| A
WOMANS RIGHT TO CHOOSE |
|
|
| Abortion
Rights – Defended by science, not removed by
religion. It is just over 40 years since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, legalising abortion in Britain. The enactment of this law meant the end to illegal, dangerous, back street abortions for hundreds of thousands of women. It was of greatest importance to working class women who, unlike the wealthy middle classes and rich, were not able to afford to pay for private treatment prior to the change in law. The UK lagged behind other European countries in terms of abortion law reform, relatively liberal laws were passed in Poland (1932), Denmark (1935) and Sweden (1938). However, as the current law stands it is still imperfect; a woman requires the consent of two doctors to have a termination, which must be carried out no later than 24 weeks into the pregnancy, apart from in the case of foetal anomaly (where there is no time limit). However, there are moves to try to amend the present legislation which would further undermine the right of a woman to control her own fertility and determine what happens to her own body. Egged on by some religious leaders, anti-abortion MP's and peers have plans to move amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which is currently going through the Westminster parliament to reduce the time limit to 22, or 20 weeks (many would like to see it reduced much further). They have also called for women to undergo a “cooling off” period and/or compulsory counselling before having an abortion. This is despite the report issued by the House of Commons Science and Technology committee which looked into the issues. That report concluded that there is no basis for reducing the time limit from 24 weeks because survival rates below that gestation period have not improved since 1990 (when the limit was changed from 28 to 24). Not only did the committee not call for a reduction in time limit, it called for improvements that would avoid delays. It recommends that the requirement for two doctors signatures be removed - an unnecessary restriction with no evidence of value in terms of safety. The report also suggests that there is no reason why trained nurses and midwifes could not carry out early medical and early surgical abortions, again with no compromise to women's safety. These proposals by the committee are to be welcomed. They are based on the most up to date medical evidence. Phil Willis, Chairman of the committee said, “we focused on the science, and have done so rigorously”. However, the parliament does not have to follow these recommendations, and we know that amendments trying to restrict abortion rights will be put forward and encouraged by the vocal minority of anti-abortionists. We must remember that the most recent figures show 83% of people in Britain support a woman's right to choose an abortion, but it is still hugely important that the majority speak out. We need a united campaign involving community organisations, trade unionists, student groups and all defenders of a woman's right to choose an abortion, to actively campaign against these attempts to cut back hard won women's rights but also to fight for reforms to make it easier to obtain an abortion. We need to campaign for a major improvement in sex education services, with a complete ban on abstinence only sex education which is based on a religious, guilt ridden view of sex rather than seeing sex as a perfectly natural and enjoyable human activity, as well as greater access to free contraceptives, including emergency contraception, with fully funded advisory services and family planning centres. By improving education and access to contraception, the number of abortions each year will fall, saving thousands of woman from unnecessary worry and anguish. Above all, we need to understand and
expose the philosophical differences that lie at the
heart of this debate. Science tells us that neither a
personality nor a consciousness can exist in any
meaningful terms for a foetus that is terminated, because
no meaningful nervous system has developed in most
termination cases, and even where one has begun to
develop no history of personal experience has developed.
In that sense a foetus is not yet a person, so it cannot
possibly have rights that trump the rights of an already
existing person, i.e. a woman who chooses, for whatever
reason, to terminate a pregnancy. Some religious beliefs
hold that a soul exists from conception, and that
therefore the foetus is a person whose right to life is
greater than the right of another human being to control
their own fertility. We defend the right of individuals
to hold these beliefs, even though there is no scientific
evidence for them, but we should not allow such beliefs
to determine public policy. We also need to be careful not to
fall into the trap of pandering to the language used by
opponents of abortion access to emotionalise the debate
– ‘unborn child’, ‘murder,
‘tragedy’ etc. Abortion is a safe, legal and
straightforward medical procedure and women should have
access to that if they need it without being made to feel
that somehow, it’s a huge decision, or somehow, they
‘ought’ to feel guilty about it. Undoubtedly,
for some women the decision to have an abortion is a
difficult one; for others it’s simply a huge relief. For socialists, progressives,
rationalists and secularists, the right of a woman to a
safe termination, if requested, should be a line in the
sand that is not crossed. |
Leah Ganley
This article first appeared in an
abbreviated and slightly different form in The Socialist
and on the Solidarity website.