Late term abortion
From today’s Telegraph (not a regular Telegraph reader, so thanks Tom for the link)
Only 27 per cent of those questioned believed that the current 24-week legal limit for termination should be retained. Fifty eight per cent said abortions should not be carried out after the 20th week of pregnancy, with women more likely than men to favour tighter controls. One in three women favoured a limit of 12 weeks or under.
As I’ve said before, many many times, there are a few crucial points missing here:
Prohibiting abortion doesn’t mean that there are no abortions. It means that women who are rich pay for a discreet procedure from their family doctor or travel to a country where it is legal, and poor women do it themselves by throwing themselves down the stairs or pay a quack to have a go with a clothes hanger or a knife or a stick or knitting needles or a purgative, and many of them die.
There’s a dangerous myth that women who have late-term abortions are selfish and are doing it for “lifestyle” reasons. Now I think that women should be able to access abortion just because they want it, not having to cite a “reason”, but that’s beside the point here. Women who have late-term abortions are a tiny proportion, but they are often those in most need, choosing abortion because of a feotal abnormality, or because they hadn’t realised that they were pregnant. It is an exquisite form of torture for the state to turn women into human incubators, continuing a pregnancy they don’t want.
Finally, think about who’s calling for this: the anti-choice groups who don’t want women to be able to access abortion at all, and who oppose contraception too. What would a society where they held sway look like? And do we want to start down that slippery slope to losing control of our hard-won autonomy?
you think women should be entitled to an abortion under all circumstances?
Yes. Abortion is a medical procedure, it should be for a woman to make the decision with her doctor. She shouldn’t have to jump through demeaning hoops to have to get treatment.
The pro-life lobby seems to imply that late-term abortions are common when in fact they represent a tiny proportion of abortions carried out. My sieve-like mind can’t recall the exact statistic but I think its 1% or less. They are almost always done in pretty desperate and serious circumstances.
You forgot to mention that the survey showed only 2% of the population supports your position of abortion up-to-birth. That’s way less than even the percentage supporting the pro-life position. The word ‘extremist’ comes to mind…
Oh dear, the name calling has started! Can we never discuss abortion without this tactic? Ok, I’m not dismissing the results, but the entire population has not been polled, just a group for this study. However, I suspect there may well be a general shift in public opinion towards lowering the legal limit. Feminists need to look at why this might be happening and what it means. I personally would feel unhappy about abortion on demand up to birth, (that’s just me) but I think it’s important that late term abortion remains a legal option in serious circumstances.
Thanks for the misrepresentation, Melanie. I support the status quo in this respect - where abortion is available throughout pregnancy if the mother’s life is at risk. I don’t think that a doctor and a pregnant woman would agree to a termination at this stage for any other reason. My point is that arbitrary time limits and an arbitrary list of boxes to be ticked in order to get a termination should be got rid of, and doctors and women made responsible for a medical procedure.
Ooh btw I didn’t think that (what Melanie said) is what you think Antonia. I was just talking about my own position. Your post is perfectly clear.
“Feminists need to look at why this might be happening and what it means.”
I don’t think feminism is synonymous with being pro-abortion. At a stretch you might be able to claim 2nd-wave feminism is but to say ‘feminism’ is would be inaccurate. I’m sure this is not what you meant however.
“I support the status quo in this respect - where abortion is available throughout pregnancy if the mother’s life is at risk. I don’t think that a doctor and a pregnant woman would agree to a termination at this stage for any other reason. My point is that arbitrary time limits and an arbitrary list of boxes to be ticked in order to get a termination should be got rid of, and doctors and women made responsible for a medical procedure.”
You support the status quo (i.e. 24 weeks for “social” reasons)… but you think ‘arbitrary time limits’ should be ‘got rid of’? That makes no sense. What is your position?
As for me: i admit I’m not 100% sure where I stand on abortion. I’ve read a lot by feminists like Germaine Greer as well as a lot of 1st-wave feminism who are all uneasy with (if not utterly opposed to) abortion. I think our ability to bear children is an important part of being a woman - if only in terms of our female identity in separating us from men. Abortion for me is a way of destroying something unique about womanhood.
On a less ideological level I also feel extremely queasy about destroying babies which look no different to newborns. Where the line should be drawn is a very difficult question indeed.
Melanie,
Read my comment in context. Abortion is currently available throughout pregnancy if a doctor believes that the woman’s life is at risk. This is correct, as far as I am concerned. I think that it’s time to get rid of all time limits and the need to find two doctors to agree a state-sanctioned reason why a woman needs an abortion. I support leaving all decisions about abortion up to a woman and her doctor, as we do for every other medical procedure.
No, feminism isn’t synonymous with being pro-abortion. I know no-one who is pro-abortion, and doubt there are many pro-abortion people in the world. All the feminists I know support the right to choose an abortion, even those who themselves hold religious or ethical views which mean that they wouldn’t make that choice for themselves. And all the feminists I know also support making contraception easier to obtain, giving young women the confidence and skills to make decisions about sex and relationships, so that we reduce the need for abortions.
There is an American organisation called Feminists for Life, currently notorious in the US because the wife of the supreme court nominee John Roberts is a past president. But regardless of the views of some first wave feminists, which need to be taken in the context of their society, I don’t see how, in 2005, one can be a feminist and not support the right to choose (by which I mean, of course, the right to choose in the abstract - what you do with your own body in the circumstances of your life is up to you). After all, the fact that women bear children was used to oppress us through history; if we don’t have control over our fertility, then how will we be able to hold on to the rest of our advances towards equality?
Finally, as regards your point about “babies” - I think we’re talking about foetuses, and I don’t understand the argument that because premature births now survive earlier and earlier that means we should reduce the time limit. If a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks, why does that give a woman who wants not to be pregnant a compelling reason to keep a foetus inside her womb until 40 weeks?
Totally with you on this, Antonia. It’s just common sense, or ought to be.
Can you help me with my argument with Blimpish on this? Over at the Sharpener.
Cheers.
For some reason I feel the need to point out that although I blogged about the Telegraph article, I’m not a regular Telegraph reader either.
Antonia: I’d welcome your comments on my Sharpener piece that Neil linked to (above). But do you really think that women’s rights are so weakly held that further restrictions in abortion law will irreperably damage them? Don’t you think that the world has moved on, and that women are viewed totally differently to the way they were (say) 50 years ago? You say that all the feminists I know also support making contraception easier to obtain, giving young women the confidence and skills to make decisions about sex and relationships, so that we reduce the need for abortions, but the need for abortions is not being reduced - the numbers have never been higher, in spite of increasing sex education and widespread availability of contraception. Is this a sign of a society whose women truly respect and stand up for themselves?
Hi Andrew,
I will get around to the Sharpener piece soon! Working through a post and 160-odd comments and writing a coherent cohesive response have rather defeated me so far.
I think the UK has a tendency to be a few years behind the US in terms of social movements, and the situation in the US, where 85 years almost to the day since women got the vote, the advances of the women’s movement are being moved back, and attacks on abortion rights really are the cover for an agenda that seeks to reassert control over women, should give any UK feminist or pro-feminist pause.
the need for abortions is not being reduced - the numbers have never been higher, in spite of increasing sex education and widespread availability of contraception.
I work with teenage mums, and no matter what the tabloids say about too much sex education, the research evidence shows that the only effective way to reduce unwanted conceptions is through excellent sex and relationships education that talks both about condoms and about how to ask your boyfriend to wear one, about contraception and about how to get it, about how it feels and how to have the confidence to say yes I want to have sex or no, I don’t. Not just about biology, which what they get in schools at the moment. The document you want to read is by the Health Development Agency, called “Teenage pregnancy and parenthood: A review of reviews”. It’s available here.
Is this a sign of a society whose women truly respect and stand up for themselves?
I don’t think we do have a society where all women are able to respect themselves and stand up for themselves, but I don’t think this is anything to do with the abortion rates. Unlike you seem to imply, I don’t think that abortions should be seen as shameful; they just are a fact. But I’ll join you in supporting a concerted effort to raise the confidence and self-esteem of young women.
Thanks for the doc - I’ll read through it. One question: If you don’t see anything shameful in abortion, and you don’t ascribe any value to the foetus (I assume you don’t from your comments - please correct me if I’m wrong), then why would you want to reduce the number of abortions?
Hello Andrew,
This was just the point I was thinking about as I replied to you earlier. In the end I concluded it was a pragmatic thing in that abortion is unneccessarily complicated, and increasing confidence of women about sexual decisionmaking / reducing coercive sex / increasing the availability of sexual health services are better ways to increase women’s control over when and if they bear children.
Lots of elective surgery could be argued to be unnecessarily complicated, but women still choose to have it. For example, are you in favour of women having cosmetic surgery if they choose to do so? Would you be in favour of it being provided free on the NHS, regardless of the reason why it were desired?
Hm. Not sure about that analogy. I think there’s quite a difference in the level of seriousness attached to being forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth and then having to raise the child, and being forced to endure living with a few wrinkles.
In cases of disfigurement caused by accident, illness or congenital reasons, yes, of course the plastic surgery should be freely available.
A Pair of silicone boobs just because you fancy it, even though your own boobs are perfectly fine and normal? No. You can pay for that youself!
Antonia: I read the linked article, but it really didn’t have much to say about abortion. The only real comment on it is this:
This review highlights a need for countries to adopt a
focus on preventing unintended conceptions (abortion
and live birth rates) as examples from eastern Europe
show that reductions in pregnancy rates may be reduced
only at the cost of higher abortion rates.
I can accept that education reduces the likelihood of conception in the first place, but the fact is that the abortion rates have been increasing steadily since it was legalised. Surely there comes a point at which we have to say: Education really isn’t doing the job when it comes to reducing that rate. If so, what’s the answer?
Besides which, teenage pregnancies resulting in abortion only accounted for 21% of all abortions in 2004. After the teenage years, I’m not sure how education is going to have an effect, given that it isn’t compulsory. What would you suggest to reduce the non-teenage abortion rate?
Winter: A Pair of silicone boobs just because you fancy it, even though your own boobs are perfectly fine and normal.
I think that’s a very judgemental way of looking at cosmetic surgery. There are plenty of women who undergo breast enhancement (or reduction, for that matter) for reasons of self-esteem, or mental health, or even comfort, or for their own perfectly valid reasons. Who are you to dismiss their choices over what they do with their own bodies?
Or are you saying that some women have different types of surgery for trivial reasons, and that society shouldn’t encourage it, least of all pay for it? Perhaps abortions that are performed without a medical reason should not be available on the NHS? They can pay for it themselves.
Hi Andrew,
I’m glad you read the review, though I’m slightly mystified at your comment: you didn’t find much about abortion in it because there isn’t much about abortion in it, because it’s about preventing unintended teenage pregnancy, not about abortion. I suggested you read it because of your comment in spite of increasing sex education and widespread availability of contraception.
I don’t get your point: education, as you agree, reduces unintended conceptions; abortion is about getting rid of a pregnancy that is unwanted, and (I don’t think it’s a great leap of faith to say) in many cases unintended; therefore increased education would reduce abortion. And that’s not just about teenagers - looking long term, that education would hopefully enable women of all ages as they grow older to make decisions about sex and relationships. I think we’d be doing a lot better in terms of reducing unintended pregnancy, STIs and abortions if people felt more able to talk about sex, feelings, sexual activity and contraception.
I think we could also reduce abortion by making contraception easier to obtain, particularly by increasing the choice of contraceptives available. Most women will only be offered two methods of contraception by their GP - the combined pill and condoms, yet they might find that others, such as depoprovera or the coil, might work better in their circumstances. For example, mnay young women have great difficulty managing the pill, as it pretty much requires a stable predictable lifestyle. And condoms are too expensive, as is over the counter emergency contraception.
The right whether or not to continue a pregnancy is fundamental to me, and should be available on the NHS. And I think it’s irrelevant to compare it with cosmetic surgery, although I don’t feel as Winter does about breast enlargements or other cosmetic surgery.
i persaonally dont agree with abortion but if for example the mother or the child is at extreme risk even fatality, an abortion may be nessasery but young teenage “mess up’s” are unacceptable young people are always told about conception and if the teens have the thought of “i dont have any protection, oh well ill take a chnace if i get pregnant ill get rid” that is totally unfair to the mothers that might need an abortion urgently!
Catherine,
Young people are not always told about contraception - SRE in the UK is pretty rubbish, and not even compulsory - governors can opt whole schools out of it, and parents can take their children out of those lessons. And I don’t like the idea of making pregnancy, birth and motherhood punishment for “teenage “mess up’s” ” (sic) - that sounds like a great start for a child.
My wife is 28 weeks pregnant and have found out within the last two weeks that the baby has a missing corpu callosum (a part of the brain that links the two hemispheres). We were told that there is a 50% chance of a child where we will not notice the difference, 25% chance of less severe mental disability and 25% of severe mental disability. We currently have to decide what to do.
I have always been for the woman’s right to choose and am even more so now. Until you are faced with decisions like this how can you criticise other people for having terminations. I don’t think we will terminate but I am glad we have the option.
Why stop here? Next, people such as you will be crusading for the right to murder their infants within a week following birth, with a “reasoning” that this should still be a woman’s choice, that it shouldn’t be restricted to “pre-birth”, according to some “antiquated, right-wing or religious belief.” How dare choice be restricted to pre-birth in a free country?
And you will continue to believe that hard luck stories, ect. will be valid reasons for doing this, and that excuses such as these should accompany the notion of “choice,” and should take predence over a mere infant’s life. After all, he or she has just been born, is just ready to be born or perhaps is half-way out into the world. Maybe the infant could be conked on the head while half-way out if you didn’t like her looks, and then it still could not be called murder.
And then, the period will become 3 weeks, 3 months, ect., following birth. After all, women’s “choices” should be advanced more and more, otherwise we just would not be quite “progressive” enough.
Abortion is a personal decision, not a legal debate.Many people have diffrent religious and moral beliefs, why must we suffer for something we do not believe.The whole “God this and God that …” …Arn`t we supposed to keep religous affairs out of polotics because it makes others suffer for raidcal beliefs of others that some may not share.ANd those opposing aboriton, why not they don`t have one and we getto keep the rights of our OWN bodies. Think … WOW !!! Bannind ALL or many forms of contraception …. the population of the human race would be HUGE.
I don’t think that it’s good logic to attack a policy on the basis of the people who support it, especially in an essentially two-sided context.
Personally I think that sensible pro-choice people should still consider that there may come a point when the debate becomes on for balance between mother and child. If we can justify the supremacy of choice over religious dogma by saying that until a certain point, life does not begin, and must therefore be subservient to the needs of the woman, to be honest in our arguments, we must therefore believe that there is a point when life begins.
I believe that it is quite feasible that it does within the womb, but not until late into the third trimester.
Even so, if the interests in terms of staying alive or procuring long-term injury are dichotomised between mother and child, as is common in late stage abortions, it is still not always moral to forbid an abortion, on the grounds of utility; we must take into account who is most likely to gain from the woman and the child, and what effect to allow such circumstances to exist would have on the other; with the end goal of securing the most painless total response.
As such, I think that trusting medical professionals is probably the way to go about things.