“Women demand tougher laws to curb abortions”
Is anyone surprised that The Observer can run a poll and find that “47 per cent of women believe the legal limit for an abortion should be cut from its present 24 weeks”?
On the anti-choice side are several major national newspapers, plus the Evening Standard which has a habit of putting “dancing foetuses” on their front page; the clergy and hierarchy of several major religions; a plethora of anti-choice networks, who dress up their agenda under a veil of caring for women and regularly go into schools to hand out badges representing the feet of foetuses to impressionable young women.
On the pro-choice side, there’s a couple of underfunded pressure groups, such as Education for Choice and Abortion Rights; the odd columnist for the Guardian; an arthouse movie about the bad old days; a couple of student and trade union women’s officers; and some women MPs.
Have you ever read a true life story about a woman who had an abortion, found that was the right choice for her, and carried on her life? No; the media insist every abortion is a trauma, and a secret shameful one at that. One of the best ways we could mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act next year would be by persuading the Guardian to publish a list of women who had had abortions, and were willing to say publicly: that was the right choice for me.
Tom and Philobiblon also have great posts on this subject.
I think the limit should be extended, and that it should be easier for women to get abortions, but I don’t actually believe in abortion on demand or in abortion being an option right up until birth. Am I being reactionary, Antonia?
By your usual standards, yes, Tim.
All it is is that I’d rather have an “x many weeks” limit than have cases involving people as contractions began and trying to work out what the cut-off was. It’s a concern about how you frame the right rather than a desire to make it more difficult for women, which I accept would be reactionary.
I’m happy in principle with abortion till almost birth, and with it being a private medical decision between a woman and her doctor: my concerns are that ‘abortion on demand’ seems to belittle the gravity of the decision women have to make, and about quite how you phrase the cut-off at the end. Only really concerns at the margin rather than active reaction.
Given that the Observer is not known as a bastion of Pro-Lifeism, yes we should be surprised that it has run this story. And we should take it as a reliable indicator of public opinion.
What shouldn’t surprise us, however, is the poll results. Women are more sceptical about abortion than men. Of course they are. Men find abortion a convenient means of birth-control. But women who have abortions know what the procedure entails and its aftermath and that it is no bed of roses by any means.
Despite the efforts of the powerful and well-funded abortion lobby to rebrand abortion as a minor medical procedure akin to tooth-extraction, women continue to find abortion traumatic.
Journalists would be betraying their mission if they dishonestly doctored their reports on abortion experiences according to the preferences of people like Antonia.
It may not suit Antonia that many women don’t like abortion and accordingly want the law tightened up but that is how it is.
I am more disturbed by the comments Tim made that abortion should be allowed, almost until birth!
Paul - abortion is already legal throughout a pregnancy when a woman’s life is in danger. I don’t think anyone wants to chage that.
Maria - please produce evidence to back up “the powerful and well-funded abortion lobby”, thanks. And let’s lose the Antonia this, Antonia that: I didn’t ask for any journalist to change their reporting of this poll, and I accept that many people do feel unhappy with abortion. My argument is that we on the pro-choice side (you may wish to note at this point that it’s not just me alone) have failed in educating young women about abortion, the necessity of it being legal and the importance of being able to make a choice.
“The powerful and well funded abortion lobby” . Well here’s some evidence - our own health secretary declared her colours yesterday in favour, so did our PM during the attempt to restrict the limit to 18 weeks in the 1980s, the US Supreme Court (since 1972) supports it (at present at least), every single G8 country not only support abortion politically and financially but try also to force it onto countries who don’t. The next superpower (China) has a particularly awful record and in fact forces women to have abortions after the first child. Are you seriously saying the abortion lobby is not powerful and well funded?
I meant in the UK, to be honest, Tom - we have no lobby the size of NARAL Pro-Choice America, for example, and all the UK mass membership groups are on the anti-choice side. I will accept that we’ve done a good job in winning over the political class though.
Perhaps we could mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act and the 63rd anniversary of the 1944 Education Act by a campaign to improve numeracy skills among Labour-supporting bloggers.
Thanks! Corrected in the blog! Antonia
Antonia wrote:
Paul - abortion is already legal throughout a pregnancy when a woman’s life is in danger. I don’t think anyone wants to chage that.
—————–
That’s true, but I find that hard to deal with. A concsise viewpoint of mine on this can be found on Jo’s blog:
“One of the provisos in the Abortion Act was passed in 1967, was that no child could be aborted at over 28 weeks. Nowadays some infants can survive, if born premature, at 22 weeks (Not often, but it has happened). It seems wrong and unfair to me, that a small child like that, who already has significantly developed physically and mentally in the womb, should be aborted!”
You mention the woman’s right, which is fair, but what about the rights of the unborn child!
———————————–
we have no lobby the size of NARAL Pro-Choice America, for example, and all the UK mass membership groups are on the anti-choice side. I will accept that we’ve done a good job in winning over the political class though
————————————–
But, as I am sure you are aware, that doesn’t add-up to much if you cannot have the support of people on the ground. Any political class can only move effectively with the consent of the people, whether that is over a fair or unfair issue. For example, I recently blogged on one of my heroes, William Wilberforce, and he only managed to significantly change the political classes view of slavery (which was affected by powerful business interests), by helping to change the views of many ordinary people!
PaulW wrote:
Perhaps we could mark the 40th anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act and the 63rd anniversary of the 1944 Education Act by a campaign to improve numeracy skills among Labour-supporting bloggers.
———————–
Ouch! I strongly disagree with Antonia here, but there was no need to throw a cheap shot! I have the distinct impression that she has strong reasons of conscience for her viewpoint, as much as I have for mine.
While conceding the pro-choice has had the political ascendancy in recent decades, that may not be for much longer.
The political class is divided on the subject and some have never accepted the 1968 act as a definitive settlement. Many are Tories, some are Labour, others are Lib Dems, many have no political alignment.
The “pro-choice” faction is defending the establishment stance on the issue but anyone can see that the issue still divides people and that the pendulum is starting to swing towards the pro-life side although not yet decisively.
Usually there comes a moment of sea-change. Something as small as Rosa Parks refusing to offer her bus seat to a white man can set off a chain reaction that can lead to a transformation in public opinion on an issue and bring change that did not seem possible just years before.
It’s easy to caricature people on opposite sides of the argument as being entrenched but people often move when made to think about an issue enough. My own mother tells me how the hanging of people like Derek Bentley and Ruth Ellis animated people on the death penalty issue.
Even those who have traditionally been loyal to the pro-choice position have been made to think recently by issues like the demographic crisis, the fact that the welfare state is not sustainable in its current form.
Issues like the mass abortion of female foetuses in China and India must also give pause for thought even for those reluctant to accept the concept that a foetus should be accorded legal protection.
I would say the current climate is one of unease and one of misgivings but the issue is starting to be discussed again and once a debate starts it is usually difficult to stop. It might only take one thing - say a Supreme Court ruling in the USA - to shift the whole centre of the debate definitively.
You stated :”…go into schools to hand out badges representing the feet of foetuses to impressionable young women.”
There’s implicit sexism in this statement: why is it only impressionable young women and not impressionable young men too? So women who don’t believe in your philosophy are just stupid are they?
No, that’s not my point, funnily enough, Lauren Stevens. Women have the right to make their own decisions about their bodies - including the decision that abortion isn’t an option open to them because of their personal values. That’s fine, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is anti-abortion proselytising, and lying while they’re doing it. Young women are impressionable by definition - they’re growing up and forming their opinions about the world, and misinformation about abortion doesn’t help.
But anti-abortion proselytising is aimed at women AND men - why do you only describe young women as impressionable? That’s what I was referring to. Quite clearly if misinformation is being said then that would be wrong. However, I remain sceptical of that.
Cos it’s women that have to make the choices and anti-abortionists know that and target their disinformation at them.
I wish I had the exact statistcs on this but I don’t. I am fairly sure that ” foetuses ” delivered prematurely have survived at 23 weeks.
I think that is about the earliest.
So that means that a “foetus” is technically viable at 23 certainly 24 weeks. Not all would survive certainly at that early stage but some would.
So it makes sense in term of the child’s rights
to set the limit for abortions below that date .
In terms of “universal human rights”, the child has rights and the mother has rights in theory. There can be a conflict of interest between the rights of the child and the rights of the mother. The right to life for example. In that case it is a question of avery difficult choice.
I think that choice has to remain with the mother
As a last resort
I can rememeber when I became a so called lone parent when I was left to bring up 3 children alone. I had been married for a long time,but no-one saw that
The demographic trends were obvious THEN at least 16 years ago
And successive governments - Tory and new Labour have kept up what I can only describe as a vicious vendetta againts so-called lone parents
without any factual basis. The press has alot to answer for also. I am not up to date with the statistics now.But in 1997, the statitistcs showed that two thirds of all “lone parents” that is people bringing up children alone were actually formerly married middle class women ( like me) about 10% were widowed about 9% men
the smallest proportion were women who had never married and most of these were co-habiting before they were alone. Becoming a lone parent for me has meant economic ruin compared to my realistic expectations when I split up from my ex.
This had been entirely caused by political decisions and propaganda.
Peter Lilley followed by dear Prudence. ( i.e Boredom Groan of the one set of rules for us and another set of rules for you lot brigade)
The same people being paid to cause problems and then being paid again to sort out the problems they themselves caused.
And I don’t think it is Ok for Huhne to be kicking in some door. some of us were trying to get degrees.
The thing is why would any woman in her right mind want to have a baby knowing that if she is left alone for whatever reason - including widowhood -she will end up living in penury and being insulted every day of her life as if she were doing nothing of any value.
and that is the issue we need to address.valuing and chershing women and children. Mothers and children need to be cared for and loved and honoured and respected and provided for.
Then we may begin to see a sea-change.
not bullied and coerced and patronised
and I hope a certain Judge will read this because I don’t think much of being told my time is worth peanuts.
and there is also a certain female lawyer whose conduct towards me has been aggressive to the point of viciousness.
it is extremely insensitive to call a political party labour in a language where to be in labour alos means to be in the process of giving birth.