Earlier this week the government defeated a number of amendments looking to reduce the number of weeks during which a woman could seek an abortion. Abortion is always a slightly touchy subject to discuss, given that the issues can cover both the ethical and the spiritual, and combined with the fact that as a young man I have no first hand experience with the issues involved, it might seem strange to discuss it at all. I do feel, however, that it is a subject that should be discussed, partly because debate is important in any decision that we as a society have to make, and partly because it is a decision which, pretty much by definition, is unprepared for, and for anyone who might be involved in making or helping to make such a decision in the future, it seems a good idea to at least have an idea of where you stand. And, as a third, more selfish, reason, I am always interested to see where people stand on controversial or divisive issues, and this one is certainly one of those.
So where do I stand? Well, firstly, I'm pro-choice - I believe that abortion should be legal and available to anyone who needs or wants it. There are always going to be situations in which abortion is desperately wanted by the woman (whether for medical, situational or social reasons), and to outright prevent her from having legal access to this service will lead many women to deal with it themselves, a situation I can't imagine anyone looking to promote.
In addition, those who are against abortion altogether (assuming that they are not also against contraception) are essentially saying that at the point at which the mass of cells becomes embedded in the wall of the uterus, something changes to cause it to become sacred. A moment before and it can be flushed away with a pill without recrimination; a moment after and it becomes a human life as valuable as any other. This has always seemed to me to be a fairly bizarre position to hold.
Once we're past a simple yes/no, though, the main question is, of course, where we draw the line. As with any situation in which a line must be drawn, it is very difficult to argue for a particular positioning of it. I imagine all people would say there should be some end-limit, since by the point of birth, a baby is undeniably human, so the question becomes how late we allow that process to go. A reasonable barometer might be the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb, which, even with current medical advances has never occurred before 21 weeks, and rises to 50% probability at the current limit of 24 weeks. I can't think of a measure better than this to use, since the question at stake is essentially at what point the "value" of a foetus' life becomes equivalent to that of a newborn, and any other 'measurement' of humanity (such as the appearance of particular organs, or similarity in appearance to a baby) will be far more subjective.
In any case, the vast majority of abortions (98.5%) are carried out before 20 weeks is up, and 90% before 12 weeks, so only in a small number of cases are these decisions about whether a foetus has the value of a human life even applicable. In addition, abortions at later stages are not available everywhere, so although the legal limit is 24 weeks, the local limit in practice may be much lower for particular areas.
So if only 1.5% of abortions were going to be affected by this change in the law, why were both sides so up in arms about it. Primarily, of course, because it's a subject that inspires high emotions in both pro-choice and -life camps, but also because the lack of real scientific impetus in either direction makes it a battle of principles, of personal morals and of beliefs. So in this ultimately abstract argument over whether to drop 4 weeks off of the limit, why do I oppose the amendment? Primarily because there is no scientific reason to do it (which would be the argument most likely to persuade me) and that moving the limit back with no good reason sends entirely the wrong message. It says that the morality of abortion can be defined in discussion, and can change according to persuasion and debate, without a need for scientific breakthrough. It says that women who have had abortions after 20 weeks before now were morally in the wrong (since the law must have been wrong for all those years). It would be treated as a victory that would reduce the decision time for pregnant women, increase the complexity of providing a medically necessary abortion after 20 weeks and would most likely save no lives.
A couple of things struck me while I was doing the minimal reading required to hold an opinion on this issue. The first is that the law covering when an abortion can be given seems incredibly ambiguous. It can only be given if two doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy would be more damaging than aborting it. So there is no provision for voluntary abortion as such, which instead is performed on the basis that continuing to term with an unwanted pregnancy would be more emotionally damaging that the abortion procedure. This means that a doctor who holds abortion to be wrong can prevent his patients from having one (at least under his jurisdiction) while an identical patient elsewhere could get approval. This seems to be unneccessarily flexible - if the law is intended to allow voluntary, legal termination, then it should say so, and if not then it should prohibit it. Either way, it seems bizarre that the beliefs of a particular practitioner should be allowed to interfere with and delay individuals seeking legal procedures.
The second thing that occurred to me was that of how MPs should vote. Gordon Brown apparently released Labour MPs to vote as they wanted, but should they be voting to their beliefs or to the beliefs of their electorate? It depends, I guess, how you interpret representational democracy - do we elect the person the personal views of which best represent our own, or do we elect someone we trust to transfer our views into law, whether or not they personally agree with them? I don't know the answer, but it seems interesting that an MP could be voting against the wishes of their constituents based on their own personal beliefs.
In any case, the amendments were defeated, and the limit remains at 24 weeks. A success for pro-choice campaigners, even if nothing was really gained. Looking at the percentages, however, there were warning signs as to the result of any subsequent vote under a conservative government - while 80% of Labour MPs voted against the amendment, 84% of conservatives voted for it, so under a Tory government, we could be looking at a swift change of policy on this issue.
I'm not sure how that will stand up to scrutiny, but I wanted to write something, as too often I see topical issues I have an opinion on and then leave it too late to write anything meaningful. More interesting than what I have said (from my position of non-expert, zero-experience, internet-tutored male) is what you guys think - where do you stand on abortion, and on the defeat of the amendment earlier in the week?
some resources I used (in addition to wikipedia):
netdoctor: abortion
abortion law
