The abortion issue has always seemed to me to be a straightforward matter of personal privacy.
On one side there is the autonomy of the individual (in this case a pregnant woman) competent to decide what should happen in respect of their own body; and on the other side are those who seem to resent and deny the competence of that person to make their own decisions.
Accordingly, the job of the anti-abortionist is to make it as difficult as possible for the woman to make her own decision to terminate a pregnancy, whether it be by the spurious involvement of "independent counsellors" or the use of primary legislation.
No sensible person is "pro abortion" - the question is really who makes the ultimate decision: the woman (in consultation with her doctors) or the legislature.
Parliament has enacted that abortions are (generally) unlawful after 24 weeks.
But if a woman seeks an abortion within the first 24 weeks of her pregnancy, it is surely then a matter for her alone, subject only to medical advice and approval.
This general proposition is, for me, the starting point of any current debate in respect of abortion.
Any attempt to frustrate or remove her access to an abortion within those 24 weeks appears to me to simply have the whiff of misplaced paternalism; it implies that the woman does not know her own mind.
To seek an abortion within those 24 weeks cannot be an easy decision for any woman in any circumstance; but it can only be that woman's decision.
And, by implication, any decision to seek advice or counselling is also for the woman alone; it is illiberal for a woman to be obliged or expected to take advice or receive counselling, should she elect to terminate her pregnancy; again, any such obligation or expectation implies that the woman does not know her own mind.
The heart of the matter is that any woman is - in principle - fully capable of making the decisions for herself as to have an abortion, and what support she requires in doing so.
For me, it is a matter for the woman, and her doctors: a private surgical procedure which is none of your (or my) business.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
Cue the pro-lifers leaping in to say that it is not just the woman's decision but also God's, the father's, and the baby's, etc etc.
This attitude of trying to suggest that a mother and her baby are in automatic conflict (and therefore society must constantly intervene on behalf of the baby) is just as repellant as the paternalism you very accurately describe. Although abortion is definitely not nice, the consequences of not having one when it's for the best are a lot less nice - I need hardly say! - and having an abortion can be the best decision a woman's made for the baby as well.
Just thought I'd get that one in before Captain Obvious struck!
Why are we still talking about this in 2011? It's a done deal. Freedom of choice was central to the women's rights struggle of the latter half of the last century. Are we going to set all the clocks back fifty years?
The American Christian right wing surely has found a friend and ally in Nadine Dorries. I would only hope (not pray) that the British public has more of a grasp of the fundamental necessity of separation of Church and State than the erstwhile MP for Mid Bedfordshire and God.
There is a pro-life argument which states that the woman isn't the only individual here, but that the unborn child is also an individual with rights -- rights which he/she can't assert his/herself, and which the mother wishing to terminate can't be trusted to look after. Hence, state involvement to pursue the unborn child's right to live.
Personally, I feel that the argument is irrelevant, or at least causes conflicts with other rights.
In most places, there is no general duty to help a person in distress, and where there is there are limits to that duty. You may be required to help someone who collapses in front of you on the pavement, but not to run across a busy 8-lane motorway to help.
Similarly, it would be unconscionable for the state to require you to undergo an invasive medical procedure (like a kidney donation, or a blood transfusion) in order to save someone else's life. It would be your choice to endure the hardships of such a procedure, and choosing not to is a valid choice.
A pregnancy is effectively such an invasive procedure. The fetus cannot survive without oxygen and nutrients provided by the mothers blood, and the pregnancy causes changes and risks to the mother which greatly outweigh those of donating blood or a kidney. Therefore, the mother should have the right to choose to discontinue this invasive life-support.
Wow! I think that's very simplistic. I am not anti the ultimate choice of the woman, but your view rules out any consideration on what life is, when it begins, and how it must be protected by law. This is the highly complicated, and rightfully controversial background for the 24 weeks rule. And think about the extreme cases with preimplantation diagnostics advancing. Should a woman or parents be aloud to abort a 23 week old foetus/ baby / life to be (whatever you call it) just because it will have blue eyes instead of green, or it will surely suffer from say migraine. There is a lot of profound discussion going on in other countries. And this must be welcome, without shutting discussion down prematurely by vilifying the other side. A law is there exactly sometimes to help difficult decisions. It's a lawyer's job to meditate thoroughly on law and all its implications , it's a society's task to think more balanced about the issues so as to bring about laws that help the troubled and limit individual gainseeking on cost of co-humans. That is why abortion after 24 weeks is forbidden. One could argue it's a society's choice of time and mode just as 'paternalistic', because who is to forbid a woman to own her belly and do what she likes?
I completely agree with the 'competence' argument where an adult woman must be deemed to be competent to make decisions related to termination of her pregnancy. However, I find it a lot harder to maintain this position when faced with gender selective abortion in India and China. I know that this not a problem in the UK (at least not a major one) but what do people think about this. Should we take the view that an individual has no responsibility to maintain the sex ratio so sex selective abortion be treated in exact same way as any other abortion? Or we could take the view that the social miliu has made the person not competent to make this decision but that would be illiberal. Legislation to stop doctors from disclosing gender is not effective and will become even less so as technology evolves.
I strongly believe that choice should be paramount but should it be absolute?
Please feel free to reject post if deemed off topic.
Eve said: "Should a woman or parents be aloud to abort a 23 week old foetus/ baby / life to be (whatever you call it) just because it will have blue eyes instead of green, or it will surely suffer from say migraine."
I did not mention "or parents".
The reason for the abortion is irrelevant, however emotive you make the circumstances.
It is simply the woman's decision (with her doctors).
The only thing I have questions about with regard to abortion is the question of what happens when the man does not want the child, but the woman chooses to carry full term.
He is 100% not involved in the choice, as it is the woman who must carry the baby, but then he is responsible for child support for a child he did not want and had no say over.
Unfortunately, I can see no real way of resolving this without some form of contract legally drawn up between the two about him having no rights over the child, and not having to pay child support.
Thoughts?
Yup. I know you didn't mention parents. I was just trying to raise awareness for the problem of pre-selection in the context. What if it's not a difficult decision at all to abort, but just a choice against the sex of the child, prevent it being ill, etc., because we can know more in advance. I was trying to be as un-emotive as possible. It's a real question I have, not a ready-made opinion at all!
Ooops.
Of course Ms. Dorries is not 'erstwhile', she is still the acting MP for Mid Bedfordshire (and God).
I must have been projecting my wishes for the next general election. Apologies.
I agree with paras 5, 6 and the last. The rest although well-meaning is unnecessary.
For what it's worth I am Tory and c of e.
One of the most sensible things i've read on the subject in ages. The only thing I would dispute is:
"cannot be an easy decision for any woman in any circumstance"
For me it was a very easy decision to make, i've never wanted children and was fortunate to know immediately and thanks to the wonderful Marie Stopes was able to access a termination promptly. I'm only left with a slight resentment towards the failure of our contraception.
The one question I ask you to answer is how your own approach to this issue might vary if you had been born before the present abortion laws were on the statute book, under circumstances where - under current legislation - an abortion would have been a more likely outcome?
I think that you're begging the central question here.
Does your position not apply equally after 24 weeks? And up until the point of birth?
It's always notable how pro-lifers such as Dorries suddenly lose interest in the wellbeing of people after they are born.
I would always be pro the woman's right to choose abortion even as late as 24 weeks, though one has to wonder if a pregnancy isn't wanted this late, what was the delay in deciding otherwise unless there is a sudden and life-threatening change in health circumstances?
Abortion shouldn't be seen as just another means of contraception, for convenience. One has to question also the responsibility of either parent in not using contraception wisely. Yes, mistakes happen. Women get raped. Contraceptives are not always 100% effective, et al. But I was a bit struck by Blaise Pascal's comment that 'pregnancy is effectively such an invasive procedure' but it IS a 'procedure' (what a horrible term for something that should be chosen, welcome & loved!) that you *should* have a choice whether you want it in the first place or not. If *that* is in question, then yes perhaps others should get involved on the point of diminished responsibility?
Mark's point about the father not wanting the child but the mother deciding otherwise is also valid. But again, we're to the point about did both choose and/or use contraception? We *are* in the 21st century, people. There are many options for contraception. I'd like to think our education system doesn't let people down that badly on so basic and vital a point regarding sex but I'm sure it still happens. And yes, some people are stupid and irresponsible but if they are that immature, psychologically as well as physically (I hope this only applies to teenagers who may not know better but who knows) then yes, other people do have to become involved. I would like to think all aspects are considered in so brief a deadline against administrative red tape (or its medical/social work equivalent) but the woman's choice if she or her partner did not use contraception and there's some *quibble* should have secondary & tertiary factors - if the woman's health is not at risk, can the parents support/care for the child? That has to have some consideration (and I'm not talking vague Christian ethics here but the hard facts of people struggling to support existing families during increasingly harsh economic times). Before anyone jumps down my throat to say this is a stance where abortion is an economic factor, let me say it's the choices *before* any pregnancy that may be as important as those *during*. Isn't that an equally considered measure of responsibility?
I wholeheartedly agree that ultimately it is the woman's right to choose. However, there is disturbing evidence of biased advice (from both camps) - see this undercover story http://bit.ly/oJVRcP. Why not offer expedient, readily available, voluntary & "neutral" counselling advice on the NHS to women who want the service, and which follow guidelines of the independent British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)? Just a thought.
Mark, it is obviously not within a man's rights to enforce an abortion or to enforce the carrying of the foetus until birth for that matter. Either would be a egregious assault on a woman's autonomy. You appear to recognise that. And once a child is born, it is entitled to all protections available to it under the law. That includes the responsibilities of both its parents. It is as simple as that.
I recognise that there is an extra chance to make a choice available to women which men don't get but any 'unfairness' is due to biology. Unless you want to abolish the automatic responsibilities and rights of all fathers, we all have to accept it. I'm sure you don't want to do that.
And I must say, considering the statistics about the number of parents who are derelict in their duties toward despite the law (the majority of whom are men), it seems quite extraordinary (to say the least) that you would focus on that.
I'm sure we could cite individual cases but itt remains a fact that overall the overwhelming burden of parenting falls primarily to women, to the detriment of their financial security, even in married relationships. It remains a fact that women make up the majority of those who die in poverty, even in supposedly post-feminist industrialised nations.. It remains a fact that the overwhelming bulk of wealth is held by men. It remains a fact that a child requires, and is entitled to, care and financial support. And it remains a fact that it takes two to create a child.
Given that state of affairs, does it really seem reasonable, or 'fair' to complain about men being legally responsible for the children they create? Not to me.
I'm sure we could quote individual cases at each other, but in the grand scheme of things it is very obvious that, despite men not having 'choice',
I hadn't actually read Nadine Dorries' account of *why* she wants a cut in the abortion window from 24 weeks to 20 weeks but this was somewhat harrowing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2031958/Abortions-Nadine-Dorries-wants-guidance-available-women.html
I would like to think that abortions now, as opposed to 30 years ago, are slightly more humane with regard to the foetus. I'm not going to whitewash over the fact that yes, any abortion, be it from 1 week to the whole 40, is the ending of a life. I'm not going to call it murder or manslaughter, because those are criminal terms and I don't see abortion - safe, legitimate abortion - as criminal. There are enough pressures, psychological besides physical, without unfairly resorting to that. I can understand Ms Dorries experience which shaped her view but it *was* thirty years ago. Surely if she were to hands-on participate in a modern abortion (or more than one) as intended by a mother(s) for whatever choice she made, which she should also listen to, then her revised viewpoint may have some validity?
Am I understanding this correctly?
The core of this post’s argument seems to be:
The law allows abortion before 24 weeks, so any competent woman should have the unfettered right to require an abortion during that period. It’s entirely up to her (subject to medical consultation) and any attempt to interfere with this is wrong, because the state should not, in principle, place barriers in the way of an individual’s action.
Which sounds like a straightforward liberal perspective, but is not for me the last word on the matter, e.g.
- Is it not reasonable that a woman should be given the opportunity (not ‘be obliged’) to consider a range of perspectives on such a significant decision?
- Whilst the law has closed down the argument about the rights of the not-yet-child in respect of abortion, this is not universally accepted, sometimes on religious grounds and sometimes because of the practical difficulty in deciding at what point in development these rights should be ‘switched on’.
David
I think that is a fair summary of the above post.
David said...
"- Is it not reasonable that a woman should be given the opportunity (not ‘be obliged’) to consider a range of perspectives on such a significant decision?"
If the advice *is* indeed impartial. I think the fear here is that the groups who would be offering these 'wider perspectives' (e.g. anti-abortion) is simply another term for Christian propaganda that has no real bearing in true 'wider perspectives' but simply their own agenda. And as a Christian apostate, I can appreciate with some horror how that can be very badly misplaced. *We* have to exist in the *real* world, with all the pain & grief & choices *here* that involves, sadly.
And before anyone knocks me as now 'anti-Christian', there are still some lovely churches in England (meaning people, not buildings) who do try and balnce their faith in the real world - my heart does still go out to them and all the good they do. Unfortunately, there are still others who 'wider' views are actually exceedly narrow. I know. I've met them. *sigh*
Interestingly though, in India, women do not get absolute freedom to decide whether they want an abortion because it is unlawful to selectively abort girls. Western liberal feminists tend to support such a law. This suggests to me that either a) we are ruthless moral imperialists who are seeking to apply different standards in other countries or b) free choice is limited in circumstances where it amounts to social engineeering.
I agree with the basic liberal stance of the post - it is as a matter of law and for practical purposes, purely a decision for the woman seeking a termination whether to have one. There are moral and medical arguments around the circumstances in which it might be worth changing the law but these are a separate issue.
Even those who argue that abortion is unequivocally wrong in all circumstances should accept that ultimately it is a moral choice to be faced by the women involved. They should have the free will to be able to make the wrong (in those terms) moral choice and to take the judgement that may await them from God (for instance).
Law and morality are not the same thing. Just because something is legal does not make it moral even if it is to some extent implicit that the State as representative of the democratic will of the majority makes moral judgements in establishing the law.
Dorries' proposal was flawed because it made a judgement on who could advise and thereby would have denied women the right to counselling in a form that they might have preferred, replacing it with one which came from a different moral stance. It was also flawed in that it equated the independence of counsellors from the providers of abortions for remuneration with their impartiality without accepting that counsellors who were independent in that way could be less impartial because of the moral background to their advice.
http://wp.me/p1kusD-5u
I like to think of myself as a liberal atheist, and may be opening myself to a flaming, but I continue to have a philosophical problem with abortion. Once a foetus is a viable human (arguably from the moment of conception), in what way is a termination different from killing. It may be legally permitted, but it seems to me the forced removal of life support is hard to describe in other ways.
I know this does little to help with the current problems over permitted abortion, but still feel its fundamentally different from a requirement to help another individual. Assuming the foetus is healthy, abortion removes the natural support it already has.
Thank you for this post - easy-to-understand, well though-out arguments. I appreciate even more the fact that someone currently practicising in the legal profession has taken the time to engage with this issue. I wonder whether you've come across a recent posting on the F-Word blog: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/08/where_are_all_t calling for more lawyers to engage with feminist issues, such as abortion.
Abortion is unpleasant in any circumstances. Relatively late abortion, as described by Ms Dorries, is doubly so (surely the foetus in that case was born alive, not aborted, although perhaps unlikely to survive; in other circumstances, huge sums would have been spent in an effort to keep the baby alive after it was delivered prematurely).
I accept entirely the principle of a woman's personal autonomy, but there are other principles at stake too. I am particularly troubled by abortion in circumstances where the foetus stands a reasonable chance of survival outside the womb. The fact that we have a cut-off date means that, at some point, the state intervenes to protect the foetus. Opponents of abortion may be using a salami-slicing technique - 28 week, 24 week, 20 weeks - but nonetheless 24 weeks is not set in stone. Why is 24 weeks - or indeed 20 weeks - the right date?
It has been depressing to see the issue of abortion being politicised again in the UK, when a hard-won, decent and humane settlement has been in place. And it is particularly depressing for a philosopher to see that usual dreadful arguments (on both sides, it has to be said) trotted out again. One way of thinking about the issue which hopefully sheds some moral light is to compare how we should think about the unnatural death of the human zygote/embryo/foetus as it slowly develops with how we do actually think about natural deaths or accidental deaths. In fact, we pretty much all take a gradualist line in the latter cases (meaning we take the natural/accidental death of an early zygote as much less a serious matter than the natural/accidental death of a near-term foetus). And our views about unnatural deaths, e.g. by abortion, should surely tally with our views on the natural/accidental cases. For some reflections along these lines (a bit too long to copy-and-paste here) see my last post at http://www.logicmatters.net.
I'm normally a great admirer of your blog posts, but I think your analysis here is excessively simplistic.
There are of course extremes of position on this matter. At one end of the spectrum, there's the (predominantly Roman Catholic) view that life starts at conception and that anything that prevents conception, let alone undoes the products of conception, is wrong. At the other end of the spectrum, there's the view that a woman has absolute rights over whether to be a parent or not, and that she should therefore have the absolute right to an abortion without any cause up till the moment of birth (it's a very extreme view, but I have heard it - one acquaintance of mine saw abortion as being a completely morally neutral matter, and described the procedure as 'like getting rid of tapeworm').
Most people fall at some point on the spectrum between these two extremes. In rejecting that second extreme, you inherently accept that the issue is not "a straightforward matter of personal privacy" because you accept that after a certain stage in the pregnancy some other force comes into play. It's a variant of Bernard Shaw's quip to the woman about whether she'd sleep with him for a million pounds: "We've already established that,and all we're doing now is negotiating the price."
So if you do reject that second extreme, and accept that there should be a time limit of < birth, the matter is more complicated than you suggest. What force is it that overrules a woman's choice to abort her baby at 24 (or 22, or 20, or 18, ad infinitum) weeks? I'd be interested to hear your further thoughts on that point, and your reasons for them.
In virtually everything else we do in life, we are urged to take appropriate advice before making any major decisions.
We are urged to see financial advisers before making any major investments, we are urged to see a solicitor to take advice on writing a will. My wife had the opportunity of discussing a major operation with an independent consultant because there were a number of choices available to her. Surely it is reasonable to urge women to take independent advice as to the options before having an abortion, particularly in view of reports that suggest abortion increases the possibility of psychological problems in later years.
All that is being asked is that women should be pointed in the direction of independent advice before making the final decision on abortion.
Seems a storm in a teacup, unless the abortion industry is concerned that too many women might take another option and reduce their profits.
I have to say that I was a little suspicious about the question-begging point that MK brought up until I realised that the argument is about a particular policy in the context of pre-existing legislation and so doesn't seek to deal with the wider ethics of abortion.
After that epiphany I found myself 100% behind the post. Well done JoK.
One of the biggest problems i have with anti-abortionist, is the idea that an unborn foetus has the same level of rights as a baby that has been born and therefore they must act in the baby's interest as they can not.
This reasoning to protect the unborn baby creates a conflict of interest. A pregnant woman could find herself in a position where her human rights are valued as below those of her child's because the unborn child is viewed as more vulnerable as it can not express its own views. It effectively puts pregnant women in the weakest position within society - below all other men, women and children - unable to make a decision over their own bodies and raises some big questions over how this could be abused.
There is never a one size fits all for women - we are all different and have different concerns, priorities and beliefs in life. And sadly one of the worst aspects of mass access to health care is that the idea of the individual can often be forgotten and instead blanket policies designed to protect and provide a 'better' service can often actually have the exact opposite effect by removing the individual needs of the patient from the equation.
The stereotypes and misconceptions over the 'type' of woman who seeks an abortion do not help, women who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. How often are women painted as single with loose moral values, uneducated, irresponsible because they haven't used contraception, weak or vulnerable? This couldn't be more wrong for a significant number of women, and to use these stereotypes in the debate is potentially damaging their welfare.
Legislation becomes a dangerous thing, very quickly. These proposals may or may not be well meaning, but they trouble me greatly. The last thing that needs to happen is a forced reduction in abortions because of the knock on implications of restricting access in anyway whatsoever; reducing abortions needs to come from other tactics.
The mere idea of British women ending up in a position where they may end up considering taking a flight to eastern europe to get a cheap, no questions asked abortion rather than go through a prolonged and distressing questioning fills me with dread, but one that does seem an all too real possibility with the proposed current form of the amendments. And, of course, that is an option only for those who can afford it.
It's why, I couldn't agree with David more wholeheartedly.
"Why are we still talking about this in 2011?"
Does one's right to disagree fade over time? If so a very similar argument could have been made in 1965, at which point abortion had been illegal for 104 years in the UK. (Sections 58 & 59 of the Offences against the Person act of 1861, and Section 1 of the Abortion Act of 1967)
I wonder if some statistics might help to give context.
There were nearly 190,000 abortions in the UK in 2010 (roughly 18 per 1,000 women aged 15-44), with 91% taking place at under 13 weeks. 2,744 abortions (less than 1.5%) took place at at 20 week or more, and 147 (less than 0.1%) took place after 24 weeks.
The number has slowly drifted up from around 130,000 (or 10 per 1,000 women) in 1971 but has remained at much the same (around 170,000 to 200,000) for about 25 years. The proportion taking place at less than 13 weeks has also remained at around 10% since at least 2000.
Medical abortions (that is, an abortion pill resulting in miscarriage) account for 43% of the total, vacuum aspiration for 52%, and dilatation and evacuation for about 5%. There were complication (such as haemorrhage or sepsis) in 0.2% of abortions (but 1.1% at 20 weeks or more).
It seems that in around 3% of the 1,173 abortions after 22 weeks, it is not clear that the foetus's heart was stopped before or as part of the abortion procedure (potentially leading to the delivery of a living foetus that Ms Dorries described so graphically).
Source: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_126769
@Lorna Dupré
I disagree with your second extreme, which you say is that a woman has an absolute right to an abortion until the baby is born. Why is being born the cut-off?
Let's say a woman is 30 weeks pregnant and wants to abort her baby. On the way to the abortion, she is hit by a car, taken to hospital, and the baby is removed from her womb. Both mother and baby survive. Now she is "stuck" with a baby she did not want. If you think that is a ridiculous scenario, what about a woman who needs a Caesarian at week 25 to save the baby, but would have decided to abort it at week 35?
In any situation in which the interests of a relatively powerful individual come into conflict with the interests of a relatively powerless individual, the default position of the liberal is to ensure that the interests of the powerless individual are properly looked after.
Even if a commentator is going to argue for a pro-choice position on abortion, the intellectually honest way of doing so would be to first acknowledge that there are two individuals whose interests are in conflict, then go through a discussion of how those conflicts might be resolved, before finally concluding - if indeed this is the conclusion that they have honestly reached - that sadly the interests of the weaker party cannot be catered for.
The intellectually dishonest way of doing it is to blithely ignore the fact, right from the word "go", that there are two individuals present at all.
I have read and re-read Jack of Kent's piece above, and I am utterly gobsmacked. Nowhere in the whole essay is there even a hint of a reference to the baby, the unborn child, the foetus, the embryo, the clump of cells, the parasite, or whatever the hell you want to call it. It's not that he dismisses it as unimportant. It simply isn't mentioned, alluded to, or acknowledged in any way, shape or form! It's as if, to make his case tenable, he has to entirely airbrush out the central subject.
Of course, it is trivially easy to dismiss the abortion question as "a straightforward matter of personal privacy" if one completely ignores one of the involved parties.
But one doesn't doesn't have to limit oneself to talking about abortion, if playing that game. One could look at domestic violence, too. Simply ignore the battered party, and declare that laws against domestic violence are simply an affront to a person's competence to decide what should happen in respect of their own household. Or slavery. Ignore the actual slaves. Laws against slavery are an affront to a person's competence to decide what should happen in respect of their own plantation. It's an easy game to play. Any issue, no matter what suffering it involves for others, can be made into a liberal issue, if you simply airbrush those suffering others out of the picture.
Oliver, you are assuming that a 20-week foetus is a person. That is a different debate and one that the law is already decided on.
With a view to Oliver's comment regarding suffering; how would one define suffering of a <24 foetus? I think I have an idea how a battered husband or wife would suffer, I think I have an idea how a slave would suffer, but I really don't have an idea how a foetus would suffer?
Wendy
@Oliver Pereira
It isn't a question that we need to philosophise over.
A group of specialists in neonatal, perinatal and paediatric medicine and epidemiology read the comments of the house Science and Technology committee that "it was recognised that published peer reviewed UK evidence is lacking to answer the question of whether the survival of infants born at 23 or 24 weeks has improved in recent years." and did a study comparing 1994-9 with 2000-5. The study looked at all infants born in the region in question and concluded:
Survival of infants born at 24 and 25 weeks of gestation has significantly increased. Although over half the cohort of infants born at 23 weeks was admitted to neonatal intensive care, there was no improvement in survival at this gestation. Care for infants born at 22 weeks remained unsuccessful.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39555.670718.BEv1
Oliver, you offer an interesting if convoluted analogy. But if you are balancing two lives then you also have to consider the relationship too. The mother is one responsible for bringing the other life into the world, for better or worse.
The choice of the mother is not 'airbrushing' out the concerns of the other life, because (unless there are unmitigating circumstances) she will be the one responsible for it in the years after birth as well. Hers is also a 'life in progress' & while I do not want to diminish the fact the embryo/baby is alive, it is 'not yet a life'. None of us can imagine what that 'not yet a life' feels because none of us can go through that experience but the one closest to it, because it still part of her, is the mother. That was, is, and should always be, the most important part of the decision, in lieu of the embryo/baby being able to communicate, surely?
Tony Kennick said...
"Survival of infants born at 24 and 25 weeks of gestation has significantly increased. Although over half the cohort of infants born at 23 weeks was admitted to neonatal intensive care, there was no improvement in survival at this gestation. Care for infants born at 22 weeks remained unsuccessful."
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39555.670718.BEv1
Wikipedia (not always the most accurate but the most immediately accessible source of information, I know) shows the current 'understanding' is 24 weeks is the 50/50 threshold of survival for the baby:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prenatal_development_table.svg
While I can appreciate Tony Kennick's link (nice to see someone supporting their post with proof) a 22 week threshold would still be a cut in decision time, and I think 24 weeks errors on the side of caution for the mother.
Hi Oliver
Jack does not consider (neither do I) that a 20 week old foetus is a "person". On Jack's view (and mine) to "blithely ignore" the rights of the foetus is akin to blithley ignoring the rights of Noddy.
So far, so consistent.
Now, do you believe that a 20 week old foetus is a person with the full human right to life?
If so, will you confirm that a woman who seeks an abortion and any practitioner who carries one out are guilty of (at least, attempted) murder and should be given a mandatory life sentence?
If not, will you please outline the human-but-not-quite status that the foetus holds where deliberately ending its life is not murder and where it is so blindingly obvious that the foetus holds this status that it is "intellectually dishonest" not to acknowledge exactly this status?
This discussion, particularly following on from Oliver's comment, illustrates exactly why this is such a divisive issue.
Oliver's criticism is that Jack's comments "blithely ignore the fact, right from the word 'go', that there are two individuals present". If this were to be taken at face value, Oliver would undoubtedly be correct in accusing Jack of adopting an illiberal - one might even say misconceived - and certainly "intellectually dishonest" position.
But the problem is that Oliver takes as "fact" something which Jack clearly (though never explicitly) denies - namely that the foetus is indeed an "individual", with all the rights attendant on that status. If that is denied, then Jack's position is entirely liberal, honest and consistent.
If there's a criticism to be made of Jack's position (and I believe there is), it's that he fails to establish the basic facts of the case (or even his opinion on what the basic facts are), and therefore any discussion about rights and wrongs can never be conclusive. Oliver, meanwhile, assumes that something which in this instance is merely opinion - "there are two individuals present" - is a fact.
Good analysis, Simon K. Like most discussions of liberalism, it is impossible to agree on what is liberal without a set of beliefs about how the world works. It is illiberal to allow actions that cause harm but what consitutes harm is always highly contested.
In this discussion, I agree with Jack that a foetus under 24 weeks is not a person with human rights but I am less convinced that we need not give weight to the wider effect of decisions on society. If aborting girls is seen as sexist, why is aborting disabled foetuses not seen as being discriminatory?
I also question the proposition that counselling is necessarily a restriction on freedom. If better decisions are made as a result, surely it enhances it. Too many liberals seem to think that their position precludes reflection.
None of this has much to do with Nadine Dorries' bill which is more of a piece of political posturing than serious legislative policy.
Thank you for this.
The important point (to me, anyway) about "seeking independent advice"* is that good advice is a good idea, but that there's no reason to make it required, any more than there's a good reason to make it required to "seek independent advice" before choosing to become pregnant. People have abortions for dumb reasons; people conceive pregnancies and carry them to term for dumb reasons. Oddly, Dorries is not advocating that all women seeking prenatal care be required to get "independent advice".
Making "independent advice" mandatory is indeed saying that a woman is not qualified to make her own decisions; it furthermore assumes that a woman can't have gotten "independent advice" and considered the pros and cons of her situation before visiting an abortion provider.
"Independent advice" isn't about independence; it's about delaying abortions, thus making them more difficult, and forcing women to submit to "education" for their own good.
* Note that Dorries's definition of "independent" excludes the major agencies who provide sexual education and services including abortion. You're "independent" as long as you don't support abortion. The Guardian had an excellent article about a visit to an abortion clinic, documenting that the providers were there to discuss and support any decision.
@JSmith
I didn't want to give as my second extreme one that was so extreme that it looked as if I was trolling.
"Why is being born the cut-off?" - why indeed? Several ancient civilisations practised infanticide of unwanted offspring, and some still do. Not many people argue that this should be viewed as an acceptable practice in the western world, but if you want to make that argument the floor is yours, though I can't imagine myself being persuaded.
My question, which was a genuinely serious one to which David still hasn't responded (unless I've missed it) is that, given that by setting any time limit at all for abortions, you automatically accept that at some point the mother's wish isn't the only consideration. After you've accepted as a fundamental principle the view that after a certain stage in the pregnancy some other consideration (what? and established how?) comes into play, any argument about 26, or 24, or 22, or whatever weeks is just detail. Therefore it can't be, as David opened by saying, "a straightforward matter of personal privacy".
"and on the other side are those who seem to resent and deny the competence of that person to make their own decisions."
With all due respect JoK, that's a bit of a straw man. There are already lots of decisions which we can't legally make -- we can't legally decide to murder our neighbours, for example, or to steal from the local corner shop. The reason for this is pretty clear: some actions affect other people, so it's only right that we be prevented from affecting them in too negative a way. If you're a pro-lifer, "other people" includes unborn foetuses; while you may disagree with them on that point, it's wrong to claim that they're motivated by resentment of other people's freedom to make decisions, just as it's wrong to claim that people who think murder should be illegal do so because they resent other people's freedom to make decisions.
(And in the interests of disclosure: I'm undecided about the whole abortion debate, although generally I lean towards the pro-life side.)
It’s a shame that you dismissed Eve’s argument earlier on in this thread. Her argument seeks to question the liberal idea that parental choice is a good that trumps all others, a view which I think you come perilously close to endorsing. Shouldn’t all presumed goods be, in principal, subject to critical analysis? By introducing the example of PGD, Eve brings to the discussion a type of fetal interference that raises questions about the supposed good of individual parental choice. Put simply, is it ethical to allow mothers or parents to interfere in the essence of an unborn child (to inscribe skin colour etc)?
A properly moral consideration of this issue has to go further than a reductionist weighing of 'pro-choice' versus 'anti-choice', which I think is the binary that you are arguing from. On the contrary the moral considerability of the unborn child has to be brought into account, admittedly on asymmetric terms, since an unborn entity, whilst morally considerable is some argue, not a fully moral subject.
I think individual parental choice is important, but not beyond critique.
PH
Post a Comment