Abortion

Imagine that your daughter came to you one day saying that she was pregnant, and didn't know what to do. One option she could consider would be abortion. If this were forty years ago, to have an abortion she would have to go to a 'back street' clinic, where she would have endured the horrors of an unhygienic old wifie who would have disposed of her 'disgrace' by means of a knitting needle and a bottle of gin. Nowadays, although there are many more options open to a girl who is unwillingly about to become a mother, there are also many more barriers.

In order to fully discuss this issue, we must decide what constitutes life. Is an embryo, or a (slightly more developed, usually) foetus worthy of the same degree of rights as an adult human being? When does life begin? There are many answers to that, and it all depends on your view of life.

Biologically, there are a few points we could consider as the beginning of life. Firstly, fertilisation. This doesn't seem to be a satisfactory cut-off point however. For a start, within nature, around 70 of all foetuses spontaneously abort. How then can life begin at fertilisation?

The Warnock Committee decide that at 14 the embryo could no longer legally be experimented on (a slightly different issue, but the ruling is of importance) as at this point the embryo could no longer split into twins or triplets. Also after 14 days the first signs of a backbone begin to appear; the so-called "primitive streak". Is this the point when life begins? In some eyes this could well be it, although at the point the woman would barely be aware anything was happening, as the embryo is still a minuscule ball of cells.

Quickening is another popular place to draw the line. It is the time when many women feel the first fluttering of movement. However this is an unreliable standard, as research shows that the foetus could be moving from several weeks, even if the woman can't feel it.

Viability and birth are the last two milestones. Viability means the time at which the baby can survive outside of the womb, however this has differed from age to age and still from place to place. At the moment, legally life begins at birth, and once labour has started everything possible must be done to try and save the baby. It seems unfair then, that if a baby is born prematurely it must be saved, yet a mother could still choose (if there was threat to her health) to terminate a pregnancy after the time of viability. Therefore it makes little sense to differentiate between the two, for what is physically different about the babies One is inside the womb, the other, out.

The religious views differ, Roman Catholics maintain that life begins at conception, the Jesus Christ became fully human in his mothers womb, therefore, since we have no real way of knowing when life begins, it must as soon as the sperm fertilises the egg. The Church of England, in their synod with the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church agreed, saying life begins at fertilisation. The Church of Scotland has a slightly more fluid view, however they maintain the sanctity of life. God created us "In His image" (Genesis 2) and we must respect that. However they do respect the needs of the mother.

Within a secular context, views differ. There are groups who would say that life begins at birth (which is the legal standpoint) and others who say that any of the previously mentioned markers are as good. Peter Singer, a controversial writer and philosopher, argues that life can only really begin at consciousness. Up until the child is conscious of itself, it is a member of the species Homo Sapiens, certainly, however it does not have person-hood. It is this that really muddies the issue. The issue of person-hood deserves another essay in itself and is not the point of this one.

Once it has been decided when life begins the issue of Abortion and whether it is right or wrong can be discussed.

Pro-life organisations believe that the mother should carry her baby to full term. They therefore believe that life begins at conception, or soon afterwards. One argument used by these organisations is the rationalisation that even before the abortion act of 1967, death rates from back street abortions were falling. Pro-lifers generally believe that "it is not where, or how badly they abortions are performed… Wherever or however they are performed, one life is ended, sometimes two." (Taken from 'LIFE' website.) They argue that legalising abortion will be like legalising hard drugs, because there will always be drug users, so will there always be abortions whether they are 'back street' or not.

One term of the abortion act states that a mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy because of a handicap. This clause could be, and is, interpreted badly by pro-lifers and disabled people, who deem the term "handicap" out of date, a criticism that is upheld by pro-choice groups as well. They alsolabel the term cruel and unfair. They agree that a disabled child and its family need additional support and care, but not that the mother has the right to choose whether she feels she could provide that additional care.

Pro-choice, however, believe that it is the mothers right to choose, therefore if she believes that she could not cope with the burden of a disabled child, and does not believe that she could give it a good life, then it is her right to choose to terminate the pregnancy. This is a partner to the debate about person-hood. Peter Singer is of the opinion that a child, who is seriously disabled, and unlikely to ever have full consciousness, be conscious of themselves or other people, and therefore unlikely to have a normal life can be aborted or, effectively, euthanised up to a few years old. This is one side that could be seen as demeaning the value of life. He gives the child effectively the same value as an animal, unable to ever really empathise.

Until very recently, all mothers were given the option to have testing done for Downs's syndrome, if they were in the high-risk category, i.e. over the age of forty or with a previous Downs syndrome child. This was carried out by the Doctor, sometimes against the wishes of the mother and based on the assumption that if the tests were positive for DS then the foetus would be terminated, again, often against the wishes of the mother. This practice of practically forcing foetal testing (and the resultant abortions) has now been minimised. It is still advised that women of a higher risk should be tested, but it is not obligatory. In this situation, not much respect is shown, either for the expectant mother, or for the unborn child.

One potentially good argument for the pro-choice groups, is that of a pregnancy culminating from a rape. However, the pro-life groups have an answer for this as well. Although it may be believed that in general mothers who are expecting because of rape would want to terminate their pregnancy (or if they want to carry the child to full term, give it up for adoption), this, according to pro-life groups, is not the case. Just as rape is a violation of the woman, so is abortion, thus the woman could become more stressed as a result of an abortion than otherwise.

Pro-life groups would also suggest that, contrary to popular belief, some women may in fact want to keep the child themselves, as a sign of something good coming out of a bad situation. In any case, they argue, the child is innocent, so why punish them for something that wasn't their fault? Pro-choice groups counter the arguments laid before them by saying that although some women may choose to keep their child, however it had been conceived, they may later regret their decision, and take it out on the child. Especially if the woman doesn't want to keep the child, but has to, due to circumstance, then surely the child will suffer if it is not brought up in a loving environment?

The circumstances which the pro-choice groups are talking about may be familial ones, whereby the woman carrying the child is underage and so her parents force her to carry the child to term, or it may be that the abortion act prevents her from seeking an abortion. There are several ways in which the abortion act of 1967 can prevent a woman from seeking an abortion on the NHS. To gain an abortion a woman must be certified by two doctors, i.e. two doctors must believe that either her physical or mental health would be in jeopardy if she were to continue with the pregnancy. The strengths of this part of the act are that the woman can get medical advice before proceeding with her decision. Also because the judgement of doctors is central to the decision to proceed, the practise has become more respectable.

However there are several weaknesses, such as the fact that the woman has to "pretend to two doctors that her health, mental or physical, would be at risk."(Extract from a speech given by Polly Toynbee, at an all-party conference.) Doctors become the moral arbiters in these cases, which oversteps their training and their job description. Also, anti-abortion NHS doctors do not have to acquaint the patient with their views on the subject, they are also under no obligation to refer the patient to a doctor who is not anti-abortion. This causes stress for the woman, as she has to search for another sympathetic doctor. Many doctors deliberately obstruct the free choice of the patient, because they are, for personal or religious reasons, against abortions. Sometimes, if the woman cannot afford to pay to go to the private sector for her abortion, (this option would cost her around £250 in total, (including the operation) to be guaranteed a consultation by two sympathetic doctors, within one hour.) the doctor she consults may obstruct her path until it is no longer feasible for her to abort, as she has reached or passed 28 weeks. After which time she is no longer allowed to abort, unless there is serious risk to either her life, there is a foetal abnormality, or there is "Risk of grave physical and mental injury to woman" (taken from the abortion act 1967). However, these clauses are open to a very wide range of interpretation depending on each individual doctor.

Many women who are forced to give birth to an unwanted child may end up relying on the state for support, both for herself and for her child. Some women who want to get an abortion are poorer, and cannot provide adequately for the child, therefore, instead of voluntarily relying on the welfare state, they try to negate the problem by having an abortion, but they cannot, for any of the reasons mentioned above.

It is a common misconception that the largest percentage of abortions carried out are for women under the age of twenty. However, evidence shows that only 2 of all abortions in Wales and the UK, were for girls under sixteen, this statistic hasn't changed since 1969, two years after abortion was first legalised. Whilst it is true that the numbers of abortions for woman aged between sixteen and nineteen have risen, it is only marginally, from a quarter of all abortions to just 27 in 2001. This is by no means the largest for a group, indeed although the numbers have dropped slightly since 1969, from 40 to 37, the largest group is that aged twenty-five to thirty-four. This shows that teen pregnancy isn't the biggest factor in the increasing demand for more freely available NHS abortions.

One last major argument for the pro-choice groups is that if a woman, who is pregnant with multiple children, feels in any way endangered by her situation, then she can ask for, and receive selective termination. This means that if any woman who would have otherwise suffered from her pregnancy can be assured of a safer birth, wherein there was a greater chance that she and her children will come through the birth alive and healthy. This gives women who are in danger because of their pregnancy a much better chance of survival, along with their babies. Should this situation be seen as an attempt on sacred human life or a loving action in order to secure a good life for the whole family? In this case it is hard to generalise, it can only be up to the individual and their personal situation.

Personally, I believe that Life is sacred. It is a gift. I believe in equality of life for everyone and that it is not fair to discriminate against people in any situation. I believe that we should be able to give women the choice. I don't think Abortion should replace birth control, for a start it is far too mentally traumatising for that, and it is utterly irresponsible of people to resort to that. All in all, whilst I believe that life is sacred and should be preserved as far as possible, I also see that for everyone that will not be possible. I cannot condone the action, but neither can I condemn the person when it is a hard enough act to go through.

The sources I consulted included:

(pro-life (pro-choice website)

National abortion campaign, through the links on the voice for choice page. (Helped with the abortion act information)

Peter Singer, "Rethinking Life and Death"