What "choice"?

21 10 2008
The abortion debate has reared its ugly head once again. Apparently social conservatives and government expediency have joined forces to prevent a debate on further liberalisation of the law. Whenever these issues come up I struggle to decide which side of the fence I sit on. I have no time for people who think that a four-celled embryo is a “life” let alone a conscious one, and I would hate for ideological purity to leave young mothers forced to accept a lifestyle they have not chosen for themselves. But I do think that a life is precious and think that if the foetus is old enough to be “viable” then it absolutely should not be terminated. The combination of those two things leads me to the conclusion that abortion should be allowed, but only in the very early stages of pregnancy. That would allow women who had become pregnant through no deliberate fault of their own to have control over their destiny but also bring the decision to a point where it doesn’t affect a potentially viable baby. The decision as to whether to abort should be “signed off” by a medic and possibly a counsellor of some description, because it really isn’t a decision to be made lightly and on a whim. We should also try and reinvigorate the adoption system so that “unwanted” babies can be placed with loving parents.

The other side of the coin – which is rarely debated – is how so many of Britain’s young women end up with unwanted and unplanned pregnancies in the first place and how so many children come to be brought up by parents who have no interest in their children’s future wellbeing.

We need to get away from this culture (and before people start threatening me with a good lynching, this does happen but obviously is not universal) of a child being a route to additional welfare income or even one of life’s “fashions”. Sensible people plan their children diligently. They plan the timing to coincide with their careers and ability to bring their children up comfortably. It isn’t a question of absolute wealth but of organisation and planning. If the sensible majority are able to get it “right” why can’t others, or more to the point why isn’t everyone as sensible?

The safety net should be just that: a system to help people who have fallen into difficulties through no fault of their own. It should not be for everyone and anyone to tap up because they need a few extra quid a week. Those who are genuinely in need are lumped together with people who just can’t be bothered to use contraception. How can that be “fair”?

It is quite reassuring that despite nearly fifty years of ideological social-liberalism, Parliament still finds itself forced to listen to more “regressive” voices now and again. What a shame that public opinion and the media don’t get a bit more excited about other things.



Actions

Information

23 responses

21 10 2008
Anonymous

“forced to accept a lifestyle they have not chose [sic] for themselves.”

Because pregnancy is something that just happens, like being struck by lightning.

It could be anybody, at any time.

They were just unlucky.

Oh yeah.

21 10 2008
Anonymous

“…women who had become pregnant through no deliberate fault of their own…”

See above.

21 10 2008
Blue Eyes

Typo corrected, thanks.

I chose my words carefully. Unplanned pregnancies clearly do happen even to “careful” people. Must I go into the graphic details?

21 10 2008
Philipa

Actually I agree completely, Blue.

I wonder if you knew would?

21 10 2008
Blue Eyes

I wasn’t sure what you would make of it P, it’s a touchy subject for everyone!

21 10 2008
JuliaM

“Unplanned pregnancies clearly do happen even to “careful” people.”

No contraceptive (other than the word ‘No’) is ever 100% effective, it’s true.

But most – I’d say, probably 85-90% – of these ‘unplanned preganacies’ don’t fall into the ‘ooops, a hole in the condom/antibiotic-reversal of pill/IUD came loose’ scenario.

21 10 2008
Croydonian

I’m just glad that abortion is not the terrible polariser it is on the other side of the Pond.

21 10 2008
Blue Eyes

Julia I would like to hear your proposals as to how the docs would determine who was careless and who was unlucky!

C – yes, and I was wary of posting about it because I would hate the subject to become more emotionally charged than it is already even on these shores, but….

21 10 2008
JuliaM

“Julia I would like to hear your proposals as to how the docs would determine who was careless and who was unlucky!”

Demeanour, other associated health choices, number of previous abortions, quality of the explanation for failure (points deducted on the last for ‘Well, we only ‘ad a fiver, and clingfilm’s the same sort ‘o stuff, innit..?’)…

21 10 2008
Blue Eyes

And what if they did use clingfilm? You wouldn’t let them have an early abortion? So then the mother goes to full term smoking and drinking like there’s no tomorrow because she never wanted the baby anyway?

21 10 2008
JuliaM

“You wouldn’t let them have an early abortion?”

I’m paying for it, remember? So are you. And she’ll be back again…

“So then the mother goes to full term smoking and drinking like there’s no tomorrow because she never wanted the baby anyway?”

Bring back the workhouse, then. Mother stays off the booze and fags, baby gets adopted by decent parents.

21 10 2008
JuliaM

And tyes, I know there’s no chance in hell of that happening.

But I don’t think we are building a better society by saying, of human life, ‘Oh, well, it’s better that she gets rid of it, it’ll cause more problems if she has it…’.

Frankly, I think it cheapens us all. And I say that as a hard-bitten, cynical old cow who has never had a religious conviction in my life.

21 10 2008
electro-kevin

I see very much eye-to-eye with you on your post.

21 10 2008
Crushed

Unplanned pregnancies do happen.

And I will carry that abortion with me forever.

I think the limit should be brought down to the pre-foetal stage. Within ten weks od conception.

Anything more is murder.

21 10 2008
Blue Eyes

Why the ten week cut off? Is it significant?

22 10 2008
Anonymous

deliberately depriving the state of a future citizen is a conscious form of treason.

22 10 2008
Blue Eyes

LOL!

22 10 2008
patently

>> it'll cause more problems if
>> she has it…'.

Julia, you might like to read my contribution to LFAT’s discussion of this subject for an alternative view of the “inevitable” problems…

22 10 2008
JuliaM

“Julia, you might like to read my contribution to LFAT’s discussion of this subject for an alternative view of the “inevitable” problems…”

Indeed, I did. I commented over there too. We must stop meeting like this.. ;)

22 10 2008
Philipa

JuliaM and Blue – I don’t believe you’re having this conversation. Obviously I don’t know Julia but Blue – then bring back the workhouse?? You can’t seriously want that. You are an intelligent caring, sensitive and thoughtful grown-up. I’m amazed you buy into this fantasy that an unwanted baby would be automatically adopted by caring parents and the mother would suffer no side-effects. Or doesn’t she matter?

22 10 2008
Philipa

Oh, sorry, Blue, I thought you’d suggested bring back the workhouse. I know you’ve read Dickens.

22 10 2008
Blue Eyes

P – which bit are you referring to? I am confused!

22 10 2008
Philipa

Yeah me too, that’s kinda been my day today – I need a holiday. All is well dear heart, don’t sweat it, I’m having a bad day x

Leave a comment