comments and the experiences they share about raising disabled children.

Late abortions...In my state in the US, abortion is a legal right up to the point of birth for various reasons, primarily used for those terrible genetic disabilities where the child will die anyway shortly after birth or where the mother's life is at risk. In practice, I think most people who are having abortions for what I'll call "social" reasons do it earlier (and there are I think more adoptions here than in the UK) so it really seems to be those terrible disability situations where the right for late abortion is exercised. Whoever said that if you do testing, you don't have long to decide if you get bad results is right for amnio which is best done at 16 weeks (lower miscarriage risk); 1-2 weeks for results means you really don't have long. Good news is new tests for some things (nuchal cord US & blood test) can be done earlier & have solid results (don't know if they're in in the UK yet but are now widely used in the US).

Fathers...I suspect the word BoB meant when she said "every child has the right to have a father" was "deserves". I fully believe every child deserves to know their parents, but of course not every child is lucky enough to do so. I believe research has shown that children who lose a father (or mother) to illness or death (or absent for soldiering or other distant job) rather than divorce, separation, abandonment have fewer abandonment & identity issues than those who lose their parent for the latter group of reasons. Also, I think there is a very real messy situation brewing with sperm/egg donation and people not knowing their genetic heritage, a) in terms of their own potential illnesses and b) in terms of not knowing if they're meeting/reproducing with someone who's a close genetic relative (sibling, for example). Of course one could argue this has always been the case with affairs & stuff but I suspect this is a) a bit more prevalent and b) at least the mother knew who the father was before & could guide the child away from other members of the family.

But on the subject of fathers, I think it's hugely important for children of same-sex couples to have role models of the opposite gender: uncles/aunts, grandparents of opposite gender, godparents. Just as children of widows always have.

[wavydavy]

How about it was a good day for democracy? Not european busybodies, not judges, not party politicians, not the great and the good, but a free vote by the peoples representatives in Parliament assembled. More of this I hope. Seems doubtful to me, but hope beats eternal.

[Baggofbones]

"Fathers aren't always readily available. What's a woman supposed to do? Shack up with the first person she sees because her child might need a father figure?"

What's a woman supposed to do? Well, one thing would be to be a bit less keen to find Mr Right, and more keen to find a partner whom they like and who would be a good father. Secondly, the willingness to stick at a relationship (even through the not-so-good bits) seems to have largely disappeared (not least as women can afford to divorce their husbands if they have jobs).

To my mind, fathers are part of the whole having-a-baby process. If a woman can't find a man who meets her exacting standards, then perhaps she should not have children either?

I await the brickbats...

[Delilah]

I agree with Emma that the covering article is unnecessarily tabloid and offensive.

As far as abortion is concerned, I don't have a problem with the cutoff date remaining as it is but people should be free to publicise what that means, to the foetus, so that women make a truly informed decision. The response that women considering a late abortion should be "protected" from the realities because they are already upset seems, well, rather patronising.

As regards fathers, it's a no-brainer that every child deserves to know something about 50% of their genetic heritage. Who hasn't fantasised about being a foundling and thereby disowning your flawed, disappointing parents - only to go on to learn from them how to cope with your less endearing characteristics? Not to mention medical issues. For some reason I've had a lot of friends who lacked one or both parents, through vicious divorce or adoption. All were raised by wonderful, loving extended families and were pretty well balanced, but all of them - every single one - has permanent identity issues that people who had access to both parents (or what they thought were both parents) just don't have. Sometimes it's not nice to find out where you came from, but it's something everyone needs to know, if only to move on.

[Sarah]

Fathers aren't always readily available. What's a woman supposed to do? Shack up with the first person she sees because her child might need a father figure? Husbands aren't the only male role models available and aren't always the best ones anyway...

[Baggofbones]

"Billions of people have been raised perfectly pleasantly without a father".

Indeed, indeed. But I still think that all people have the right to know where they come from, and to my mind, a father (even a rubbish one) is and should be 50 percent of a child's identity.

Maybe it's not a right like education and the other things you cite - but in this perspective, it would not be a woman's right to have a baby (or to abort one) either. Would you agree with that?

[Caitlin MOran]

If having a "father figure around is a basic human right", surely we should outlaw fathers from being allowed to join the army? And, indeed, outlaw divorce? Come on, no way is having a father around a "basic human right". It would be nice, but it's not a "right" - like freedom from fear and pain; food; water; medicine or education. Billions of people have been raised perfectly pleasantly without a father.

[Astrid]

Earlier on I made the comment that having a child in my opinion is a privilege and not a right and I stand by that 100%. The decision to bring a child into the world should not be taken lightly and I am glad that I have a husband I can share the task with. He might not be around forever but one can only hope and so far it is looking good.A single woman might have the desire to have a child and as long as she will pay for the IVF and consequently the child herself she can have as many children from as mnay donors as she wants as far as I am concerned. Not everybody is able to have children and that is where I have a problem. I was lucky enough to get pregnant but really don't see why my taxes should be paying for someone else if they can't.Unfortunately in a lot of cases it is an unhealthy lifestyle in one or both partners that leads to infertility and IVF in that case is not very successful anyway. In my profession I have worked with several women that were unable to conceive and a change in lifestyle and certain other areas can be very successful.
As to the child with two mums or tow dads, one can only speculate how that turns out in the future but I guess that is a whole different topic!

[Baggofbones]

"a dad figure somewhere in the picture is a basic human right".

I'm with you on that one, Jane2. And no, I don't think that makes me excessively keen on patriarchy!

I'd also agree that Supermother did the right thing. Costly (in financial terms) as it may be to her, her children will at least know where 50% of their genes come from, and how they fit into their extended family (something I feel is vitally important to a child's/adult's sense of self).

[Jane2]

Well, it was you who did the right thing, SM, of course. Just because your sister didn't have to fund a divorce doesn't make her decision the right one. By heck, please, don't balance off money against spiritual values (and I speak as one who does not believe in any deity).
I'm as retro as BofB on this one, I firmly believe that children need fathers, even if they're away at war or working. A mother can explain who the child's father is and why the child hardly ever or never sees him.
Orphans of war have respected the memory of their late fathers, and felt better for it. Adoptees spend a lifetime trying to track their birth parents.
Two mums may be way more mumsy, but a dad figure somewhere in the picture is a basic human right.

[Eluned]

I don't understand why the viability thing is The Issue that keeps sparking this debate. So it's about dependency not sentience?

[J]

BoB I do think dads matter if you are straight. I think if you are gay then second mums (or second dads) matter as well.

"it's amazing what a very ordinary, unsaintly person who didn't even consider herself outstanding maternal before having kids can do when there's no alternative. "

absolutely true, JJ. I suppose I have to be honest, I am encouraging my kids to explore the alternatives- the eldest at least does have the option of healthy kids, if he screens his future babies. If he doesnt, he is into russian roulette- only 1 in 4 chance of a healthy child. I dont want him to have to do what I do, unless there is no choice.

[supermother]

And let's not forget that English currently has not limit if there are disabilities - so you can abort a down's child at 40 weeks (or even one with a hare lip although that is rare) and do not break the law whereas if you wait a few hours for it to be born to check the extent of the disability which arguably is a more constructive approach at that late stage then you're not allowed to kill it because it then has happened to have descended the birth canal.

Also the law is a complete farce. It talks about 2 doctors agreeing the mother will be seriously mentally damaged through having a child (if she aborts up to 24 weeks) but really want it means in practice is abortion on demand so why not just change it to abortion on demand? because we seem to like a typical British fudge.

What will be interesting is if science gets to a point where it is possible to remove a foetus from a woman and then for the father who wants it born to have it implanted in a host mother half way through the pregnancy. That would seem a fair result to me. In those cases the parent who isn't wanting the child to live should be allowed in law to avoid all financial responsibility for it and the other parent must undertake to support it. That would be a sexually neutral and fair result if we can get science to that point.

And then there is the issue of women bringing up children without men which has always happened all over the world now and in the past. Men away at war. Men away in Africa working in cities. And housewives in London with rich husbands who are virtually never there in the week. Women like my sister who choose to have children by IVF single mothers by choice and much much more common after divorce when the fathers, in their thousands, choose to opt out of fatherhood through their own volition. Who is the sensible one - my sister to have her children without a father and thus no divorce to fund or me who lives with the debt and burden of having chosen to go the conventional route?

[Soup]

I'm in favour of bringing the limit down, not for the "survival" reasons given by Cameron et al, but just because my instincts tell me it is NOT A GOOD THING to kill an unborn child. However, I do believe if they were to do that, there should be much better access to earlier abortions. So much time is allowed to pass between a woman/girl finding out she is pregnant and the NHS offering the procedure, it's no wonder some happen so late. There needs to be more openess and access to services.

[Rachel]

I don't think any woman has a right to a child. I also don't think that abortion is a basic human right(except in certain circumstances involving violation). In my opinion, IF you *choose* to have sex you accept the (potential)consequences. What about the 'basic human rights' of the foetus?

[Astrid]

Jean,thanks for your honesty. Please don't think that I am just trying to stamp out all the imperferctions, that was tried a long time ago and didn't go down too well.
Like I said, you never know if your child will be healthy or not until it is born and whatever comes your way you will deal with. But the whole issue of late abortions just makes me wonder why someone would do that and I really can't think of any other reason than disability or other life threatening circumstances.
I am by no means a fan of abortions but I do agree with KM, looking at all the unwanted children the choice should still be there.

[Jean Jones]

And Astrid, loath though I am to criticise when you are pregnant, knowing what a scary time that can be, I would certainly like to suggest, as gently as possible, that if you really believe that "I don't think we live in a scoiety that is good for anybody but high achievers, as sad as that sounds, especially in the 21st century.", you could perhaps try to be a little gentler on yourself. There is room in life, even in the 21C, for high, medium and low achievers. Naturally it's nice if one's child is a high achiever, but it doesn't always happen. I used to feel that way too but now i really value the fact that I have learned that there are more ways to happiness than the one that I would have believed in if all my children had been like my older ones, ie conventionally successful. The one thing about having children that nobody can deny is that you take a chance when you decide to have a child, and although 99.9% of the time the variables are just things like red-haired/blonde, good at maths/languages/sport, that sort of thing, there are, occasionally, times when the variation from the norm is a bit more marked. And I would find it sad if the right of people who are never going to be high achievers to live and be happy, if they can, is not taken seriously.

[Kieransmum]

Gipsy, I WAS being ironic! I am pro-choice.

To pick up on Bushra's point, as a Christian I believe that it is a question of the least harm caused. Sometimes, by no means in all cases, it is crueller to bring an unwanted child into the world than abort it, both for child and mother.

But that is only my personal view which is why I try not to bang the religious drum on this one.

[Jean Jones]

I'm not strong and I'm not courageous. I am like practically every other parent of a handicapped child that I know - that is, was appalled initially to find out that my child wasn't perfect, found it very hard getting through the early years and still find that there are many times when I wish with all my heart that I was free to do more of what i want without having to consider the needs of an 18-yo whose needs are those of a 4-yo. EVERY parent of a handicapped person feels like this, but it's amazing what a very ordinary, unsaintly person who didn't even consider herself outstanding maternal before having kids can do when there's no alternative. All I want to get across is that the dread so many people have of having a handicapped child may sometimes be misplaced. There is more in everyone than they think there is - if I can cope I assure you anyone can - and whereas I am not stating any particular position on abortion per se, I AM rather horrified to see the automatic trotting-out of DS as being, allegedly, a case where few would argue that abortion is the answer. There are a lot of things worse than that and it doesn't get said often enough IMHO.

[Baggofbones]

um, wither? I think I mean 'either'...

[Baggofbones]

Astrid - I shall join you in the firing line: I agree that children are a privilege rather than a right.

The abortion debate aside, I do think it's rather offensive that the original article surreptitiously equates intelligence with sharing the writer's views. I don't agree with much of what she says in the piece (particularly regarding the unimportance of fathers - yes, I'll be even more strongly in the firing line now for apparently being anti-lesbian - and the rather smug anti-nuclear-family undertones), but I particularly bridle at the idea that this somehow makes me wither ill-educated or thick!

I'm afraid the whole thing comes across as a teeny bit (oh yes...) self-righteous.

[Gipsy]

>>reading all this about Down's Syndrome.

To be fair to Astrid, who is the only person here to mention Down's, I don't think that she meant that it was a reason to have a late abortion. She was just referring to the abnormality tests they do on the NHS, and how you get the results so late meaning that parents are then put in the position of making a decision at a late stage regardless.

[Astrid]

Jean Jones,you seem to be dealing with this in a wonderful way which is great and should be applauded, but not everybody is as strong and courageous as you are. In this day and age where we can find out about problems I don't feel that anyone should be condemmed for making a decision that will affect their life and the life of their child. As much as your son has taught you a lot, which I am sure is true, I don't think we live in a scoiety that is good for anybody but high achievers, as sad as that sounds, especially in the 21st century.
The -in your words- "shadowy wold of special schools" doesn't make me feel regret about wanting to know that my child is most likely healthy(and we will not know for definite until it is born).

[Jean Jones]

It does make me laugh, bitterly, reading all this about Down's Syndrome. Believe me, in that shadowy world of special schools and supported employment that most people never have anything to do with, DS is far from the short straw. As long as the child doesn't have physical problems as well, DS is not the worst thing in the world by a very long chalk and DS people are usually the stars in these environments. In fact there are hardly any DS children in my son's special school because they are all too able to be there. But I guess it takes being there to understand that. All I can say is i would never, never unwish the existence of my handicapped son, and not just because he is my son. He has taught me huge amounts about what really matters and about how achievement is really measured (in a nutshell - it's doing the best an individual can whatever that is, whether that's all As at school, a good degree and a lucrative career, or getting a certificate for making a good macaroni cheese or swimming a length without a float). I don't know what i would have done if my son's disabilities had been detectable before his birth. All I can say, now, is that I'm very glad they weren't.

[Astrid]

I feel that one of the problems here is not that women are being stupid or careless but the choices they have to make throughout their pregnancy. Being 23 weeks pregnant myself I was quite amazed at my first midwife appointment that all the blood tests to check for problems like Downs, Spina Bifida etc are done at 16 weeks. It then takes up to ten days to get a result after which you might get another scan and then counselling if there is a problem. Knowing how long it takes to get all this booked you could be left with a decision at quite a late stage through no fault of your own.
We were lucky enough to be able to pay for a private scan earlier but it is surely not a decision I would want to be faced with at this point in my pregnancy.
It is rather ironic though that in the same debate the right to IVF for single women is being discussed. Anti-abortion campaigners talk about the right of the unborn child, does that child not also have a right of a mother and father?
I always thought of having a child as a privilage, not a right (and I will surely be attacked by quite a few people over that comment!)

[Moi]

In Spain you may do an abortion 1.if the mental or phisical sanity of the pregnant woman is at severe risk, at any time. 2.Violation under 12 weeks. 3.Severe phisical or mental problems of the foetus until 22 weeks. Maybe I'm too strict but if you are violated, I think we can expect you to take the decission before 12 weeks. If your case is so terrible you may go under cause 1. Are severe phisical and mental problems of the foetus discovered after 22 weeks?

I supposed that our law was similar to yours and that there was that cause 1 also in UK.

[Moi]

In Spain you may do an abortion 1.if the mental or phisical sanity of the pregnant woman is at severe risk, at any time. 2.Violation under 12 weeks. 3.Severe phisical or mental problems of the foetus until 22 weeks. Maybe I'm too strict but if you are violated, I think we can expect you to take the decission before 12 weeks. If your case is so terrible you may go under cause 1. Are severe phisical and mental problems of the foetus discovered after 22 weeks?

I supposed that our law was similar to yours and that there was that cause 1 also in UK.

[Jean Jones]

"Having also seen how severe handicap in later children robs the younger children of a childhood and then their own lives when their parents predecease the handicapped sibling, I respect her choice."

Neither of these assertions is necessarily true, and I speak, as those who regularly read AM will know, as a mother of a handicapped son. Parents who have a handicapped child plus other children are usually very aware of the needs of their other children and bust a gut to make sure they get what they need as well. And as to the other children's lives being ruined by a handicapped sibling, rubbish. Any responsible parent makes sure that their other children will look out for the handicapped one but not look after them, if the parents are not around to see to it. Things now are not as they were say 30 or 50 years ago, except insofar as parents of handicapped people understand that their role as parent will never grow any less. This is one thing that never changes.

[Gipsy]

Oh my J, you and KM seem to be having quite a picnic ;)

[AQ42]

Missed the main one; it was a bad day for unborn children, more of whom will now die.

[Sarah]

Absolutely agree with LJ, the right to abortion is a basic human right in my view.

However I'm sure we all agree that an abortion at 24 weeks is not a good thing, but then if we're really concerned with preventing this situation then the best way is to work towards improving access to abortion services in the early weeks of pregnancy, not to mention preventing unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place, and supporting vulnerable women through pregnancy and parenting. Not punishing that minority of women who for whatever reason do find themselves in needing a later abortion, who are usually in a desparate situation already.

'As early as possible, as late as necessary' is surely the reasonable approach.

[bushra]

I am pretty sure KM is being ironic here

ah but is she? as a muslim i follow the official stance of islam that abortion of a viable fetus is infanticide unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother. there, i've said it. but i'm a mother too, and can only echo gipsy's comment:

'I can't even begin to imagine the sort of heartbreaking and incredibly traumatic situation a woman must be in to be faced with having to decide on an abortion at 20+ weeks. I just don't know how I could even begin to manage at that stage of pregnancy. My heart goes out to all the women who are in that position, and who really don't need any extra stress at this point.'

[Kim]

The amendment would have made an exception for abortion in the case of severe disability, is my understanding. It was trying to stop late abortions where there is no disability, ie for "social" reasons.

I'm not mad about late abortion, but I can understand why it happens. Polly Toynbee wrote a good article recently that cited some examples of late abortions provided by BPAS. I quote:

"There is the 14-year-old who arrived at a clinic when she was 23 weeks and five days pregnant: her periods had become irregular but she had not realised she was pregnant until a school nurse referred her just in time. (Some women are caught out by having periods all through pregnancy, a trick nature plays.) There was the 27-year-old who arrived at just over 22 weeks' gestation. She already had a 10-month-old, a five-year-old and a six-year-old, all of them in foster care. She said the next baby would go straight into care, because she was a drug user. In a chaotic daze, she had left the abortion to the last minute. Then there was the woman who arrived at 22 weeks and four days, who had been drinking heavily and taking large doses of cocaine, unaware she was pregnant. The one rational choice these addicted women were fit to make was to know they were not fit to be mothers."

[LJ]

I think Moi's comment a little bizarre - the woman concerned may well be desperate because tests done recently have confirmed a diagnosis that there is something terribly wrong with the foetus, and she has made the painful decision not to continue with that pregnancy. Or her husband may have abandoned her with 4 children already, and one more would be too much for her to cope with. Or she may have been raped, blocked out the experience and is only just coming to terms with the realisation of what has happened to her, never mind that she is pregnant.

Research has shown that in most cases, late abortions arise due to there being some problem with the foetus - how many of us can honestly say that the thought of raising a child only for it to die young of some awful and painful condition would not give us pause for thought before continuing with a pregnancy, even a much-wanted pregnancy?

However irrespective of the reasons why and wherefore, the right to choose for herself whether or not to allow her body to be taken over by, and subsequently to take on a lifetime's responsibility for, another human being is one which every woman must continue to have, and every woman ought to be fighting for, if we are to retain the right to be treated equally. To be forced to become a mother against her will is to reduce that woman to a mere incubator - don't all of us (not just the alphas) deserve more than that?

Please can we have more of this type of comment and issue on this blog and less bitching about stay-at-home-mums vs. employed mums - I always thought that policital analysis and comment on current events was what alpha mummy was here for: after all you are claiming the right to be designated an 'alpha' mum if you are reading this (or like me hoping to be one someday) and alpha mums surely want to have a forum to discuss the most current (and one of the most significant) of the various issues affecting women in this country.

[Nadia]

The only person I know who was unfortunate enough to undergo an abortion at 20/21 weeks was devastated. However, she does not regret having made the decision not to have a severely handicapped child and was putting her current children's welfare first. Having also seen how severe handicap in later children robs the younger children of a childhood and then their own lives when their parents predecease the handicapped sibling, I respect her choice.

[j]

hey gipsy I am pretty sure KM is being ironic here, says she sucking on the bones of Times Editors....

[Gipsy]

Less than 1 percent of abortions take place at this very late stage, so we're not talking about a lot. I would add to J's list those health conditions where going any further with the pregnancy would severely be detrimental to the mother's health; rape victims who have been in denial or otherwise unable to mentally acknowledge the pregnancy, and are in such a fragile mental state any further progress with the pregnancy would be extremely bad for them; those mother's whose unborn child has either died in the womb or is so severely handicapped in some way that they will die before it is born or sometime shortly thereafter.

I have known of some truly heartbreaking stories.

Likewise, I've known a few women in my time who've been almost 5 months pregnant before they have found out. In each case the pregnancy was unplanned and definitely unwanted, but otherwise both mother and baby were healthy and in each case the mother carried on with the pregnancy .

I think that the percentage of mother's who have abortions at this late stage is very small in and of itself, and the percentage of those that choose an abortion simply because they don't want a baby at this late stage is much much smaller again.

Women aren't on the whole feckless unthinking uncaring people. I think that individually we have the right to make up our own minds about what is best.

[Gipsy]

>>after all, a woman who is capable of condoning abortion is surely also capable of murdering and consuming her colleagues and rivals

oooh ouch KM. I'm pro the right to have an abortion. I'm rather against cannibalism though.

[j]

moi

Maybe they didnt know at 8,10,12 weeks.

Maybe they werent so desperate then because they hoped to find another way.

Maybe because they are ill with addictions to alcohol or drugs, or severe mental illness.

I think you are quite right: you dont understand.

[Moi]

4. Science.

If they are so desperate, why weren't they desperate at 8 / 12 / 16 weeks? Are they suddenly desperate? I don't understand it.

[j]

I have been interested to see how this debate has triggered different angers in different people. I've seen the idea of gay women becoming mothers (surely a good thing?) carry all the anger about family breakdowns and fathers being excluded, which we know is awful all round. Ironically, the data on the damage to children from the lack of a father seems to come from these caes of family breakdown, while the very small number of same-sex parents who have been studies seem to have produced happy children from happy stable backgrounds.

So while I agree that great damage is currently being done to society through what could be called "sin", I think the behaviour in question is not faithful and decent homosexuality, but lust, greed and selfishness.

[Andrea]

It is unfortunate that we are willing to call it "justice" to strip the voice from those who have never been able to use theirs. It always amazes me that there are mothers in the world who would put their own safety, situation and life before their child's. You're right, we should give these mothers the right to deny themsevles the timeless honor of motherhood. We have enough monsters in the world already. Allowing these women to reproduce would only give rise to more trouble, chaos and catastrophy.

[Kieransmum]

I did not find out I was pregnant with my first until I was 17+ weeks, and I was not scanned until 20 weeks.
Had it been unplanned I would not have had long to make a decision.
So I would be chary I think of moving the limit any earlier.

I am DELIGHTED to see another biased article on this subject on the Times blog. Although I do wonder what happened to Eleanor Mills and Sarah Vine. They haven't posted for ages. Maybe Jennifer Howse has eaten them (after all, a woman who is capable of condoning abortion is surely also capable of murdering and consuming her colleagues and rivals)

[Daphne]

Surely abortion is as old as the human race. Women won't stop having abortions because the State sets limits. Its a matter of whether we care enough to save the lives of women who seek an abortions by offering safe abortions. Women should be given enough credit for having the emotional and intellectual sense to take on this decision without the State imposing their own morality on the issue.
I keep hearing how women use abortion as contraception, but every woman I've heard talk about their decision to have an abortion has had a reason that is particular to her situation. Their reasons may sound frivolous to some, but since they will not have to walk in that woman's shoes for 9 month or care for any unwanted child at the end of it, it may be best to trust women to know what they can bare.

[Goodenoughmummy]

People who are vehemently opposed to abortion have the right never to have an abortion. They have no right to deny that right to those who are not against abortion. We should guard the rights we have at the moment as they are obviously in constant danger of being hijacked by people whose real agenda is that they believe abortion should be illegal in all cases.

[Gipsy]

I can't even begin to imagine the sort of heartbreaking and incredibly traumatic situation a woman must be in to be faced with having to decide on an abortion at 20+ weeks. I just don't know how I could even begin to manage at that stage of pregnancy. My heart goes out to all the women who are in that position, and who really don't need any extra stress at this point.

[CA]

absolutely spot on. common sense has prevailed. it is an intensely personal and private matter. any woman who finds herself in such a difficult and traumatic position at the 20 weeks + stage of pregnancy has nothing but my support and my sympathy; and my absolute defence of her right to make the decision that is best for her and her baby.

[Louise]

I think it is excellent that rational thinking has prevailed in this country.

The right to abort should continue be protected, 24 weeks is such a rarety but protects those women who are most vulnerable and in tragic situations.

I find it refreshing that these views can be expressed openly @ timesonine.

[Charlottethemum]

"The idea of women as grown-up people capable of making intelligent decisions."

Because, obviously, the many women who supported a reduction in the time limit (including quite a number of female MPs, see the list of how MPs voted on the BBC website) are immature thickos who have uncritically swallowed the arguments of the male patriarchy without applying their own intelligence to the matter, right?!

Please give women who hoped for a reduction to 20/22 weeks credit for some intelligent independent thought of our own!

[Gipsy]

It is a blog - the place for people to put their opinions. I don't see why it was a bad day for science.

To have an abortion at all is a gut wrenching, soul searching, difficult and very hard decision to make. I think that the laws in this country strike just the right balance. I disagree that getting the approval of two doctors is unnecessary.

[Sarah]

I also don't expect to find such passionate defence of women's rights on a Times blog - however I am very happy to see it!

[Emma]

I'm sure lots of people have very strong opinions of this however I find this a very biased and offensive article.

I don't expect to find things like this on a Times blog.