Abortion rights and wrongs

I have not, I confess, followed the debate on abortion time limits particularly closely, perhaps because I tend to the view that it is a woman's right to choose - a position which is consistent with my liberalism if not my Catholicism.

However, I happened to be outside Parliament on a day when both sides of the argument had gathered across the street to make their point. The pro-choice lobby were loud but reasonably well-humoured, chanting a fairly catchy little ditty opposing the interference of church and state. The 'pro-life' (and why are they allowed to claim the phrase?) lobby stood in solemn silence, although the fact that they were outnumbered by about three to one might have contributed to that.

It was interesting that those willing to turn up to oppose abortion were predominantly men, and one might presume that their spouses were at home, pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. On the other hand, I was disappointed that there weren't more men joining the pro-choice campaigners.

I fully accept that abortion is an emotive issue, and that it tends to lead people to extreme positions. However, I find it objectionable when people replace facts with emotion, and the anti-abortion protestors have, regrettably, wilfully distorted science and reason in constructing some fairly weak arguments.

It is interesting that other European countries have much lower time limits for legal abortion, and one must acknowledge that we should be troubled by the fact that many of these countries believe their legislation to be sufficient. On the other hand, their rates of teenage pregnancy are far lower than ours, their health services more responsive and their sex education programmes more effective. Sadly, our rather prurient attitude to sex as a nation tends to reinforce this and despite the explosion of magazines and websites catering to a younger, more curious audience, such media seldom reach the necessary target audience, i.e the relative poor and under-educated.

In terms of the science, the argument that foetuses below the age of twenty-four weeks can survive is severely dented by the figures of disability for those premature births. It is all very well insisting that such children have a right to life, although I see no action to move legislation providing better support, both financial and practical, to their parents.

Ultimately, when you see the charge being led by the likes of Nadine Dorries, you need to remind yourself that this is a woman who claims to believe in the freedom of the individual. Actually, she doesn't believe in your freedom, she believes in her freedom to limit yours, be it economic, social or political. Naturally, she doesn't admit to the hypocrisy of her position, as it is so much easier to persuade people if you don't, but she would be the first to pick up on factual inaccuracies of your argument if you contradicted her.

And so my hope is that the status quo is maintained, so long as scientific advances don't undermine the position. Frankly, I expect that they will, as they did the twenty-eight week limit. At that point, I will change my position but at least it will be on the basis of science and reason, not on a prospectus of lies and slander.