Abortion humbug
Stuart Reid says that reducing the time limit on abortion to 20 weeks will make termination more, not less, respectable All you need for an abortion, apart from a live foetus, is a piece of paper signed by two doctors certifying that if a pregnancy goes to term, the physical or mental wellbeing of the mother will be threatened. Without that certificate, abortion is a crime. But a woman will always be able to find two doctors prepared to sign; in the end she will get her abortion. Bloody good thing too, say nononsense Britons. We’re not living in the Dark Ages.
As it happens, I am not a great admirer of no-nonsense Britons. Nor am I in favour of abortion, whether at 20 weeks — the limit now proposed by Michael Howard or at 20 minutes. Since I am deputy editor of The Spectator, I feel bound to distance myself from the agonised endorsement of some abortion that appeared in the leading article of this magazine last week (while at the same time pledging continued allegiance to my editor). That will seem pious, but piety is a vice difficult to avoid in this debate. And not just piety. Abortion gives rise to hysteria and sentimentality, and to unfounded fears and assumptions. We are all guilty. Consider recent events.
When Mr Howard called for the upper limit of abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks (from 24) it was widely assumed that the British people were beginning to rebel against our liberal abortion laws. In some quarters it was even feared that we were about to follow the American example, and that pretty soon we’d have drive-by shootings at drive-in abortion clinics. Worse, shiny-suited, neatly manicured, smarmily coiffed reverends, heavy rings on fat fingers, would start turning up on the steps of No. 10. It’s not going to be like that. We don’t have the moral intensity of Americans, nor do we have their Manichaean certainties. In other words, we are not as good as the Americans, but neither are we as hysterical.
Mr Howard’s intervention will make no difference to what the Pope has called ‘the culture of death’. On the contrary, it will serve to make abortion more, not less, respectable. Reducing the upper limit does not address the core issue — can it be right to take human life on an industrial scale? — but it will make us feel good about our selves, make us feel that we are caring, responsible and mature. Politicians who have difficult encounters on the doorstep will be able to invoke the Howard clause, and in most cases the customer will be satisfied. Hey presto, that’s abortion fixed, and without a debate.
Nor will reducing the upper time limit make much difference in utilitarian terms. It is calculated that of the 180,000 abortions performed in Eangland and Wales each year, only 1.5 per cent occur between 20 and 24 weeks. The more robust pro-lifers, meanwhile, are unhappy that Mr Howard has been given a blessing by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. They fear that a reduction in the upper time limit for most abortions may lead to further horse-trading for more liberalisation in the law on early abortions. That’s what happened when in 1987 David Alton introduced a private member’s Bill to lower the upper limit to 18 weeks. Mrs Thatcher clasped the Bill to her bosom and incorporated it into what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. The Act set a limit of 24 weeks — not 18 — for abortion, but for the first time permitted abortion to term in the case of grave handicap. And what is a grave handi cap? A hare-lip will do. So Lord Alton’s attempt to restrict abortion resulted in its becoming more widely available.
In the present case it is not easy to understand why Mr Howard believes that abortion is wrong at 24 weeks but right at 20. What moral difference does a month make? None: a 20-week-old foetus and a 24-week-old foetus are both alive, and both are human. There are obviously physical differences between a foetus in the early stages of pregnancy and one in the late stages, but at all stages the foetus is alive, and it is human. Since the law now implicitly recognises this, it is hard to see why there should be any limits at all. Partial birth abortion is not permitted here, but why not? If the right drugs are administered, it need cause no discernible pain to the child. The pro-choice lobby is altogether too squeamish, and in settling for limits is, by its own standards, acting in a cruel and arbitrary manner.
This is no longer a Left-Right thing, in spite of Mr Howard’s intervention on behalf of life. The old left-wing mantra that a woman has the right to choose is now heard on the Right, where a god has been made of choice. Whatever Mr Howard’s exact thinking on this matter, abortion obviously commends itself to a certain sort of forward-thinking Tory as a cost-effective solution to a messy problem: the girl has a quick ‘procedure’ followed by a cup of tea, and within a couple of days she is back at her work station. No GDP blues here; no drain on the taxpayer’s purse.
The suffering entailed in the 180,000 abortions carried out each year is seldom factored into the equation. You can’t really express that suffering in terms of pie charts. But we all know and love — and more to the point like and admire women who have had abortions, and we know that abortion can leave a trail of guilt, misery and bitterness. People who believe that the destroying of a foetus is of no more consequence than removing an appendix might take more account of the visible human cost of abortion.
In spite of the excitement of the past week, the debate is not going the way of the pro-lifers. There may be modifications to the law, but abortion will never again be banned. We are either too enlightened for that, or too far gone in decadence. Take your pick.
I’ll go for decadence. The culture of death masquerades as the culture of life. Nothing must be allowed to impede the pursuit of happiness. It has to be said that there is something appealing in this philosophy. Scientific advances make it at least possible that we could all enjoy a life of sensual (and intellectual) delight followed by a painless and fear-free death. Only lifehaters and sexual inadequates can find that disturbing. People like me, in other words.
Next on the menu: euthanasia on demand, followed by compulsory euthanasia. Arm yourselves, oldies.
Previous page
