Global abortion rights
Globally there is a huge problem of a lack of access to safe abortion and a quarter of the world’s women live in countries where abortion is criminalised more or less completely, often only allowing abortion if the life of the woman is at risk.
This contrasts with approximately 78,000 deaths each year that are the result of women being forced to have unsafe abortions. This means that a woman dies from an unsafe abortion about every six minutes. The “pro-life” campaigners continue to a have a lot of deaths to answer for.
The World Health Organisation estimates that 19 million of the 46 million pregnancies that are terminated every year are terminated under unsafe conditions or in an adverse social or legal climate. This represents a huge threat to the wellbeing of women throughout the world.
It is worth pointing out as International Women’s’ Day approaches that the fight for a woman’s right to choose is as urgent and as necessary as ever.
In many countries abortion is treated for all intents and purposes as a criminal offence in virtually all circumstances. In Europe this includes the Republic ofIreland, Northern Ireland, and Malta.
In Poland, abortion is restricted except on medical grounds, risk to life, and where pregnancy results from sexual violence. Generally legal abortions only take place in the most extreme circumstances. This leads to a lot of women needing to travel to neighbouring countries such as Spain and Britain to obtain abortions.
Last year, European court of human rights ruled in favour of Alicia Tysiac, who had sued the Polish government because she was denied an abortion even though medical advice had warned that if she went through with the pregnancy it would severely impair her sight. She was awarded £17,000. There is a strong possibility she will go completely blind (she suffered retinal damage after the birth).
It is estimated that 200,000 Polish women resort to backstreet abortions every year. Whether this will push the Polish government into relaxing these draconian laws only time will tell!
Portugal, in last year’s referendum, voted (59%) to permit abortion on demand during the first 10 wks of pregnancy There was a maximum prison sentence of three years for a doctor and woman found guilty of abortion. In 2001 seventeen women where put on trial for having an illegal abortion. A nurse was convicted and sentenced to seven and a half years for performing abortions.
In Italy, recently, hundreds of women and pro-choice activists gathered in
Naples to protest against a campaign to change the abortion law by lowering time limits and a police investigation and interrogation of a woman after she had an abortion. It has become an election battleground with Silvio Berlusconi stating that he will be standing on an anti-abortion platform.
Pro-choice demonstrators took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona in Jan demanding the depenalization of abortion and that abortion should be performed in and covered by the public health system.
Spain’s abortion law allows women to abort in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy in the case of foetal malformation, in the first 12 weeks in case of rape, and theoretically at any point if their mental or physical health is at risk.
The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out on the basis of risk to the mother’s health at private clinics (they carry out 90% of all abortions). In January of this year, doctors and nurses working in private clinics went on strike for a week to protest the law changed in line with many other European countries, where a woman can choose to have a termination within the first three months of pregnancy.
At present, the doctor’s judgment can be called into question by the authorities and in recent months more than a dozen medical staff have been arrested on suspicion of carrying out illegal abortions.
In the Netherlands, which has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world, the law permits abortion virtually on request at any time between implantation and viability if performed by a physician in a hospital licensed to perform abortions. This is within a framework which includes universal sex education, easily accessible family planning and a provision of emergency contraception.
With the exceptions of Cuba, Guyana, Puerto Rico, Mexico City (since 2007), Uruguay (since 2007) majority of Latin American countries have total bans on abortion. In Argentina abortion is illegal and is the first cause of maternal death. In Chile, illegal abortions are the first cause of maternal death. It is penalized in all forms, with no exceptions. Things are similar El Salvador; Venezuela abortion is only permitted to save the life of the woman.
In Bolivia, abortion allowed if the pregnancy is result of a rape, or sexual abuse or when the health or life of the woman is at risk. At the end of 2007, 255-delegate Constituent Assembly under President Evo Morales narrowly avoided adding a ban on all abortion to its new constitution, regardless of the dangers to a woman’s life.
If the text (”from the moment of conception”) had been passed then Bolivia’s already restrictive law would have made it impossible for women to obtain an abortion in any circumstances.
Nicaragua passed a blanket ban on abortion In Oct 2006, in all circumstances. This was wholeheartedly supported by former Sandinista and betrayer of women’s rights, President Daniel Ortega. Since November 2006, 82 women have died because of botched illegal abortions but say women’s groups this is the tip of the iceberg.
And it’s women living in abject poverty who are suffering this inhuman law while wealthier women can get around it. If a doctor is caught performing an abortion he/she could get between 2-3 years in prison and the woman could be liable for 1-2 years in prison.
Protocols published December 2006 stipulated that if a woman, say, with an ectopic pregnancy could indeed have a legal abortion but fear and confusion about this law is rife so it seems there’s a “better to be safe than sorry” approach by the medical profession. In Sept 2007 there was an assembly vote to uphold this law. Demonstrations were held and many women attended to demand a woman’s right to choose while majority voting were elderly men supporters of Catholicism.
There has been a plethora of attacks on reproductive rights in the United States including late abortions. The Federal Abortion Ban is a criminal ban on certain second-trimester abortions with no exception in cases when a woman’s health is at risk. The US Supreme Court upheld this Ban last year. This is further erosion of Roe v Wade (2008 is the 35th anniversary of the groundbreaking law).
The legal status of the fetus is elevated as it defines a “child in utero” and as “a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”. This case represents a brutal and tragic crime but singular events make exceedingly bad law. This seems to me to be a “back door” attempt to attack abortion rights. And these laws have been used to criminalise women for having abortions or for endangering the fetus (drug taking, for example).
There have been further attacks such as the global gag rule which denies U.S foreign assistance to organisations which fund abortion services, an emphasis on “abstinence only” education, state mandatory lecture about impending abortion (”cooling off period”), restricting public funding for abortions, freezing funding for family planning programmes, making it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion, attacking condom use, attacking the Pill and other forms of contraceptives as interfering with implantation of fertilized eggs.
The Bush administration is chipping away at abortion rights and reproductive rights overall. These attacks threaten the health and lives of women. Bush has been packing the courts with anti-abortionist supporters. And with it being an election year, the battle lines are being divided over abortion with Clinton and Obama supporting Roe v Wade while McCain being against.
In the UK, Baroness Masham’s anti-choice amendment to the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill was heavily defeated in the Lords but is expected to come back to the Commons very soon. The MP Nadine Dorries wants to lower the time limit from 24 wks to 20wks; others want it reduced to 13 wks. Amendments can be made at almost every stage but the timetable of the Bill will only be known stage by stage.
In Ireland, many women find ways to overcome the restrictive and oppressive abortion laws. It is estimated that over 6,000 women (probably more as women travel to other parts of Europe as well) women travel to Britain to obtain an abortion and many have to borrow the money to travel and many will need late abortions due to the red-tape and bureaucracy.
A 2000/2001 survey carried out by Marie Stopes found that women from Northern Ireland would have preferred the abortion to have taken place there as opposed to having to travel (95%) 44% had to borrow the money and 95% supported the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to be extended to Northern Ireland. Only 34% had consulted their GP and felt dissatisfied and mistrustful of their GP.
Women on Waves (an organisation set up in 1999 which has a mobile clinic easily loaded onto a ship enabling it to travel to where it is needed globally) docked in both Dublin and
Cork during June 2001. They were confronted by hundreds of women wanting appointments and information regarding sexual health. They had to turn many away. This is the reality of suppressing vital information about sexual health including access to free, safe legal abortion.
Last year “Miss D” had to go through the stress of having to fight to be allowed to go to
Britain for an abortion. The High Court in Dublin ruled there were no statutory or constitutional grounds for preventing “Miss D” travelling to Britain.
We need a pro-choice campaign, which encompasses all of these demands, and that women being able to control their own reproductive rights are paramount. We need to fight against the dictates of religious and state morality and for a system, which supports sex education, free and accessible contraception including the morning-after Pill.
Websites:
http://www.abortionrights.org.uk
http://www.plannedparenthood.org
http://choiceireland.blogspot.com/
http://www.safeandlegalinireland.ie/
http://www.naral.org/
http://safeandlegal.blogspot.com/
http://www.reproductiverights.org/
(This article appears in this month’s Labour Briefing)
I feel ashamed when I see Nicaragua after all the wotk I was involved in helping the Sandinistas. Daniel Ortega is really showing his new colours now. Repeating what has been said time and time again, the majority of the legislators are men.
Alongside this is the woman in Jo’burg SA who was sexually assaulted by a crowd of taxi drivers with on lookers laughing and applauding - why? She had the teremity to wear a mini skirt, which is apparently ‘against tradition’.
Louise your pro choice camapign is spot on but I wonder how amny light years we will have to wait.
Comment by Pete Brown — 7 March, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Pretty much agree with you Pete.
Ortega was never pro-choice even in his revolutionary days. Though feminists and womens orgs (as always then and now) are at the forefront of campaigning for abortion rights in Nicaragua and they deserve our support and solidarity.
Ortega is a f*cking disgrace and his wholesale capitulation to the right-wing…
“Louise your pro choice camapign is spot on but I wonder how amny light years we will have to wait”.
Indeed!
Comment by Louise — 7 March, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
You Don’t Have To Be Religious To Be Pro-life!
Live & Let Live is an atheist and agnostic group, which opposes war, the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion and poverty, because they are violations of the Right to Life and not because of any religious or moral reasons. We believe that ethical conduct between people engenders Respect, Peace, Justice & Reconciliation. We see The Right to Life of people as inseparably entwined and interconnected with the right to a life free from cruelty, injustice, violence, poverty, fear, discrimination and oppression and we support tolerance of different ways of living, cultures, race, and beliefs. We use the ‘common ground’ approach with our opponents and campaign in a positive spirit unhindered by religious or party political dogma to stop the State Killing.
The Right To Life
The Right to Life is protected by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 therefore, we oppose any violations to the Right To Life on the grounds of human rights and not on a religious or political basis, whether by:
1. War - we oppose all war (and the arms trade) and in particular the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and urge that the Troops Come Home! We promote peaceful, non-violent conflict resolution and support the Movement for Abolition of War.
2. Abortion - We oppose abortion (where a woman’s life is in real and imminent danger, though we accept the need to separate the mother and child by early delivery, making every attempt, if possible, to save both) and we support women’s rights, free access to non-violent and confidential family planning, including free contraceptives and sterilization. We support people who choose to give their “unwanted” baby for adoption and we support pro-life feminism and the consistent ethic movement.
Our opposition to abortion is based on the scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation (see Natural History Museum) and not on any religious or moral grounds.
3. Euthanasia - We oppose medical treatments that cause death to patients and any move to introduce assisted suicide or euthanasia. We campaign to ensure that mentally and physically disabled, infirm and elderly people obtain their full rights and that their right to life is fully respected.
4. Eugenics - we oppose the eugenic practice of screening pregnant women for disabled babies in time for an abortion. We support ethical scientific experiments and condemn vivisection of born and unborn disabled humans, and other animals and gene therapy that abuses unborn humans.
5. Executions – we oppose the death penalty in all countries and extra-judicial killings whether the deaths occurred in custody e.g. in prisons or police cells or elsewhere.
6. Globalisation - we are anti-globalisation, because it, controlled by World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund and World Bank contributes to world poverty that causes millions of deaths. We expose the link between population control, profit making and government social engineering, which lead to violations to the right to life.
HUMAN LIFE IS SACRED
“Man creates his own values, his own rational and effective attachments and his own motives for action. To live is not enough, he needs reasons to live. But without life there are no reasons to live, no values. Life, therefore, as the essential condition of all values, must be cherished above them all, and must be held sacred. Any counterargument is invalid because the mind that advances the argument would not be there if life were not respected….. As sacred, human life must not be destroyed, or played with, or impaired, or wilfully and callously exposed to afflictions.”
by GIOVANNI BALDELLI from his book ‑ “SOCIAL ANARCHISM”.
Difference & Diversity
Live & Let Live – an old fashioned phrase – new way of living
When a person uses the phrase “Live and Let Live” it is an indication that they are tolerant of people different from him/herself. You don’t have to agree with how someone else lives - just show them tolerance and respect, that’s enough. Leaving people alone who are different from you (especially a minority group) shows maturity and common sense. Further, by supporting people who are different is a way of showing that we all have a common bond - the bond of humanity. Then going the final step and working to overcome the prejudices and hatred that some people show towards those who are different, is a way of promoting civil rights and the dignity of all people.
The Aims of Live & Let Live
By using the media, e.g. national and local media and alternative media e.g. Indymedia UK, talks in schools and groups, stalls, public meetings, Freshers Fayre, leaflets and briefings we promote the secular case for the consistent right to life and for the right to different and promote respect for diversity. We tackle subjects ranging from euthanasia of disabled unborn babies to gay men facing capital punishment in countries that oppress gays.
We challenge organisations like Amnesty International & Human Rights Watch to be consistent in their support for human rights – see the briefing by Debby Wakeham called “The Right To Know – A Briefing on Abortion”.
3. We challenge the mass media stereotype of pro-life people all being religious. We are pro-life and not religious - we are atheist and agnostic! We expose the censorship of secular pro-life views from non-religious consistent right to life campaigners, for instance, the human rights case against abortion. The so-called “Pro-Life” movement, e.g. SPUC and Life who call themselves pro-life have done more harm than good to the cause for the right to life. We say that, is not really pro-life as they exclude the rights of the disabled, they don’t mention war, death penalty or poverty.
4. With regard to abortion, we highlight the circumstances that drive women to consider abortion in the first place, for instance pregnant women losing their jobs or accommodation. Also, we acknowledge the pain of those who have lost their offspring to the abortion industry. We’re not judgemental towards women who have abortions – we understand their plight and have compassion for how they feel before and after the abortion.
5. We want to bring the Human Rights Act 1998 to life in society through our initiative called Civil Rights Action. We will work with people who have evidence of civil rights abuses, publicise their cases, provide support for victims of abuses and organise civil rights presentations to raise awareness of rights abuse. We want people to get in touch with the idea that Rights and Liberties are for EVERYONE – so we will provide information leaflets, civil rights briefings and conduct talks / debates in public.
Comment by Peter Wakeham — 7 March, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
Abortion is a class issue. If abortion were illegal, rich people could still get them, and poor women would face unsafe methods and death. The decision to have a child is, more often than not, reduced to an economic decision (it shouldn’t be!).
We need a society where the right to full reproductive healthcare is connected to the right to economic stability. People should have the right to an abortion and the right to have a stable family! Right now, MOST people have neither.
I say MOST because even in the countries that are marked “least restrictive,” the restrictions are enormous. In over 70% of counties in the US, there is no right to an abortion. Even in areas with legal rights, the actual access to a safe abortion is extremely limited.
The abstract drivel above is strange. Abortion is a right, and there should be the right to have a family as well. We need socialism!
Comment by Buy Crack Online! — 7 March, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Doesn’t matter what you hedge it around with, anti abortion is anti woman. You’re saying that the rights of a cluster of cells outweigh the rights of a born and existing woman. She hasn’t rights over what happens to her own body, unlike the man who retains complete bodily autonomy. This obviously makes women lesser citizens.
Why the “” marks around the word unwanted? Don’t you believe that women can NOT want a baby and NOT want to be pregnant?
Nice verbiage, shame about your true agenda.
Comment by Rusu — 7 March, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
You’re saying that the rights of a cluster of cells outweigh the rights of a born and existing woman.
A cluster of cells? You’re very ignorant. After about ten weeks they have arms and legs.
I could claim that you are just a cluster of cells so why should anybody care about you?
Comment by Ed D — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
Late term abortions on girls are the most rife in the third world.
Most abortions are anti women.
Comment by Ed D — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
#3 claimed that, “…Our opposition to abortion is based on the scientific fact that human life begins at fertilisation (see Natural History Museum)…”
Hogwash!
Human life began only once with the rise of the first humans, something which, if you spent *any* time there you might find is a central part of the Natural History Museum’s mandate…
‘Scientifically’ you’d be better off defending the rights of toe nail clippings if you want to carry on the argument on these terms. But I really don’t want to encourage you.
Comment by BatterseaPowerStation — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
Er, no Ed, as Rusu says anti-abortion is anti-women.
At the end of the day it is a woman who makes that decision and her right to choose. It’s as simple as that….
Comment by Louise — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Ed, I’m no’ thick and I understand my reproductive processes better than you do.
If having arms and legs means something is a sacred form of life, I hope you’re Jain.
Comment by Rusu — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
I agree with Rusu, a woman CAN not want a baby and CAN not want to be pregnant, which is why
many women and some men use contraceptives to prevent pregnancies and so they should if they so wish.
We don’t put the rights of preborn humans above that of women we say that both have rights, that is what makes this issue so a difficult one. We don’t believe in what is called duality thinking i.e. either /or. It’s not a case of a woman’s rights OR the preborn human rights it is a case of Women’s Rights AND the right to life of preborn humans, some of whom are female.
The fact of the matter is that women must have improved rights if women are to obtain equal rights with men -
but there is also another fact - a preborn human is a live growing creature which is sentient and has worth.
and a fact is a fact no matter how inconvenient. We have to find ways to further the cause of women’s rights and like the early feminists of the 19th century we have ensur women’s rights are protected without the necessity of abortion.
Emma Goldman
“The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief…So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.”
Mother Earth, 1911
Victoria Woodhull
The first female presidential candidate was a strong opponent of abortion.
“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.”
Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly 2(6):4 December 24, 1870
“Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.”
Wheeling, West Virginia Evening Standard, November 17, 1875
Alice Paul
The author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (1923) opposed the later trend of linking the E.R.A. with abortion. A colleague recalls her saying:
“Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”
Mattie Brinkerhoff
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.”
The Revolution, 4(9):138-9 September 2, 1869
Comment by Peter Wakeham — 7 March, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
Louise’s starting point is the key - it’s a woman’s choice. So when Mr Wakeham (#3) states ‘With regard to abortion, we highlight the circumstances that drive women to consider abortion in the first place, for instance pregnant women losing their jobs or accommodation. Also, we acknowledge the pain of those who have lost their offspring to the abortion industry. We’re not judgemental towards women who have abortions – we understand their plight and have compassion for how they feel before and after the abortion’, I don’t pretend that abortion is a good thing, nor do I oppose it as Mr Wakeham does, thus making the decision for her. I say its her choice to determine her life. It’s not as though it’s a choice like ‘which holiday paradise shall I go to.’It’s an awful choice which some women will choose to carry on till the birth of the child and others will choose to terminate. I respect the choice in every single case, including the woman who is opposed to abortion as a matter of principle, because it is her choice, not mine.
Only a pro-choice framework allows society to be non-judgemental in a way that Mr Wakeham claims to be.
Comment by victor — 7 March, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
Er, no Ed, as Rusu says anti-abortion is anti-women.
And every RR elected representative is anti abortion.
Comment by Memories — 7 March, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
Where would people here draw the line? Obviously you wouldn’t allow a woman to kill her own baby after it was born, so you believe in some limits?
Comment by Ed D — 7 March, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
Peter, you make some very interesting comments and I am very intrigued by your quotes. However, they rest on a wrong assumption, which is that a woman is always 100 percent in control of her own fertility and only her pecuniary circumstances prevent her bringing a child to term.
Comment by Rusu — 7 March, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Ed, there’s already a limit, which is why there are laws against infanticide.
As for Respect Renewal, this might be a vital concern of mine if I was a member of Respect, which I am not.
Comment by Rusu — 7 March, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Under Chavez’s presidency the Venezuelan parliament voted against legalising abortion and also lengthened jail terms for adultery. Sex workers’ unions are banned.
While people say that Bolivarianism is feminist (since it involves women in the process/makes it easier for them to get work, etc.), it has done nothing in terms of these important women’s rights issues.
Comment by David Broder — 8 March, 2008 @ 8:38 am
By the way, look at look at Venezuela’s 2005 Penal Code on Adultery (a reform of the 2000 Code, also brought in under Chávez)
“Article 394: The adulteress will be punished with imprisonment of between three months and three years. The same punishment will apply to the accomplice in the adultery.
“Article 395: A husband who has a partner in the family house or outside it, if the deed becomes well-known or notorious, will be punished with imprisonment of between three and eighteen months. The punishment will revoke legal marital rights. The partner will be punished with imprisonment of between three months and one year.
“Article 396: If the spouses are legally separated, or if the guilty spouse had been abandoned by the onther, the punishment of the crimes detailed in the above articles will be, for each guilty party, imprisonment for between fifteen days and three months.”
Comment by David Broder — 8 March, 2008 @ 8:51 am
I think what we’d all really like to know is whether A.Newman, K.Ovenden, G.Francis and R.Hoveman are going to publicly defend their historic positions on abortion rights for women, or not, as it were.
Comment by prianikoff — 8 March, 2008 @ 10:21 am
That map is not entirely accurate because it doesn’t distinguish between what’s legal and what’s actually possible. There are entire provinces and states in Canada and the US that don’t have abortion clinics.
Comment by djn — 8 March, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Whilst I can empathize with the Live and Let Live campaign I think it shows a romantic view of pregnancy, babies and why women have abortions. We should be more honest about terminations too. It is not a cluster of cells, it is a potential baby and that is the point - a baby, a potential person -a baby for the mother to look after against her will or circumstances. If it was a cluster of cells then there would hardly be an argument, clusters of cells are really not the issue, the issue is women not wanting to be a mother at that point.
At the point of conception there is potential for a baby to be born, we all understand and know that - sometimes not all fertilized ova can produce embryos and not all embroyos become fetoteses - inhabitual abortion happens in many pregnancies however as the mother is the host to the feotus it should be here decision whether the feotus becomes a baby or not and really that should be the end of that. In the past (and in many countries throughout the globe) women terminate their own pregnancies through poisons and inserting instruments into their uteruses this can be dangerous and perilous, though there are more successful terminations than unsuccessful terminations practiced every day. Many women have to turn to other women, men and medical professionals to assist them again the majority are successful but are dangerous and with peril and can be expensive. This cannot be tolerated.
And yes whilst rich women can always find a doctor, nurse or midwife to help them it comes at a cost - an expensive cost, abortion should be safe, legal and FREE regardless of your economic status. In the film Vera Drake, the rich woman was totally and utterly ripped off by the physician who exploited her vulnerability where Vera Drake preforms the terminations as a community and civic service to “girls in trouble”.
Women need to have abortions and women have used abortion as birth control since there have been women and it will always happen either legally or illegally. The issue is illegal abortions cause mutilation, illness and death. Where is the Live and Let Live position on this. Unwanted children and babies also can grow up to have unhappy lives, look at the child poverty in the world. Whilst abortion will not neither should solve the problems of child poverty please do not underestimate how many unwanted children are born in the world. We can have very advanced transitional demands about children, poverty, homelessness, men’s violence towards women etc etc but we have to also live in the near and now.
Even under a society that is organised so everyone’s needs are met there will still be abortions. It is imperative to women’s liberation and peace of mind.
A wanted pregnancy is something to celebrate and is exciting and unwanted pregnancy can cause much heart ache and sadness and can have terrible consequences.
Comment by cat — 8 March, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
#11 - Peter Wakeman
I think these are misuses of the quotes. The issue here was about contraception and birth control. Women had no access to contraception therefor there was only abortions to fall back on and as I have already said, abortions practiced by women themselves or by abortionists can be dangerous and perilous and until very recently the most common form of birth control in the countries where birth control is expensive, inaccessable and/or illegal it continues to be the most common form of birth control despite its illegal status. That is why socialists, feminists and activists campaigned so hard for contraceptions. But for many reasons on top of contraceptions you need to deal with unwanted pregnancy once the conception has already happened. If it is dealt with by a medical professional - it is legal, safe and free then it should not cause much harm to the mother. It would of course be better if contraception was used more efficiently and effectively however our sex lives can be perilous too and like many things in life rarely simple.
I have attached an article I wrote some years ago about the battle for abortion. Please feel free to read and comment.
http://www.redflag.org.uk/articles/isfive/is5abortion.html
Comment by cat — 8 March, 2008 @ 4:08 pm