ABORTION RIGHTS BACK ON THE POLITICAL AGENDA
By Darinka Aleksic, from Labour List
In 2008, the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill through Parliament saw the most serious attempt to restrict abortion rights in Britain in the last two decades. Since then, apart from occasional shrieking headlines about levels of repeat abortions among teenage girls, abortion has generally fallen off the political radar. But this year, in the run up to the general election and beyond, the issue is again set to force its way up the agenda.
With over 100 MPs stepping down from Parliament, the make up of the House of Commons is set to change dramatically - and whichever party holds the balance of power after the election, the balance over abortion seems certain to shift.
Among those retiring are 71 MPs who voted in 2008 to maintain the current 24-week abortion time limit, and reports this week suggest that senior Tories are confident that a Conservative majority of just ten seats would give them enough votes to cut it to 20 weeks. Nadine Dorries, the Conservative backbencher who led the attack in 2008 and favours a 12-week abortion time limit, has declared her intention to re-open the issue adding that she “was always aware that the real opportunity for abortion law reform would arise with a Conservative government.”
But the time limit is not the only issue. A more anti-choice Commons could see the reprise of attempts to introduce mandatory cooling off periods and directive counselling sessions for women seeking abortions, both of which create further delays and obstacles to a process which can already take weeks.
Moves to restrict the availability of abortion on the grounds of foetal impairment could also become a major issue, particularly given current debates around assisted suicide and quality of life for those with severe disabilities. Trevor Phillips has indicated that the Equality and Human Rights Commission intends to consider the “implications of the law on abortion for the way we discharge our duty to disabled people”, opening the door to legal challenges on this basis.
In Northern Ireland, where access to abortion remains extremely limited even in cases of rape, incest and foetal abnormality, opportunities for reform are rapidly dwindling. The withdrawal last year of hard won guidelines on the legality of abortion in the province and the coming devolution of abortion law from Westminster to Stormont will place responsibility for reproductive rights entirely in the hands of local politicians who, whether nationalist or unionist, speak with one voice in their utter rejection of any improved access to abortion services.
In Scotland, Alex Salmond has made clear his desire for a similar devolution of abortion regulation away from Westminster. The SNP has capitalised on disaffection among some religious voters over Labour’s position on abortion and other ‘moral issues’ by emphasising a pro-life stance. Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy’s speech in Westminster last month, positioning Labour as the natural party of religious voters is seen as an attempt to win back Catholic and Muslim supporters, but risks jeopardising the party’s progressive reputation on social issues. So if the law was to change, what would be at stake for the thousands of British women who every year take the decision to terminate a pregnancy? If they live in Northern Ireland, it could mean joining the thousands of women making the expensive and distressing trip to the mainland for private sector treatment.
If they are among the 1.5% of women who need an abortion after 20 weeks - often facing the most exceptional and distressing personal circumstances, they may be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term regardless of the impact on their lives. And if they are among the tiny number of families taking the often heart-breaking decision to terminate a pregnancy of a child with serious abnormalities, they could risk legal scrutiny and political interference in what is already a deeply distressing and personal situation.
With so much at stake it is vital for pro-choice supporters, who make up the vast majority of voters in the UK, to look carefully at the voting record of their MPs, the position of their local PPCs and the platform of their chosen party before entering the voting booth this year.
tell us again how Respects parliamentary representative voted on this issue?
Comment by anabaptist — 8 March, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
This pandering to religious sensitivities over and above the needs of women is shocking.
Comment by Rootless Cosmpolitan — 8 March, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
My daughter was born premature at 28 weeks. She survived because she was born in a teaching hospital equiped with the then latest technology. In those days - 20 years ago - 90% of babies born at 28 weeks died because of lack of facilities. As technology continues to reduce the minimum survival age for premature babies, I can’t help but feel this must have some implications for the abortion time limit debate. Incidentally, I am pro-choice.
Comment by Calvin — 8 March, 2010 @ 10:25 pm
“As technology continues to reduce the minimum survival age for premature babies, I can’t help but feel this must have some implications for the abortion time limit debate. Incidentally, I am pro-choice.”
Being pro-choice means it makes no difference about technological developments. Pro-choice is a womans right to choose whether or not she should remain pregnant. No one else has a say in the matter because it’s her body and her decision.
I just watched the new series about the history of womens liberation on BBC4. Here’s hoping a new generation of women and men will become militant again in the face of these misogynistic attacks on women.
It was interesting to hear about how women formed abortion co-operatives to provide free and safe abortions. Let’s hope that women don’t have to risk breaking the law because of attacks from the right pushing society back into the dark ages.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:33 am
Calvin, why do YOU feel it makes a difference? Like you said yourself, your daughter only survived because she had round the clock intensive, intrusive medical care.
It’s not about the fetus and it never has been; it is about women’s right to control their own body, and not to be forced into pregnancy.
Comment by Lynsey — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:40 am
#3
Calvin is right.
the viabilty argument is of course important, because at the point where a foetus is viable outside the womb, then there is a societal responsibility to it in addition to the respeonsibility and choice of the woman.
Ray as usual just spouts off with no brain engaged: “Pro-choice is a womans right to choose whether or not she should remain pregnant. No one else has a say in the matter because it’s her body and her decision.”
This touting of libertarian individualism ignores the social and collective aspects. In nearly all cultures very late abortion is ilegal, or in practice virtually imposdsible to get due to medical discretion. It simply cannot be only a woman’s choice to have an abortion when a foetus has been carried to a few days fron term, for example, as that would be an elected caesarian, and once the foetus is removed from the womb it would be a baby. Is Ray suggesting that in such circumstances infanticide shoud be only the mother’s choice, unconstrained by society or morality?
of course in circumstances of marginal viablity there should be discretion not to fight to provide intense life support, as whether or not the baby is wanted or unwanted shoudl have some common sense bearing on the choices of the medical staff; but medical technology does have a bearing on this nevertheless
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:40 am
“With so much at stake it is vital for pro-choice supporters, who make up the vast majority of voters in the UK, to look carefully at the voting record of their MPs, the position of their local PPCs and the platform of their chosen party before entering the voting booth this year.”
Couldn’t agree more. Which is why no self respecting progressive can vote Respect.
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:51 am
tell us again how Respects parliamentary representative voted on this issue?
Mostly he hasn’t.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Galloway&mpc=Bethnal_Green_%26amp%3B_Bow&house=commons&dmp=813
Comment by Gene — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:52 am
“Is Ray suggesting that in such circumstances infanticide shoud be only the mother’s choice, unconstrained by society or morality?”
Are you going to raise the kid? The reason the left defend a womens right to choose is because women aren’t walking incubators. It’s typical of your liberal politics that you perceive womens rights as so-called “libertarian individualism”. You sound like just another sexist bloke dictating how women should behave.
You talk of morality but you have absolutely no concern about the what happens to the woman if she’s forced to continue the pregnancy or what will happen to an unwanted foetus. Your morality is an abstract bourgeois concept that has nothing to do with equality or the welfare of women and children.
The reality is that regardless of what the law dictates ruling class women will do as they wish while dictating how working class women should live their lives. The left should fight womens oppression not make quasi religious excuses for it.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 2:20 am
The Right always use scare stories about late abortions but the vast majority of women make the decision to have an abortion very early on. I’m surprised Andy that you’re using an anti-abortion scare tactic to undermine a womans right to choose. Instead of trading in irrational hypotheticals let’s deal rationally with the facts.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 2:26 am
Simon and Gene crawl back to Harry’s Place. Have you so little shame that you will use the issue of a womens right to choose to pursue your Islamophobic campaign of hate? It really is despicable.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 2:30 am
I agree entirely with Ray. But there are a lot of entangled points in the various moves to lower the abortion time. If medical advances mean a complete shift from the rights of the woman as autonomous person to the rights of the foetus then why have a cooling off period to counsel women? The logic isn’t there - for if it is about the rights of the foetus then why should women have to be counselled as, by implication, they, as individuals, have no personal moral stake in this? Further, if the foetus’s rights are central, then women need not accpet this because they are being told they have no stake in their bodies: hence they might as well have an unsafe abortion wihout any moral consideration. Implicity, women are containers holding the foetus and society’s morals (tied to medical advances) makes the call. So we might as well drug pregnant women, tie them down and make them give birth. Logically, you can’t expect women to make moral and reasoned chocies about abortion, while stripping away their rights as autonomous bodies.
If it isn’t about morality, simply about technological advances, then this would need to extend to all areas of life. Patients can refuse life saving or enhancing treatment. We would need to force them to accept it because the medicine is there.
Or is it really about the fear of women’s ability to reproduce and control their own bodies? Afterall, the Tory MP favours 12 weeks - why 12? Why not 1 day? why not 7 weeks and five hours?
70000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. No law stops abortions. But laws regulate which women can and cannot strive to have political and social equality to men.
We need pregancy rights, rather than this focus on the foetus.
Comment by sue manchester — 9 March, 2010 @ 8:46 am
The boundaries are necessarily hazy at the margins, but at the point where a foetus becomes potentially viable outside the womb, we should cease to talk of abortion and start to talk of infanticide. At times infanticide may be a lesser evil, but it would be intellectually dishonest simply to dismiss the question with euphemisms like “choice”. In the early stages of pregnancy, of course, the foetus is not remotely viable independently, will frequently abort spontaneously, and cannot seriously be regarded as a being having “rights” of its own independently of its mother.
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 8:51 am
Francis: I understand your concern for a ‘viable foetus’; but by that logic it would be wrong to allow patients ‘choices’ about medical decisions. If you call abortion infanticide at the point of ‘viability’ (with ‘hazy margins’) then you’d have to call a refusal to extend one’s life suicide. That is the logic of the argument about viability and medical decisions/choice. Further, once you’ve shifted the argument (as you have done) away from women’s bodies to the body of the foetus, you’ve implied that a woman’s body is not as important as that of the foetus.
I agree about the word choice; I prefer rights.
Comment by sue manchester — 9 March, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Sue - I don’t get your logic at all. It seems quite simple to me - once a foetus leaves the womb able to breathe and live, it is a baby. At that point it has exactly the same human rights as its mother - no more, no less. If a foetus is removed from the womb at that stage, that is a birth, not an abortion. So if we are a) in favour of a right to abortion, but b) generally opposed to infanticide, there needs to be some way of distinguishing which is which. I cannot think of any other criterion other than viability. If anyone else can, I’d be interested to hear it.
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Francis: yes I see your point, but the key is you mentioned infanticide. This implies that if a women elects to have an abortion then it is birth if the foetus is viable. But elections for abortions are while the foetus is not able to breath on its own (in the womb). So I am not sure how you are using the term infanticide and in what context? Are you saying that abortion limits should be based on foetus viability while in the womb? This implies the foetus has more rights than the mother. Sorry - I am not clear about the use of your term and its context.
Comment by sue manchester — 9 March, 2010 @ 9:53 am
When does human life actually begin?
What does ‘viable outside the womb’ actually mean?
No new born baby is capable of surviving without adult intervention.
As for a ‘viable foetus’ surely what is viable depends on the level of medical expertise available?
What is viable today wouldn’t have been viable 100 years ago.
What is not viable today may well be viable in 100 years time.
What is viable in a London teaching hospital wouldn’t be viable in the third world.
Maybe human life begins earlier for the rich and powerful.
Comment by anon — 9 March, 2010 @ 9:56 am
“At that point it has exactly the same human rights as its mother - no more, no less.”
This isn’t an absolute right. It’s a decision to be made by the mother. If she decides to allow a doctor to remove the foetus for whatever reason at an early stage then that’s her choice but no one should invade her body and force her. What you are saying is that women who have abortions are killing a so-called “child” but that’s not true. The so-called “child” is still a foetus and would not survive without medical intervention.
“If a foetus is removed from the womb at that stage, that is a birth, not an abortion.”
Wrong! It’s a specialist medical intervention that has nothing to do with child birth. The foetus only has a small possibility of survival even in the event of specialist medical intervention.
“So if we are a) in favour of a right to abortion, but b) generally opposed to infanticide, there needs to be some way of distinguishing which is which. I cannot think of any other criterion other than viability. If anyone else can, I’d be interested to hear it.”
What you are claiming is exactly the argument of the anti-abortionists. They claim that the foetus is a child therefore abortion at any stage is so-called “infanticide”. You’re just pushing the boundaries further back and using specialist medical intervention as an excuse.
The crux of the matter is whether or not a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. If men had to go through child birth and bore the burden of looking after kids then abortion would be available right up to child birth but because women are oppressed in capitalist society their bodies are considered receptacles for carrying foetus’s and their rights are dictated by men.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Sue - it’s a matter of whether the foetus would be able to live, breathe and potentially survive if it were outside the womb, albeit in an incubator. Of course, premature births are much more likely to die in early infancy, especially if care is rudimentary. But that is another matter. There is a public policy issue here - you cannot really have a situation where two foetuses of equal levels of development can be treated so radically differently: one gets the full intervention - incubation, intubation, intensive care, the lot, while the other gets thrown out with the clinical waste.
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Ray - please learn to read more carefully before you jump in. I said “once a foetus leaves the womb able to breathe and live, it is a baby. At that point it has exactly the same human rights as its mother”. That clearly does not apply to foetuses below 5 or 6 months. My son was born before term by a medical intervention - a caesarian section. Had the medical staff proceeded immediately to smother him, even if his mother had asked them to, that would have been infanticide, no?
If there is any line of argumentation that would be a gift to the anti-abortionists, it is the argument that any foetus, no matter how well developed, can be disposed of at will by its mother. Quite apart from the fact that you would not be able to find medical staff - male or female - prepared to do that.
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:35 am
#18
“bore the burden of looking after kids “
This is rather a red herring. I neither regard looking after my children as a burden to be endured, (it is the nmost satisfying part of my life), nor do I do less child care than their mother.
That should have no bearing whatsoever on her reproductive choices
Is ray proposing that pregnant wowmen should not have a right to an abortion if the child is put up for adoption, thus releiveing her of the the “burden” of child care??
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:36 am
Francis - thanks for your considered and clear reply. I understand your position, but I guess, for me, that confirms my point. The rights of the foetus while in the womb take precedence over the woman’s right. This means, by this logic, as said, that those who refuse medical intervention to extend their lives should not be given rights either, because that gives us a public policy where some are given drugs/intensive care and others are not. if ‘we’ value the sancitity of life and decide a foetus has that sanctity at some point, then the same has to be said for the end of life, too. It also means that we might as well tie women down and force them to give birth - that is the slippery slope we could end up on.
For me it is about women’s political and social rights, as Ray clearly puts it. But anyway, let’s agree to disagree and nice talking - have to push on with work.
Comment by sue manchester — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:37 am
“There is a public policy issue here - you cannot really have a situation where two foetuses of equal levels of development can be treated so radically differently: one gets the full intervention - incubation, intubation, intensive care, the lot, while the other gets thrown out with the clinical waste.”
Of course you can. It goes on all the time all over the world due to class inequality but the hypocritical anti-abortionist don’t give a shit about the burden of women in the third world. Well that’s not strictly true, many of them want to see contraception banned so that burden increases.
It’s a womans right to choose whether she should remain pregnant or not. Not yours, not mine, nor the doctors. Unfortunately, to get an abortion women are forced to go through a vetting procedure that can be extremely intimidating and it doesn’t help them make a decision when faced with hypotheticals such as yours.
Even if a foetus is viable who is going to look after it? Invariably society forces the parents and in particular the mother to bear the burden of care. This is condemning a women to become responsible for a foetus she never wanted in the first place. That is morally and ethically reprehensible.
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:38 am
#20 “Ray - please learn to read more carefully before you jump in…”
I see flying pigs.
Comment by Armchair — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:40 am
“Ray - please learn to read more carefully before you jump in. I said “once a foetus leaves the womb able to breathe and live, it is a baby. At that point it has exactly the same human rights as its mother”. That clearly does not apply to foetuses below 5 or 6 months. My son was born before term by a medical intervention - a caesarian section. Had the medical staff proceeded immediately to smother him, even if his mother had asked them to, that would have been infanticide, no?”
That’s a caricature of the abortion issue. An abortion is not smothering children or putting them to the sword like in some Biblical tract. An abortion is a medical procedure.
Francis you’re using the same irrational and emotive language the anti-abortionists use and that only aids their cause. I assume you weren’t the mother having the section, no?
Sue pointed out that regardless of what the state dictates women will continue to defy the law and have abortions when they need to. Lowering the law will condemn thousands more women every year to risk their lives using back street abortionists.
“I see flying pigs.”
You and your personal vendettas Armchair! How many are you pursuing at the moment I’ve lost count?
Comment by Ray — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:54 am
#22
“The rights of the foetus while in the womb take precedence over the woman’s right. “
Actually Sue, once born the baby has rights that take precdence over the mothers: the parents are legally as well as morally required to care for it. That is a societal expectation imposed upon parents. Parents do not have a “right to choose” not t care for a baby; and as such the rights of the woman are already socialy and legally constrained.
A foetus which is viable of independent life once removed from the womb can logicaly be extended the same societal protection.
Ray#s arguments about “who is going to look after the baby” could equaly be extended to new borns; indeed iinfanticide on an indusrtial scale was practiced in Britain during the nineteenth century as a form of familly nplanning, with baby farms where infants were alowed to die. This is part of our history that we tend to air-brush out.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 11:02 am
“Simon and Gene crawl back to Harry’s Place. Have you so little shame that you will use the issue of a womens right to choose to pursue your Islamophobic campaign of hate? It really is despicable.”
You really need to grow up, how about responding to the fact that the record of Respect on this issue is atrocious? Or are you going to stick with silly namecalling? I am not an Islamophobe neither do I have anything to do with that Zionist prick over at Harry’s Place.
I am against religious bigotry and attacks on women’s rights whether perpetrated by brown skinned people (like the Jamaat) or white skinned people (like George Galloway).
This has nothing to do with hate, neither does it have much to do with Islam since Mr Galloway cites the dogma of the Vatican, not the Qu’ran, for why he’s taken such an absolutely anti-feminist stand in this case.
And why are we so against infanticide anyway?
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 11:53 am
#7
“And why are we so against infanticide anyway?”
so we don’t really need to take this person seriously.
George Galloways position has not “attacked women’s rights” he has abstained in parliementary votes, which favours the status quo.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 11:59 am
“so we don’t really need to take this person seriously.”
Seriously, what is the ethical reasoning behind this taboo? There is a continuum of human development between the zygote and a fully grown human being. What is the reason for drawing such a strong distinction between a baby which has been born and a fetus?
Upon what objective criteria do we base our ethical judgements upon killing it? Is it significantly more a ‘person’? Which objective characteristics entitle the baby to more rights than a mature example of a lesser species?
You seem to be suggesting that its completly obvious that killing the infant is wrong? I’m afraid the issue is no where near that simple.
“George Galloways position has not “attacked women’s rights” he has abstained in parliementary votes, which favours the status quo.”
Not if the vote is in danger of passing it doesn’t. If Mr Galloway is returned to the next Parliament, will he be prepared to block Tory attacks on abortion rights by voting against reforms?
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
Ray - if you can find anything irrational in what I have written, I will give you an unreserved apology. I try to be calm, polite and rational at all times, and avoid demagogy. If you would do me the same courtesy, I’d be grateful.
I fear you are just tilting at windmills. I am not an anti-abortionist. I have no problem with IUDs, morning-after pills, abortion on demand for the first trimester, and a liberal abortion regime for the second. But I do not allow political principles (”woman’s right to choose” or whatever) to override irrefutable physiological facts. In the final weeks of pregnancy, a woman is carrying a foetus which, if born, would be capable of survival and normal healthy development thereafter. I cannot see that the legal position for the final trimester can possibly be the same as for the first trimester.
As for Sue’s point - no, in cases where it is a choice between the foetus’ life and the mother’s life (such as serious complications in childbirth), the mother takes precedence, and rightly so.
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
#29
“You seem to be suggesting that its completly obvious that killing the infant is wrong?”
Yes it is obvious, and if you don’t think it is obvious then there is something wrong with you
“Upon what objective criteria do we base our ethical judgements upon killing it? Is it significantly more a ‘person’? Which objective characteristics entitle the baby to more rights than a mature example of a lesser species?”
New born infants create an immediate empathetic bond with their carers, this is partly hormonal as cuddling and human contact releases oxytocin; and also due to the “mirror neuron” pohysiological reraction in the brain. As soon as they are born infants are part of the human community. They are communicating and inter\cting as soon as they are born.
Where does the “taboo” come from against killig infancts? Again this is a physiological empathetic response we have as social animals, and morally reinforced in our society.
the only people who wouldn’t instinctively know why it is wrong to kill babies might be those with high functioning autism, who generally lack such an empathic response, and do not exhibit mirror neuron behaviour
But there is a continuity here, you say you cannot understand why infants shoudl be afforded more rights than animals, the next step is for you to ask why we care for the mentally dstressed; or the physicaly disabled, indeed why do we care for anyone, where does the social tabboo come from against murdering people generally.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
Ray there’s no personal vendetta.
The reality is that you have a consitent record, pointed out to you by other regular contributors, of distorting what people say (either through design or not reading properly what they say), frequently in an over- the-top insulting and personalised way.
When you are shown as being bang to rights you fail to acknowledge this or apologise.
I attempted previously to get you to either explain/ justify or withdraw something I felt was clearly nonesensical you said about another contributor but your response was to ignore me and then pretend you didn’t know what I was talking about.
You set yourself up for the way people respond to you, and then get upset when they do. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out- a lesson most of us learned in the playground.
Comment by Armchair — 9 March, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
Are they a part of the community, what if this is before they are introduced to the community — so that only the family are involved?
Reguardless, don’t you think an argument that the life of the baby should be maintained for the good of the community is rather shallow?
Babies are animals, ones far less of a person than an adult chimpanzee, for example. If we are basing our judgements on internal mental or psychological faculties then surely the developed chimp is closer to an adult human being than the 5 minute old human child?
Of course there are ethical paradigms which would support giving more weight to the life of the child: any which centres around a sanctity of life (human-exceptionalism) argument, or one which argues that the baby is of worth for some criteria outside of itself (social utility etc.) or potential some others.
What I don’t put much stock in is the idea of making serious ethical determinations involving the life and death of millions of children and the lives of their parents (particuarly mothers) based on an claim “it’s obvious”, and certainly not on human instinct but on critical thinking. Of course killing babies seems instinctively wrong to me, but my higher reasoning tells me that this primitive response should be ignored and instead the matter should be seriously questioned.
Although you seem to have dived into an uncharacterist cultural supremicism with this argument. Infanticide is an accepted cultural practice throughout many societies (usually those which are less developed or those with strong cultural ties to such) and is often for far less noble reasons than I am suggesting (being the wrong sex, for example). I’m not saying that the condemnation of female infanticide is wrong by any means, I’d just like to welcome you to the ranks of the enlightened cultural supremicism.
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
Re: the disabled. There really is no continuity here. A disabled person (physically or mentally) is still a person is the sense that they are deserving of equal ethical consideration as any other.
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
#33
Infanticide has existed strngly as a tradition in Britain as well, for example the baby farms of the nineteenth century, or the “changling” myths of the middle ages wich justified it. Indeed in English law infanticide is a seperate crime with lower tariffs than murder, on the basis that it can be committed by people in distress, post-natal depression, etc.
In so far as infanticide is an accomplished cultural practice this tends to be where there is an economic survival heritage to the practice; it is as such a conditioned cultural response to contingent circumstances.
Your reference to the enlightement is telling because the problem of your sort of “rationalism” does indeed spring from the errors of the enlightenment, the dismbodied power of pure reason, divorced from the body and divorced from the social. Fortuntalay we have moved on from that to understand the emotional, social and collective reality of human life.
The baby is introduced to the community from birth, becasue indeed birth shows the stupidity of Cartesian rationality, there is no isolated rational observer, contray to the views of Francis bacon there is no objective rck upon which the scientific obsrver can stand. A baby cannot be considered outside of the scoial as it has to interact to survive, and at the root of that early interaction is emotionl, hormonal and empathic bonding. That participation in the social is part of what makes us human. So individuals only ever exist as part of the collective
So I am not arguing that baby’s shoudl not be killed “fr the god of the community”, I am arguing that babies are part of the community; and we are social animals that have an empathic bond wth each other.
You in contrast seem to have an instrumentaist view of other people when you argue that chimps are closer to adult humans (in fact an adult chimp reaches the level of cognitve development and self awareness of about a two year old child). babies are not part of the community only becasue they are useful but becasue they are full participants in social interaction with other humans (in fact if they don’t have social interaction they die, I don’t mean just food and hygeine, babies die if they are not cuddled, looked at and talked with)
we shoudl no more be able to decide to kill a baby than decide to kill a Trotkyist
Your swipe about cultural relaitivsm is of course misplaced, becasue the nature of multi-culturalism is the negotiating of the spaces between different cultures and belief systems; not an licence for everyone to do what they want. We live in a society there the behavious of killing babies is outlawed; the rationalisations of infanticide are not outlawed. So multi-culturalism is satisfied by people believing that infanticide can be rationaisd, it doesn’t mean they are alowed to practice it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
Up until the point at which the foetus is viable independently of the mother, I support free abortion on demand and an unambiguous ‘woman’s right to choose’. Between the point of this qualitative change in the physical status of the foetus and the birth of the child, the mother’s wishes cease to be the ONLY factor that should be taken into consideration.
Society takes a view about the balance of interests between the now viable foetus and the mother, and this is already broadly reflected in medical practice and the law on time limits, and rightly so.
Those who argue that the viability of the foetus is irrelevant, are saying, in effect, that there is no difference between an abortion at 8 ½ weeks and an abortion at 8 ½ months. As others have pointed out, this takes you dangerously close to supporting infanticide on demand.
Comment by Calvin — 9 March, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
#33
“Of course killing babies seems instinctively wrong to me, but my higher reasoning tells me that this primitive response should be ignored and instead the matter should be seriously questioned.”
by the way Simon, are there any other social tabooos that you feel are based upon primitive instincts that should be ignored and subject to strong questioning?
are there any other categories of people that we should think about killing?
Any other social tabbos that at first you find you have a primitive disgust at, but where your rational mind is prepared to give it a try?
Frankly you are a disgrace to the left and your political organisation (CPGB/ Weekly Worker) should be ashamed of you. But then did not your paper print a letter from people justifying child sexual abuse a few years back. Oh those social tabboos, you find so primitive!
Comment by Andy Newman — 9 March, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
36.’Up until the point at which the foetus is viable independently of the mother, I support free abortion on demand and an unambiguous ‘woman’s right to choose’. Between the point of this qualitative change in the physical status of the foetus and the birth of the child, the mother’s wishes cease to be the ONLY factor that should be taken into consideration.’
But what is viable in a London teaching hospital might not be viable in, say, Somalia.
Why should a foetus in the UK have more rights than a foetus in Somalia?
Comment by anon — 9 March, 2010 @ 8:28 pm
Because rights that have no material basis are not rights at all, but just empty words?
Comment by Francis King — 9 March, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
You talk alot about the bond with the community, but a new born baby is not an active part of the community, its only emotion bond is from the parents. What if they show no such bond? You’re making far to many assumptions here. Neither have you explained how such a relation leads to the right to life.
I haven’t mentioned multi-culturalism.
“by the way Simon, are there any other social tabooos that you feel are based upon primitive instincts that should be ignored and subject to strong questioning?”
Yes, all of them.
I believe that all assumptions, taboos and prejudices should be subject to critical reason.
If you base your ethics on unquestioned taboos then your a very dangerous person.
“are there any other categories of people that we should think about killing?”
How are we to know who we should be able to kill and who we can’t unless we question it, think critically? We can’t.
“Any other social tabbos that at first you find you have a primitive disgust at, but where your rational mind is prepared to give it a try?
“Frankly you are a disgrace to the left and your political organisation (CPGB/ Weekly Worker) should be ashamed of you. But then did not your paper print a letter from people justifying child sexual abuse a few years back. Oh those social tabboos, you find so primitive!”
I’ve never been a member of that joke of an organisation.
The Weedy Wanker did print that, and I have repeatedly mocked their sellers with it.
Andy, you seem to have come to the conclusion that questioning traditionally held assumptions and taboos is wrong. No wonder you hold the enlightenment in such contempt! Questioning a taboo does not mean we will necessarily reach the conclusion that such a taboo is unjustified. But we cannot meaningfully and intellegently conclude what is and is not wrong without questioning.
Question Everything.
Comment by Simon — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:45 pm
I think this argument is being played out in the terms of the anti-abortion movement, which is probably why it’s making people feel uncomfortable (though I don’t think the people contributing are anti-abortion).
I don’t think most women choose to have late abortions, and those that ‘choose’ such a thing are likely to be suffering mental health problems. However I’ve never met these mythical people who have late abortions at the drop of a hat, and get their hair cut afterwards and perhaps buy some shoes. The reality is that only a tiny number of abortions are carried out after about 20 weeks.
I have to say, as a woman I don’t think anyone has the right to make a decision about my medical choices but me. I’m a grown up and if there was a reason for a late term abortion that I’d make that decision and it’s mine to make. I’m the one who will suffer the pain of what I’ve done and so it has to be my decision.
We should be talking about better ways of diagnosing serious problems with a pregnancy earlier and how to support women who might need a late term abortion, as it’s so traumatic, not a theoretical discussion about foetus rights.
Comment by AC — 9 March, 2010 @ 10:56 pm
#40 AC
‘I have to say, as a woman I don’t think anyone has the right to make a decision about my medical choices but me.’
As a matter of interest, at what point do you think human life begins?
Comment by anon — 10 March, 2010 @ 12:14 am
“You set yourself up for the way people respond to you, and then get upset when they do. If you can’t take it don’t dish it out- a lesson most of us learned in the playground.”
Armchair you are always having a beef with someone or other on here. Lately it’s my turn. It really is petty and tiresome. No one is answerable to you so get over yourself.
If you don’t like my opinions then so be it but please drop the snide comments. You make them to get a reaction and then feign surprise when (if I can be bothered) I call you on them. FYI your more sanctimonious posts bore the shit out of me and your endless feuds are tiresome but I let you get on with them because that’s your style and occasionally you post something I agree with.
I reckon that if someone called me a kleptomaniac you’d jump on it and use it as ammunition for this latest feud you’ve got going. How desperate are you that you need to grasp at any put down months later to carry on in this way? You claim this is not the playground but you could have fooled me.
Comment by Ray — 10 March, 2010 @ 2:02 am
#40
Simon shows that for some people being “hard” on abortion rights not only leads to support for infanticide, but in fact for the killing of anyone who isn’t useful to the community.
Simon asks:
“You talk alot about the bond with the community, but a new born baby is not an active part of the community, its only emotion bond is from the parents. What if they show no such bond? You’re making far to many assumptions here. Neither have you explained how such a relation leads to the right to life.”
I don’t know if Simon has ever held a baby, but they are innately interactive, a baby cannot exist without a carer. Baby’s are human, and are part of a collective as soon as they are born.
If baby’s don’t have a right to life, then none of us have a right to life.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 March, 2010 @ 9:47 am
#41
“I’m a grown up and if there was a reason for a late term abortion that I’d make that decision and it’s mine to make.”
Well even in a country like Canada, where there is nio upper time limit on abortion that is not really true. You might make the decision that you want an abortion, but to actually have ne you would need the assistance of the medical profession, who would have their own ethical, moral and social views on it.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 March, 2010 @ 9:49 am
Incidently, the issue of reproductive chices shoudl be much wider than abortion.
Women should have the right to have children as well, while currenty financial circumstances means than many people delay having children for reasons of fincancial insecurity, poor housing, etc.
then when pregnant, women shoudl have the right to their birth choices - currenty theoretcaly available but hugey cnstrained by the lack of midwives. A state funded doola service would also be enormously useful for those who want a trained non-medical companion.
Post-natal support, breast feeding coucillors. parenting cuncillors could make a massive differecne to parents and children in eraly years, and all the resreach shows that these early years are vital to better chances and choices later in life.
Comment by Andy Newman — 10 March, 2010 @ 9:54 am
Ray, if you genuinely believe I have it in for you particularly at the moment, I am very sorry, but that is simply not the case.
As for having feuds with people, this only happens when someone says something negative about another contributor (usually myself as I generally let other people fight their own battles), is then asked to justify it or retract but fails to do so.
Ironically on the one occasion when I did this and eventually got an apology, you, Ray, went out of your way to point this out to the individual concerned because you were getting flak from the same individual.
You are right, nobody is answerable to me or anyone else on this blog, but I will always explain why I have criticised someone, or retract if I realise I’ve gone over the top or got it wrong and I expect the same from everyone else and for that I will not apologise.
As for the subject matter of the thread, I have to say that this is one of the most thought-provoking discussion of this issue that I’ve encountered for a long time.
Comment by Armchair — 10 March, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
“Simon shows that for some people being “hard” on abortion rights not only leads to support for infanticide, but in fact for the killing of anyone who isn’t useful to the community.”
Again with the lible, I’ve never said that.
That is, however, dangerously close to the argument you were making: that a baby has the right to life because it is “part of the collective”.
Comment by Simon — 15 March, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
*libel
Comment by Simon — 15 March, 2010 @ 4:52 pm