'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.
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.
Labels: abortion
posted by Kate | 16:15
3 Comments:
Viablility may be a red herring from a purely philosophical point of view, but I can definitely see why people would grasp at it in the absence of any other metrics. This is, after all, a metaphysical problem, and in the absence of any testable way to confirm the "personhood" of a foetus, viability serves as a rough but justifiable measure. If the debate, as Kate suggests, is about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body, then one could reasonable argue that a non-viable embryo/foetus is still part of the mother's body, like any other organ that would cease to function if removed. The fact that this line has a tendency to retreat as medical technology advances seems paradoxical, because scientific progress is generally orthogonal to your average moral dilemma.
The debate is all about trying to draw a line somewhere on a continuum, and as far as I can see there really isn't any reason to draw it any particular place. I would be happy for the line to be drawn almost anywhere (although not at either of the ends, please) as long as it is satisfactory to a majority.
The debate on abortion was very disappointing in many respects, not just the obsession with viability. Though, like you, I found the outcome a great relief, if still a little close for comfort.
The shocking thing about the foetus viability argument was the way that people who are opposed to abortion on principle were able to get away with using it to argue for chipping away at the time limit. Those on the other side failed to expose the cynicism of this tactic.
Someone should have asked all those Catholic MPs who were trying to sneak in their religious agenda under the cloak of advances in science and medicine whether it was because they were ashamed of making the real arguments, or frightened of being ridiculed.
Someone should also have asked them whether they still want to ban contraception and the morning-after pill. Catholic MPs - with the possible exception of childless Ann Widdecombe - occupy an untenable position. Most of them don't have 20 children, and so happily disobey some of the Pope's crazier instructions about their personal lives. But their principles suddenly return to them when they are restricting the freedom of less fortunate people in more difficult circumstances. And for some reason, they get a free vote to do so. So they don't even have to risk irritating their party leaders.
It wasn't just the anti-abortion side that seemed to escape the debate lightly though. I have two questions for the pro-abortion side, that I don't really have adequate answers to myself:
- Why is the 24 week limit there at all? Should the woman's right to choose extend all the way to birth?
- If technology allowed a foetus to be sustained from conception to birth in an artificial womb, and loving adoptive parents awaited, would the woman still be allowed to choose to destroy it rather than have it removed to safety? And if the answer is yes, then why shouldn't the father have the same rights over his genetic material?
A couple of things -
Duncan, I take your point about viability being a concept that people can easily latch on to. The problem with it, as Chris implies, is that it reduces the issue to foundations built on shifting sands. Realistically, neither side really has viability as its core argument, and it becomes a way of evading rather than dealing with the ideas at the heart of abortion.
I disagree that the debate is about drawing a line on a continuum. I think that both sides have been guilty of using such a line to advance their own cause when actually, even if we were able to 'prove' personhood at any particular point, I suspect that there would still be huge polaristation on if and when abortion should take place.
As far as the current situation is concerned, I think the problem I have with a majority making a decision on the mandatory point at which we draw the line, is that we still have a situation where public morality is imposed on a private situation. As a pro-choice advocate it would be entirely possible for me to be against abortion for myself, but to still whole-heartedly support every individual's right to make their own decision in their own circumstances.
Chris, I think you're right about the stealth tactics used to detract from religious agendas. The fact is that Nadine Dorries spoke alot about abortion made on lifestyle grounds and implied that it had become a throw away decision. Actualy, a tiny minority of abortions are late term abortions, and of those that are, most are made on medical grounds. The issue was presented in a fundamentally misleading way.
To answer your questions from a personal point of view, I think that yes the right to an abortion probably should extend all the way to birth. (It actually already does in a tiny sub-set of cirumstances). I don't think late term abortions are in any way desirable, and as a society we should definitely be looking for ways to reduce them. But it is such an impossible issue to legislate about and ultimately, whilst a foetus is still part of the mother's body I think that her rights take priority over its.
As for the second question, if I understand you correctly, I think it would depend on how the foetus was removed to safety. This would be a much more complicated scenario and one in which I think there would be better justification for a joint decision. But if the woman still begins carrying the pregnancy then I suppose I still think the decision making process should be weighted in her favour.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home