Abortion Rights Public Meeting 23rd September Manchester
Is there a more emotive issue than abortion? This summer’s controversy over the proposed reduction to abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 16 has demonstrated, yet again, that there isn’t.
Although the first set of votes favoured the status quo, it didn’t stop anti abortionists like Anne Widdecombe on the ‘passion for life tour’ trying to influence the outcome of the vote. As she told the Southern Daily Echo, 2nd Feb 08,
“We need to mobilise the nation. We need a great many people in a short space of time. Enough people have to contact enough MPs to make a difference to the outcome or it will go through before anybody notices.”
The second set of votes is due this autumn. In response, The National Pro-Choice Campaign is holding a public meeting in Manchester to discuss how people in favour of choice can campaign for freer, fairer, faster, access to abortion in the U.K. As their website suggests
“Women in Britain do not have a right to abortion on request. However, most people believe that they can get an abortion just by asking for one. Even if a woman has been raped she is not automatically entitled to an abortion. She has to convince two doctors that continuing with the pregnancy would have a worse effect on her mental or physical health, or on that of her existing children, than having a termination.”
There is no more deeply contentious issue than abortion. It has the divisive power to split women into the deeply hardened camps of either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. For the record, I’m Pro-Choice.
Why? Well, because I believe women, pregnant or not, have the right to determine their own lives.
If a woman decides to have a baby, I support her. I believe she should be supported by society too. She should have access to acceptable housing, appropriate financial assistance, equal access to educational and work opportunities, (as men and childfree women), and good health care (including a dentist for herself and her children!). Sadly, for women with children, these basic rights are often neglected. In Manchester alone 53% of children live in poverty, the highest level in the country.
If a woman decides to have an abortion, I support her too. Perhaps she is not prepared for relative poverty, poor housing, inadequate financial assistance, reduced educational and work opportunities, and substandard healthcare. Why should she be?
I don’t presume to know why every single woman has her baby, or has an abortion. How can I? Everyone is different. But I do presume that women know what’s best for them. I also suggest women should not have to justify their choices to each other, or anyone else.
‘Too many’ Abortions?
Some Anti-Abortionists say there are too many abortions. Therefore, to reduce the number of abortions, we must lower the time available for a woman to request one.
However, there is no evidence reducing the time limit would reduce the number of abortions. It may even be counter-productive and actually increase the number of women seeking abortion as they would have less time to fully contemplate their decision.
This argument also presumes there are abortions happening in the U.K that shouldn’t be. Yet, legislation is clear on when a woman is entitled to abortion. She even needs to convince two doctors that she would in danger psychologically or physically by continuing her pregnancy. Women can by no means use abortion haphazardly, nor is there any evidence that they do. To insinuate that ‘social abortions’ are not valid or justifiable is to my mind a tad naive. Most women think seriously about the social reasons restricting them from becoming mothers. These women are thinking responsibly and morally about the life they and their potential child would have if they continued their pregnancy. Reducing the levels of social abortions should never be as simple as reducing choice by axing the time limit. It should be addressed as the complex issue it clearly is, as it covers housing, education, employment, health, and equal opportunities.
Anti Abortionists and Pro-choice advocates would be better arguing for improvement in the following areas.
a) Spending money, time, and resources on better, affordable, social housing for pregnant women
b) Actively campaigning to eliminate the sigma and hatred of teenage, older, single, poorer, and disabled mothers
c) Changing the benefit entitlement of above mothers so they are have a ‘living income’
d) Calling for better sex education
e) Calling for free, comprehensive, contraception at the point of need.
f) Setting up more and keeping open the existing women’s refugees/safe houses. This offers provision for women escaping Domestic Violence/Incestuous situations, which leave them vulnerable to a rape pregnancy.
g) Speaking out against the hidden religious persecution of women that, among other abuses, idealises perpetual pregnancy.
h) Reducing the levels of child and parent poverty.
i) Offering free education to women with children
j) Offering increased financial assistance to women with children (food, fuel, and travel allowances)
k) Forcing employers to adhere to the law and enforce flexi-time for working mothers.
l) Calling for better and increased rehab centres for pregnant women blighted by addiction and therefore unable to continue a pregnancy.
m) Improving mental heath services for women with a history of pre and postnatal depression.
Only when these areas of a woman’s life improve will we as a society say she has a real choice between abortion and motherhood.
Why the 16 Weeks limit?
One particular argument for 16 week limit arises from the belief that foetus’ may survive outside the womb at 16 weeks.
However, according to the BBC, The British Medical Association, British Association of Perinatal Medicine, Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists all state there’s just no true evidence to justify this opinion.
The Philosophical Argument
Another argument, which has less to do with lowering the time limit and more to do with eliminating abortion is that if a foetus has to be terminated/aborted/killed it must firstly be alive and therefore needs protecting by law, in particular the Human Rights Act.
Yet, this point of view doesn’t purport to explain what is meant by ‘alive’. Huseyin Mehmet, Reader in Developmental Neurobiology at Imperial College in London, when discussing foetal development points out that, ‘Scans that look at the structure of the foetal brain at 23 to 24 weeks show that the human brain is extremely immature. It is the period between 24 and 40 weeks that is largely responsible for brain development’. This leads many leading professionals to concur that what it means to be a person and have human consciousness is not available to the foetus. Professor John Wyatt, an eminent neonatal paediatrician, of University College Hospital London, despite being apposing abortion agreed with the science stating ‘The link between cortex and the rest of the body doesn’t come into play until 23 to 24 weeks’.
It is clear to me the philosophical argument has nothing to do with the proposed autumn bill. The argument is just blatantly anti-abortion. It leaves no room for choice, or debate. It uses emotive, black and white language, which is misleading, damaging, and overwhelmingly oppressive. It denies the rights of women to be protected from enforced motherhood. I worry it is a hugely corrosive argument set to undermine the lives of society’s most vulnerable women.
Pro-Choice not Pro-Abortion
Well, here I am. My first blogging post is as contentious as it can get and I feel I want to clarify my position. I think it is well known I am Pro-Choice. I bravely jumped off the fence years back. I did not reach this position easily. Moreover, I do not stand here in perfect comfort either. You see, I am pro-choice because I believe women have the right to decided when they become mothers. This is a statement bigger than abortion. It is a statement regarding the equality of women among their peers. A statement of individual empowerment. A declaration of autonomy. Sadly, society does not offer every woman this right. Motherhood is not subject to equality in the U.K. I can think of many women who want to be mothers, but cannot exercise that choice for economic reasons. Some cannot afford their own home; others (such as lesbian or infertile couples) cannot afford the fertility treatment. Many of the country’s low-paid women simply cannot afford the baby food/heating/clothing. This is shoddy equality in the 21st century.
Women who decide to become mothers should be supported by society. They should not be vilified by tabloid media, as single, teenage/young/older/ or disabled, mothers are, or ignored by government and employers. Motherhood is important. Women should be valued for this wonderful, extraordinary contribution they make to society. After all, only women can make this contribution.
The thought that the choice to become a mother is heavily determined by socio-economic factors is quite simply offensive and not good enough. Women should have the right to choose by themselves, by asking the simple question, ‘Do I want to be a mother?’ The job of society is then to help this woman exercise this free choice. This is clearly not happening in the U.K. When it does, I will be a very happy woman. Until then, I will continue to fight for a woman’s right to choose.
If you are Pro-Choice and want to help protect abortion rights for women come along to the meeting on the 23rd September 12.45 till 2.00 @The Rain Bar, 80 Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester.
To find out more about the issues and to help you make up your mind here are some links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/
http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/
