We were disappointed to read the evidence free and emotive piece published on this site last week by Marko Atilla Hoare.
By Emma Burnell and Christine Quigley
We were disappointed to read the evidence free and emotive piece published on this site last week by Marko Atilla Hoare.
If those who wish to present a case against abortion wish to do so on a site that prides itself on producing evidence based analysis, they will have to do better than simply asserting abortion is “tragic”, “monstrous” or invoking Ammonite Gods requiring child sacrifice.
Emotive words are easy when a subject is emotive. They have their place in campaigning, in the pulpit and in pulp fiction.
But when it comes to public policy we would prefer to stick to the facts. We could write a pro-choice piece about the tragic choices women are forced to make. About backstreet alleys and coat-hangers; about thirteen-year-old rape victims and fatal foetal abnormalities; about women on the boat from Ireland escaping a repressive and theocratic regime.
But we’re not going to do that, because this blog isn’t the place to. Instead, we’re going to present you with some facts.
Marko tells us that “it really is a baby” and that those of us who don’t see a twelve-week old foetus as a fully-fledged human being are “in denial”.
This isn’t the opinion of the medical community, the law of the land and the general public.
He tries to make the point that abortion is a class issue. It is, but but not in the way he thinks. Working-class women across the world find it harder to access safe legal abortions. For example, in Northern Ireland, where abortion remains illegal, women are being forced into buying unsafe “abortion pills” over the internet because they can’t afford to travel to the mainland for an abortion.
So this illegality is not stopping women from wanting to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but is forcing those on low incomes to resort to more dangerous methods in an attempt to do so.
We believe that all women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to terminate that pregnancy. However, Marko’s characterisation of two adults conceiving a child through consensual sex being a norm deserves challenging.
As Left Foot Forward so graphically demonstrated, 78,000 estimated annual rapes result in an average of just 1,153 convictions. That leaves 76,847 women who can’t legally prove they have been raped if asked to do so when seeking an abortion. In Northern Ireland, where as we have said, abortion remains illegal, just one if five people think abortion shouldn’t be available to rape victims.
Marko is absolutely right when he says that no woman should feel she has to have an abortion. He’s also right to say that our society must do more to support pregnant women. But this sort of emotive rhetoric stigmatises and patronises women and obscures the real questions we have to answer as a society.
We have a continuing national conversation about abortion, and both sides need to evidence their case if the debate is to avoid hysteria. We hope that is what we have done in refuting Marko’s piece. If anyone would like to provide an evidence-based – rather than emotive, judgemental and patronising – case against women having a right to choose, we welcome that contribution to the debate.
Emma and Christine are women ready to defend their right to choose with evidence-based analysis.
25 Responses to “Abortion: How about some evidence-based blogging?”
Ross
There is a very confused tone to his article. He seems to adopt quite logical ideas at certain points but then indulges in a kind of chastising tone towards these theoretical ‘womenfolk’ that I always think is totally futile and patronising when discussing this issue. The 2 issues that stick in my mind above the ones mentioned in other comments are 1) Even if the govt. on behalf of ‘society’ decided that there is brain activity after say 12 weeks, therefore the fetus adopts full civil rights at that point, does anyone really think they could stop women from aborting in an age when there is so much online information about chemical means of doing so? Perhaps it’s not actually the govt’s job to decide for us what is morally or philosophically right, and rather just to provide a guide to behavior and some limits of criminality for extreme cases and the NHS’s job to make sure we don’t kill ourselves via counseling and treating. 2) No-one has mentioned the doctor’s right to choose – some of them are deeply uncomfortable about the ethics of aborting fetus/children with minor disabilities like cleft pallets that may only be picked up at a late stage – do they not have a right as individuals or a profession to be consulted on the law, since the women concerned are not performing the operation of themselves? (That type of ethical issue does not arise with other types of operations – it is somewhat unique in medicine – perhaps the only comparison is the separation of siamese twins?) I do think that the repeated use of phrases like ‘women’s right to control their own body above all else’ has a somewhat sinister tone if you think about some of the implications – if we were to replace the word woman with man and the word body with genetic material, we could have an argument for a man’s right to force an abortion because part of his body is growing inside someone else against his consent – and I don’t think many of us would agree with that? (or at least I hope not) The general right to control your own body is not absolute – we can’t choose to have sex in a public place because it affects other people, we can’t choose to refuse to be stitched up in an operating theatre when a surgeon has already opened us up, we can’t choose to use our body to harm another person’s body by strangling them or jumping up and down on them. While we don’t want to end up in some repressive society like Australia in the 60s where women are told what’s ‘best for them’, I don’t see why a rule of thumb should be interpreted literally in every scenario to the nth degree. Along with control of your body comes a responsibility to manage your own body in a way that is not massively harmful to the rest of your society. e.g. if necessary, I think early termination is far better for mother and society than treating a fetus as if it’s a nameless parasite to be removed at a time that suites the decision makers. There is nothing wrong or weak minded with admitting that we have an emotional response to something which is developing into a child – that’s part of the empathy that make’s us human and provides us with the same impetus to address political problems in our society.
ThisIsTheEnd
I was under the impression that doctors and medical staff already have a conscience clause
Ross
They have a right to fill out some form and refuse to participate in the final act – i.e. the actual pulling out of the fetus with the suction equipment, but not any of the advise or treatment in the build up to abortion. In other words, if someone meets the legal requirements in terms of mental competency, weeks pregnant, age, 2 GP signatures (which are now not difficult to acquire since they are only concerned with ticking the legal boxes) – there is no way you can object to the course of action on ethical grounds other than to refer to another doctor in the same local authority area and this itself is strongly discouraged as ‘bad practice’. The role of counseling is mainly just to make the process easier, not to ask whether the decision has been properly considered or not – which is ‘intrusive’. The ethical objection thing is a hangover from an old law in the 60s which has not been updated to match ‘best practice’ of the medical counsel. So, if for instance, I was a female doctor and on speaking to my pregnant patient I discovered that she had been in a reasonably stable relationship and had been involved in a heated argument with her partner over having a child and while still in a state of rage she had decided to abort the fetus at 20 weeks, rather than some rational medical or financial reason, I would be strongly discouraged by best practice from questioning or delaying the decision or asking why it had taken 20 weeks to come to that decision – so the right to choose is basically supreme and unquestionable in almost all situations, regardless of other considerations. Doctors are asked to conduct a medical procedure but are not allowed the normal sorts of medical opinions they would have in any other sort of procedure and their right to object is really just a right to pass the patient through to the doctor next door, not to put the breaks on. If mother and father knew that they would be legally required to explain why they need an abortion, this would help to prevent the misuse of abortion – I object to the emotive argument ‘don’t you think they already take the decision very seriously’ – that is POST the event, regrets – there should be a social pressure to deal with the issue EARLIER. There are too many abortions in the UK – more than other developed countries that have the same civil rights. I do agree that a final decision must always be the mother since its her body – put that should not mean that medical professionals should have to tip toe around the controversial issue of why these individuals were not responsible enough to deal with the problem themselves before… I think the average is around 15 or 16 weeks. Obviously rape is pretty clear exception to that.
ThisIsTheEnd
“Whilst in a rage wanted to abort a fetus at 20 weeks…” Are you serious? You are aware that the UK doesn’t operate abortion on demand. The, frankly offensive, scenario you painted would be illegal.
Donald Borsch Jr
“safe and legal abortions”. Safe? Tell that to the dead human baby that results from abortion-on-demand. And legality does not denote morality. Naziism was legal. Slavery was legal. Apartheid was legal. Abortion being legal misses the target totally.