More like this
For many women, abortion is no big deal
As MPs vote on the abortion limit, Caroline Carter asks why some voices are rarely heard
Guess what these women are talking about: "As soon as I came round from the anaesthetic I felt amazing - invigorated and positive"; "The procedure itself was uncomfortable but interesting and I feel lucky to have had the experience."
Liposuction? Breast augmentation? No. Abortion. Both of these women are describing their experiences on the website of the pro-choice campaign group Abortion Rights.
Sheer honesty such as this is a rare commodity in the pro-choice community. We might like the fact that abortion exists, but we keep a tight rein on our enthusiasm. The best prevarication is: "Of course it's a terribly difficult decision for any woman,” but, really, we're silently scoffing, "A baby!? You must be joking!"
Of course, abortion is a hugely traumatic and confusing prospect for many women. But for others, it's not. It's not a soul-wrenching, hand-wringing ordeal. For plenty of women it's a no-brainer. I have friends who've agonised longer and harder over what to wear for a date than whether or not to bring a new life into this world.
Conventional wisdom dictates that abortion is, at best, a necessary evil; at worst, 'barbaric', or 'foeticide'. Those are the words of Nadine Dorries MP, spearhead of the nattily titled '20 Reasons for 20 Weeks' pro-life campaign. Today that campaign will be tested when MPs vote on lowering the current 24-week limit on abortion to 20 – one of the many issues included in the Human Embryology & Fertilisation Bill.
Britain's upper limit for abortion is extremely liberal compared to the rest of Europe, where it hovers around 12 weeks. Abortion is hardly taboo: the media talk about it all the time. Yesterday, the Sunday Telegraph reported that "thousands of woman have had four or more abortions". So why don't we hear more from those women who find abortion 'positive' or 'invigorating'?
If the pro-life lobby emerges victorious after Tuesday's vote, those women will find it even harder to speak out. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
I guess the time limit is about being human. It always strikes me as hypocritical when abortion is discussed - ON BOTH SIDES!
The habitual slut, getting preggers by rote, discarding a human life, whether just divided cells or showing signs of humanity, or the distraught victim of rape or incest...where do we draw the line?
Then the pro lifers who think nothing of supporting a death penalty for real human beings ( who I assume are real by virtue of having survived 42 weeks in the womb and now have a name) - which of the options above are right?
This is nothing to be legislated...abortion should be the sin that rests on each head as each head sees fit. The law should simply say - we will not collude with sinners in setting dates for abortion. Each woman must proceed on their own, without our support or sanction. It is none of our business. Just like there is no law stating whether we are to eat breakfast cereal or not. Then we will have truly separated Church from State. Isn't this what the whole debate is about? Whether we answer to GOD or a cock?
Having had a miscarriage, which confused and depressed me, for quite some time, I realized it was my body' and mind dealing with the grief over it, I'd personally hate to live with the choice of an abortion.
I understand the necessity for some women to make other choices, but, like a "bad trip', I am told it can come back to haunt you.
It's a woman's right to choose. That said, the rent-a-mob of young women outside parliament seemed under the impression that they were fighting for the right to choose, a battle their mothers' generation won decades ago.
I object to the media implying that only religious people are opposed to 24 weeks. I, as an atheist, also find the idea of a six-month-old foetus being aborted unacceptable. That's two thirds developed, and they have been observed kicking, belching, smiling, frowning, swallowing and generally doing things a baby does.
When we insist that animals are slaughtered humanely with a quick death from a bolt gun, how come a six-month-old foetus can be sliced up and the bits removed without a thought?
There's a reason why the limit is 12 weeks in Europe, and those who fought so vociferously for retaining 24 weeks [6 months] should really think more deeply about it actually means.
As a male, I have no right to dictate what women do with their bodies [neither do other women] but we all have a right to an opinion on what constitutes cruelty, unnecessary suffering and just sheer inhumanity. If no one argues that the morning after pill has to be the preferred option after contraception, how come 6 months is thought acceptable when foetuses of less than that have survived?
It would be useful to have a balanced view. No doubt there are also women who have had a negative experience or who have had regrets and would not repeat it. The fact that the limit in Britain is 24 weeks is neither here nor there, surely the question should be asked why is the time difference so disparate and if it is right. If there really are women out there who can agonise longer over what clothes to wear than the time they take to decide to have an abortion it is indeed a sad reflection on British society.