Rumbold: As Ravi says, the focus should be on ensuring that women can have abortions very early on

um, that’s what I’ve always argued! If you guys are pro-choice, then its a matter of how many weeks. Then its a question of why settle on the particular date.

I am arguing for extending abortion rights so that women have access earlier on in their cycle. What are you guys actually disagreeing with?

Kittyhawk – good post!

El Cid – For a start you are mixing up the indirect with the direct.

Which is the indirect and which the direct? And why? Also… if someone else is having an abortion, how does it affect you?

We have to operate on policies that over the long term reduce the human population on Earth to only a couple of billion or so.

but how is this to be achieved? it seems to me with my cynical hat on that this is in direct contradiction to human rights, specifically:

a) the right to have as many children as you want
b) the putative “right to life” of the child if you believe in that

there are also numerous practical considerations including:

a) religious objections to various forms of contraception
b) actual ethnic biodiversity. for example, the jewish population is actually falling rather than being self-sustaining, so it’s hard to see how a case for more contraception would be made

in a lot of ways it also implies that a lot of medical research would be better off not happening, so people continue to die earlier, of disease or of poverty, or various other things which one might argue are natural mechanisms for preventing overpopulation.

what, realistically, ought we to do? and, yes, you can all scream at the pope if you like but it isn’t actually going to help.

b’shalom

bananabrain

And there is also the issue of abortion rates being so very high in spite of sex education and the very liberal access to abortion in the UK – this should be worrying for everyone, no matter their stance. I am very pro-choice, but would really like to see a reduction in abortions rates. And in spite of the low levels of abortions from 14-24 weeks I feel it’s important to try our best to avoid such late abortions.

Likewise myself. We have to operate on policies that over the long term reduce the human population on Earth to only a couple of billion or so.

I, too, have three kids – although they’d all like to pretend they are all grown up now

You said this:

For the record, I’ve got three kids and I would pull my hair out if number 4 was on the cards. But I just can’t see myself or the missus ever going for the nuclear option — for that is what abortion is. And if my daughter, God forbid, was ever to get preggers while still at school. I would be blunt to her about the likely repurcussions and help her in whatever way she wanted and support her 100 percent. I also honestly don’t know what I would advise if she sought my opinion. That’s real.

Yup, that is real.

I am well aware of the stories that you pointed to at 25.

On the specific point of viability prior to 24 weeks, I am particularily exercised by an article from the Observer Magazine, that, frustratingly, I cannot find on line. The article, in brief, was to do with a ward in a London hospital with an enviable record for dealing with premature babies. They undertook a survey of the outcomes of their achievements – their achievements are up there as superhuman – and, with one exception, the prognosis for a child born below 24 weeks was frankly abysmal. Whereas their success rate with premature babies at 24 weeks and beyond was remarkably good.

It is that sort of general reality that exercises me, not the miracles. The miracles could be put down to errors in conception dates, or they could be the exception to the rule, I do not know.

Ravi you say: What is at stake is a pro-choice view that can reach consensus among most people, instead of a radical pro-choice narrative that alienates a good number of people.

What’s the difference as you see it?

b’shalom

bananabrain

b’shalom

bananabrain

incidentally, i’m neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice”. i’m “pro-mother”.

b’shalom

bananabrain

That’s good news. It is pretty obvious that the kid is going to grow up wanted in a loving, caring family.

Many thanks, Douglas.

“If you don’t want abortions to happen, you’re perfectly allowed to not go through them in your family. But what gives you the right to impose them on others? A lot of abortion rhetoric comes from the view that society has a right over women’s bodies and decisions. After all – if we want to reduce the number of deaths in our society, why not ban all forms of firearms for a start? Why not reduce the speed limit to 30 across the country? Too much hassle for you? Even for the sake of 100s of 1000s of lives?”

As Ravi says, none of us want to ban abortion. We just want you to recognise that if people believe that there is life in the womb, you should not just dismiss that view as ‘anti-choice’ or ‘telling women what to do’. A good comparsion would be with homosexual acts, which were decriminalised around the same time. Homosexual sex is fine because it involves two consenting adults, and hurts no-one. Abortion is problematic because if you believe that the foetus is alive then you will probably want to protect it.

Personally, I recognise that plenty of women have abortions even when it is illegal, so there is no point in banning it. Nor do I see the logic in forcing a woman to stay pregnant if she does not want to, because then the child will grow up in a loveless house.

The debate over twenty four or twenty weeks is largely irrelevent, as only 1.84% of abortions take place in this window anyway. As Ravi says, the focus should be on ensuring that women can have abortions very early on.

When does something become alive?

Douglas:

“I respect you too. Frankly, I’d rather spend time disagreeing with someone like you, than agreeing with some of my ain. Now that is bloody boring!

You are going to be horrified by the next bit.

Shh! I was too!

There is nothing that Morgoth has said on this subject that I disagree with. His point being anathema to your arguement, I think.

Hey! You’re supposed to be the expert on the private and the public spheres, are you not?”

Well, we have to find some things to disagree about, otherwise what would we do all day? Abortion can never be clear-cut, because it depends on what status you assign to what is in the womb. If you think that it is not living, then aborting it is fine. If you think that he/she is alive, then the debate becomes whether the mother’s right to choose trumps the child’s right to life.

Ravi:

“So, when it comes to Asian women, do they have to come out with a good justification for not wanting a baby, but for Western women is enough – as you stated – to just not wanting it?”

Excellent point. After all, the chief minister of Punjab called it “murder”.

What gives you folks the right to force a woman to have a baby she does not want?

Sorry, but nobody here defended the anti-abortionist view. What is at stake is a pro-choice view that can reach consensus among most people, instead of a radical pro-choice narrative that alienates a good number of people.

This goes to the heart of inequality – and race is a part of it. If you’re brown, you cannot help notice the amount of patrirachy in Asian families. Women are the bearers of izzat (dignity) which means they are restricted on what they can/can’t do while men are allowed free reign. Again its because Asian society wants to dictate how women should live their lives but subconsiously no one tells men how to live their lives.

Race is not a part of it: culture, community and family values are. You will find some white cultures that adhere to similar patriarchal values, and some brown cultures that are more liberal. Since you brought up this context, I find an inconsistency here: you have been vocal in PP against Asian abortions when it comes to selecting the sex. So, when it comes to Asian women, do they have to come out with a good justification for not wanting a baby, but for Western women is enough – as you stated – to just not wanting it?

“Desi Italiana, I think there are very few of these wanker mean you speak of. You have to be very religious indeed to think that a raped woman has no right to abort.”

Speak for Britain– in the US, we have one too many. Bobby Jindal (nee Piyush) campaigned on no abortion under any circumstance. Most of the progress that has been made in terms of sexual reproductive choices, birth control access and proliferation, etc has been overturned by our administration. Scarily, there are many of these wankers in centers of decision-making and power.

For the record, I’ve got three kids and I would pull my hair out if number 4 was on the cards. But I just can’t see myself or the missus ever going for the nuclear option — for that is what abortion is. And if my daughter, God forbid, was ever to get preggers while still at school. I would be blunt to her about the likely repurcussions and help her in whatever way she wanted and support her 100 percent. I also honestly don’t know what I would advise if she sought my opinion. That’s real.

Douglas, at least you tried to tackle the issue head on. It’s a tough one. I would just direct your attention to the story links I supplied in #25.

Desi Italiana, I think there are very few of these wanker mean you speak of. You have to be very religious indeed to think that a raped woman has no right to abort.

Finally, two articles from The Observer today which I think interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/may/11/health.medicalresearch
What do you think I find annoying about the way this story was written? Could it be the abortion-related spin perhaps, that charged yet irrelevent lead paragraph and headline? Yes it is. It exemplifies what I mean about abortion as a political football. Apart from that it is an interesting read.
And going back to an earlier point made by Rumbold about what is or is not the “most politically important debate of our time”, there is this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights

I’ve heard several wanker men who pompously talk about “pro-life” even in the event of rape. If only these men had their balls cut off would they know what it feels like for a woman to be violated in the most intimate sense, raped and then left with a repercussion (pregnancy) in which they had no saying.

Don’t get me wrong, I think people should be using condoms up the bazooka to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and I don’t think abortion is solely the decision of a woman (since the guy had a part in the pregnancy, he should be consulted with as well). But to decide what a woman does with her body is ridiculous. It is more of a moralizing and religious act than anything else.

There are many subjects touched on in this post which would be well worth taken up further here, but sticking with the HFE Bill, the later abortions that other posters find so offensive would be far fewer if some of the archaic aspects of the present act were modified. Not least the requirement for 2 doctors’ signatures to allow the operation, something not required for any other medical procedure, something which can take time and difficulty to arrange, and timely access to which can rely as much on the lottery of access to sympathetic medics, private healthcare, or Marie Stopes. All this in addition to Sunny’s point above, that lowering the time limit has nothing to do with increased viability of foetuses outside the womb at 23 weeks, and everything to do with banning abortion altogether. Why else would the BMA, representing medics across the UK after all, say that there has been no improvement over the past decade of babies survival in this age bracket? To this list could be added access to contraception (it is improving – but the Emergency pill is not available over every pharmacy counter), development of better contraception (yeah – and not just aimed at women – it takes two). Can anyone really say what they would do until faced with the situation? Surely then there should be the choice, and the possibility of that choice, as early as possible.

As Marie Stopes show [http://tinyurl.com/4ynpqp], one third of British women will have an abortion in their lives; this is a situation that does not just affect ‘other people’, nor the decisions of the ‘mad, bad or sad’.

Ok, rant over. But to return to (the only slightly) lighter subjects of ‘feminism’ on this blog- could we expand the usual definition of ‘add women and stir’ to consider gender relations in general – as they are expressed through class, race, religion and sexuality – including the way in which men are socialised in relation to women, as much as women in relation to men? Phulkari is right about the necessity of understanding the intertwining of different forms of identity. But sticking to gender, we know a lot of what the mainstream media thinks of British/South Asian women, what about the experience of different styles of feminintities, or or men and masculinities? Understanding the ways these identities interweave could add a lot to improving their interrelations; more male feminists please?!

I respect you too. Frankly, I’d rather spend time disagreeing with someone like you, than agreeing with some of my ain. Now that is bloody boring!

You are going to be horrified by the next bit.

Shh! I was too!

There is nothing that Morgoth has said on this subject that I disagree with. His point being anathema to your arguement, I think.

Hey! You’re supposed to be the expert on the private and the public spheres, are you not?

As I am close to being a father, I can assert that there is definitely a living being inside my wife’s womb, that kicks and responds to sound.

That’s good news. It is pretty obvious that the kid is going to grow up wanted in a loving, caring family.

————————————————-

I’ve a view on all of this that owes quite a bit to the ladies on Liberal Conspiracy, Unity and some quirky ideas of my own.

It was believed that a foetus ‘quickened’, specifically when it started to move. That quickening was said to be when it gained a soul. We might nowadays view that as nonsense, however it had quite a lot of theological support in the Church for hundreds of years. I believe that we are still subject, rightly, to thoughts along the same lines. When a foetus starts to take on the, albeit almost cartoonish likeness to a baby, most of us are awestruck. Which is backed up by statistics, I think. 89% of abortions that take place in the UK happen in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. See here:

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/publicationsandstatistics/publications/publicationsstatistics/dh_075697

Which leaves just 11% that happen after the thirteenth week.

Some of those are because there is a threat to the mothers life, or the child is expected to be born profoundly handicapped. In either of those cases an abortion can be sanctioned right up to term. Frankly, I think that this is right. It does not mean that a mother whose life is at risk, or parents who have had it explained to them that their child may be severely handicapped are forced to have an abortion, it simply means that that option is available to them. I doubt that many folk would disagree with that option being available. Although we may squirm a bit, I’d have thought it was a bigger burden for the parents, who clearly had no prior intention to consider that course of action.

So, you are left with the zone of, say, fourteen weeks, until the current limit of 24 weeks which are realistically elective abortions, excluding any cohort in the previous paragraph.

It is that area – elective abortions in the fourteen week to twenty four week limit – that is the true, for the moment, area of debate. And it is here that viability becomes the crux of the arguement. At least for pro lifers. If, they argue, it can be shown that one child could have survived below 24 weeks, then the arguement is theirs for the taking.

But it is not true. Viability is usually measured by ability to leave the hospital. Follow up studies show mortality at damn near 100% by age ten. And lives that were extremely limited in the meantime.

I can understand a committed mother who has an early birth taking the view that that’s the way the cookie crumbles – and I’d be hoping for a miracle for her, just like anyone else – what I am not at all sure about is that this is a rational arguement for anti abortionists to take. To be clear, the pregnant woman’s view’s ought to be the only one that count’s. It is, after all, her pregnancy, not yours or mine.