'Rights' and wrongs of abortion

Yesterday Jon blogged on the abortion debate and the 'red herring' that the viability issue can become. As I write today the proposed ammendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill have been defeated and personally I am breathing a sigh of relief.

These ammendements could potentially have reduced the time limit of abortion to anything from 12 to 22 weeks and forced hundreds or thousands of women to seek expensive and dangerous alternatives.

And whilst I agree with Jon that the viability angle is too often focused on at the expense of more useful discussions, I can't agree that abortion comes down to anything other than the issue of rights. It is rights that frame and inform the whole debate, regardless of which side of things you fall; the rights of women to control their own bodies versus the right of a developing foetus or embryo to life.

Even if your views lie on the middle ground where it is accepted that both might be equally valid claims, there is an irreconcilable clash of these in cases of unwanted pregnancy and this is what makes abortion unique. It is not the fact that there are two separate sides here that is problematic, but the fact that in certain situations they simply cannot co-exist. When there is no way of satisfactorily respecting both a woman's bodily autonomy and a foetus's right to life we have to make difficult decisions that prioritise one or the other.

When anti-choice advocates talk about abortion as being morally equivalent to the murder of innocent babies (putting aside the viability assumption) they really miss a crucial point. The point of abortion is not to kill the developing embryo or foetus but to allow women to make their own choices about what happens to their bodies. If we could painlessly and instantaneously extract an unwanted pregnancy and care for it by other means the issue might be different, but we can't and therefore it isn't. Ultimately, if we don't respect, protect and maintain the rights of fully developed and independent human beings then it seems rather pointless to pontificate about the rights of the unborn child.

Which leads me to my final point on this most emotive of subjects. The most frightening thing
about the recent discussion on abortion has been the way in which the voices of women who have been through these experiences have been marginalised. Nadine Dorries' breezy admission of her failure to seek these out being a case in point. As Jon says, many women who choose to have abortions are not thinking directly about themselves. But they are still the ones making the choice, and this is the way things need to be. To ask a woman to continue with a pregnancy against her will could have devastating physical and psychological effects. For me, the 'woman's right to control her own body' does finish the debate.

Incidentally, over at the f word blog there is a breakdown of the way in which MPs of different partys voted. The vast majority of conservative MPs were in favour of a reduction of the time limit. Given that it looks increasingly likely that we may have a change of government in the near future I find this quite, quite terrifying.

The mask of viability

Should viability of a foetus be the key argument of the abortion debate? Too often arguing about number of weeks thinly masks the agendas of groups who either want to outlaw abortion or argue for it’s extension or increased accessibility. Last time I wrote on abortion we were talking about whether we should talk so at least this timeit’s been discussed. Well kind of. In an article in the Guardian yesterday Kira Cochrane met the conservative MP Nadine Dorries who is leading the campaign for a reduction to 20 weeks. There was certainly no meeting of minds. Worse, there was little examination of either ‘side’s’ underlying assumptions. Cochrane wheeled out ‘women’s right to control her own body’ as if this statement self-evidently finished the debate; and Dorries implied that she had never been near a pregnancy crisis service to talk to women in the middle of one of the most difficult decisions in their lives.

Faced with the decision about whether to end a potential child or child’s life I’m not sure what a women’s ‘right’ to control her own body is. The phrase makes sense when talking about a woman (or man) not being sexually exploited or harassed, to wear what she (or he) wants to wear and to be able to pursue a life free from oppression. But a woman choosing to abort a foetus is making a decision to do with the potential life of another human and it is in this context, not that of their own rights, that most women make their choice. To take an extreme example when a woman is choosing whether to abort because of abnormalities they are not thinking about their own body, but their life and the life of their child after birth.

If it is true that Dorries hasn’t spent time with women deciding whether to abort or not, then it is staggering. It’s fine to blithely say ‘it can be adopted at birth’, but nine months of pregnancy and huge changes to your body will be difficult enough when you know you want a child and have a supportive partner. Imagine the emotions and conflicting feelings if you carry a child knowing you will give it up.

Everyone wants there to be less need for abortions. They are difficult and traumatic even at relatively early stages of pregnancy. Women and their partners need the very best help to think about the short and long term effects of their decision, whatever that is. They also need gracious and caring ongoing support. Those people that want to see unwanted babies carried to term before adoption need to work to make it a viable choice by offering superb practical, emotional and compassionate support through pregnancy and beyond.

To discuss one of the UK’s last taboos is good, but there is too much to do to spend our time arguing incessantly about viability.