Listening to fellow pundits on the left react with rage and disbelief to the support by the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, for halving the abortion time limit to 12 weeks, I was reminded of the late Christopher Hitchens. "[A]nyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions]," wrote the Hitch in his column for the Nation magazine in April 1989. "In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain... break some bones and rupture some organs."
It is often assumed that the great contrarian's break with the liberal left came over Iraq in 2003. His self-professed pro-life position, however, had provoked howls of anguish in progressive circles 14 years earlier. It has long been taken as axiomatic that in order to be left-wing you must be pro-choice. Yet Hitchens's reasoning was not just solid but solidly left-wing. It was a pity, he noted, that the "majority of feminists and their allies have stuck to the dead ground of 'Me Decade' possessive individualism, an ideology that has more in common than it admits with the prehistoric right, which it claims to oppose but has in fact encouraged".
Blob of protoplasm
Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies: right-wingers talk of equality, human rights and "defending the innocent", while left-wingers fetishise "choice", selfishness and unbridled individualism.
"My body, my life, my choice." Such rhetoric has always left me perplexed. Isn't socialism about protecting the weak and vulnerable, giving a voice to the voiceless? Who is weaker or more vulnerable than the unborn child? Which member of our society needs a voice more than the mute baby in the womb?
Yes, a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body - but a baby isn't part of her body. The 24-week-old foetus can't be compared with an appendix, a kidney or a set of tonsils; it makes no sense to dismiss it as a "clump of cells" or a "blob of protoplasm". However, my motive for writing this is not merely to revisit ancient arguments, or kick off a philosophical debate on the distinctions between socialism (with its emphasis on equality, solidarity and community) and liberalism (with its focus on individual freedom, autonomy and choice), but to make three points to my friends on the pro-choice left.
First, you do realise that the UK is the exception, not the rule? Jeremy Hunt's position is the norm across western Europe: 12 weeks is the limit in France, Germany, Italy and Belgium. Then there's how 91% of British abortions are carried out in the first 13 weeks. You may disagree with a 12-week cut-off but to pretend it is somehow arbitrary, or extreme, or even unique is a little disingenuous.
Second, you can't keep smearing those of us who happen to be pro-life as "anti-women" or "sexist". For a start, 49% of women, compared to 24% of men, support a reduction in the abortion limit, according to a YouGov poll conducted this year. "Polls consistently show... that women are more likely than men to support a reduction," says YouGov's Anthony Wells.
Then there is the history you gloss over: some of the earliest advocates of women's rights, such Mary Wollstonecraft, were anti-abortion, as were pioneers of US feminism such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton; the latter referred to abortion as "infanticide". In recent years, some feminists have recognised the sheer injustice of asking a woman to abort her child in order to participate fully in society; in the words of the New Zealand feminist author Daphne de Jong: "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience."
Third, please don't throw faith in my face. Hitchens, remember, was one of the world's best-known atheists. You might assume that my own anti-abortion views are a product of my Muslim beliefs. They aren't. (And the reality is that different schools of Islamic law have differing opinions on abortion time limits. The Iranian ayatollah Yousef Saanei, for instance, has issued a fatwa permitting termination of a pregnancy in the first trimester.)
Demonised
To be honest, I would be opposed to abortion even if I were to lose my faith. I sat and watched in quiet awe as my two daughters stretched and slept in their mother's womb during the 20-week ultrasound scans. I don't need God or a holy book to tell me what is or isn't a "person". (Nor, for that matter, do I take kindly to some feminists questioning my right to have an opinion on this issue on account of my Y-chromosome.)
Nevertheless, I'm not calling for a ban on abortion; mine is a minority position in this country. I'm not expecting most readers of The Huffington Post to agree with me, either. What I would like is for my fellow lefties and liberals to try to understand and respect the views of those of us who are pro-life, rather than demonise us as right-wing reactionaries or medieval misogynists.
One of the biggest problems with the abortion debate is that it's asymmetric: the two sides are talking at cross-purposes. The pro-lifers speak about the right to life of the unborn baby; the pro-choicers speak about a woman's right to choose. The moral arguments, as the Scottish philosopher Alasdair Macintyre has said, are "incommensurable".
Another problem is that the debate forces people to choose sides: right against left, religious against secular. Some of us, however, refuse to be sliced and diced in such a simplistic and divisive manner. I consider abortion to be wrong because of, not in spite of, my progressive principles. That I am pro-life does not make me any less of a lefty.
There are few issues that unite Jeremy Hunt, Christopher Hitchens and me. I'm not ashamed to say that abortion is one of them.
This post also appeared on the New Statesman.
Follow Mehdi Hasan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mehdirhasan
Diane Abbott: We Must Recognise That Real Women's Lives Are at Stake in All of This
Women are actualised, separate, human beings with full human rights to body sovereignty over our internal organs. Just as the state is barred from harvesting kidneys from prisoners to safeguard someone else's right to life, the state has to be barred from forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies where the fetus is either non-viable (e.g. pre-24 weeks) or after that period presents a risk to the woman's health or *becomes* non-viable. Gestation is a biological, developmental process and things can go wrong.
Women - unlike men - have BOTH a uterus AND a brain to operate simultaneously within a context of personal moral agency. It is not the place of the state to intervene further than it does at present in the relationship between any woman and her God or conscience.
Please note that this is not a "choice" argument, as if this was a "choice" about ice cream: this is all about the full value of every actual human being and where the state has to allow women to exercise their own agency over their own bodies. The law as it stands is biologically, medically, and morally adequate.
...Not when said choice comes at the expense of another person's humanity,
You obviously didn't read the article; you just jumped at the chance to belch out a few of your favorite bumper sticker slogans.
First, let me say succinctly, one's own liberty of conscience never permits denying that liberty to others.
When civil law extends to matters of conscience, it desecrates that sanctuary.
That said, while I understand that some truly believe that even a zygote is a person, the reality is that our identity and rights as persons does not lie simply in having a body or being a body. All organic life has a body, is a body, and acts out of a body. But human life alone does not confer any identity as a person, anymore than a body diagnosed as brain-dead is, because it is human life, a person anymore. (That's the other end of this spectrum of human life, biologically speaking.)
Does a doctor or medical team, on disconnecting that body from life support, commit murder?
Please think about that if you call yourself 'pro-life' on the grounds that a human body (of some form) is alive.
At some point in the development of a healthy fetus, I agree that it may warrant protection protection, but I could never agree that actual personhood is the reason we would give for offering it.”
If you have any reasons for claiming personhood for a fetus, I'd like to hear them.
Civil law often extends into the realm of conscience. Civil law tells me I may not discriminate based on race or gender, I may not beat or rape a wife (or husband for that matter). I am not "free to do those things" even if in liberty I should want to do them. Rather society sets up boundaries based on natural rights, among them life itself. Just as a parent cannot kill a child after it is born (though some philosophers posit the legitimacy of infanticide) it would be a legitimate boundary to say that a parent should not kill a child before it is born, since there is always a separate life to be protected.
Please read this comment as a continuation.
The womb is a biological life support system without which prospective development into a viable human being is beyond the capability of a zygote, embryo, and, until (generally) six months into her pregnancy. As for brain activity, it is until birth far less than that of many in a permanent comatose state whose life support is turned off.
Nor can I divorce this question from the active--not possible--personhood of a pregnant woman. What may exist possibly has no claim to any rights. We may bestow them, but that's another matter.
My point was essentially that my point was that having human life does not necessarily imply that personhood exists. Nor do I believe that the terms 'baby', 'child', 'zygote', 'embryo' or 'fetus' mean refer to identical realities.
Nor did I say anything about killing a child before it is born. Indeed, I said that there may be situations in whch the fetus warrants protection, but these do not lie in its actual personhood.
Historically, liberty of conscience has been beyond both civil and canon law. The examples you give have nothing to do with that liberty, for liberty of conscience has never extended to any permission to harm other persons. Clearly, we make rules to protect ourselves by way of law an customs.
And, historically--at least in Western civil society--civil law has endowed personhood to a human life only upon its first breath after which the person clearly has sentience and interacts socially.
I don't agree that that's when protection should begin necessarily, and I think most pro-choice people would agree with the idea that protection could start earlier, i.e., in the womb for a healthy, well-developed fetus that is viable--once it stands a good chance of surviving being outside the womb but not before.
Ironic much?
All I have to add to this discussion is this observation - I am a young Canadian woman who is inclined to socialist ideals. I believe that in a democracy the state ought to be the mouthpiece and the hands which enact the values and ideals of the nation, and as such there is a role for the state to play in protecting the vulnerable and leveling the playing field. I care deeply about feminist issues like equal pay for equal work, maternity leave protections, equal power and autonomy in every sphere from the domestic to the political.
I am also prolife, Not in spite of being a woman and experiencing the powerlessness that pregnancy can bring with it, but because of it. It is an unjust and profoundly misogynistic society that requires the murder of embryonic children in order for women to assume a place of power and equality. It is a despairing and ineffectual feminism that believes that is is desirable and necessary for any woman kill her own developing child because her career, relationships, or health depend on it. Why should women settle for so little?
But, in spite of my innate sympathy for leftist values and my discomfort and dislike of what passes for conservatism much of the time, I find myself unable to vote for left wing candidates. I vote conservative when I can stomach it, and third part as often as possible. I am, in fact, disenfranchised.
I agree that the fetus isn't just another part of the woman's anatomy. I also think that it's something for the individual woman to consider for herself as far as any action is concerned and that her choice should be respected and honoured as she is functionally the most central element in the equation. An abortion at 24 weeks is 'less wrong' than forcing a woman to have a child which will create many years of distress for mother, father, child and community. If there's going to be an abortion, the earlier, the better.
Before a couple decide to have sexual intercourse, their positions on abortion should be discussed so they can decide whether to proceed or not. If it's 'casual sex' then the father's position doesn't matter anyway.
Why the bigotry against the un?
...Then I suppose you support killing someone at ANY age - as long as they're unconscious... And SURELY you support date-rape, right? If the victim is unconscious, then no rape took place! ;)
A little note on "sentience":
Some people say that the immediate capacity for self-awareness and a desire to go on living makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Infants do not acquire distinct self-awareness and memory until several months after birth. (Best case scenario, infants acquire limited self-awareness three months after birth, when the synapse connections increase from 56 trillion to 1 quadrillion.)
Also, did you know that children can be saved as early as 20 weeks into gestation? First of all, no one is FORCING women to have children that they don't want because no one is FORCING them to conceive. When you say that killing a child is OK when it's best for the mother and father, how is it different from killing a born child if things suddenly get tough for the parents? When you say it's best for the community, I have to wonder if you're aware that you're basically pushing eugenics... :/
If anything people should pray for the end to churches and religion in any form.
We feel that every human being is entitled to an entire LIFETIME of CHOICES. We are both pro-life, AND pro-choice.
If advocates of abortion are "pro-choice", then advocates of slavery were "pro-freedom". Did they not support the freedom to take away entire lifetimes of freedom?
Advocates of abortion support forced death upon innocent children. The term "pro-death" isn't exactly hyperbole, if you ask me...
The pro-life movement is actually the new, progressive movement.
You are ignorant.
Too bad that people denying others the right to live do not realize that they are supporting a holocaust. :/
Larry Motuz
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has said "medical advancements have improved neonatal survival rates. However, there is currently a limit to successful interventions for premature babies which improve their survival rates. The abortion time limit should therefore stay at 24 weeks."
What's more the majority of people in the UK do not want the limit changed. According to the most recent YouGov poll, conducted just after the Conservative minister had mooted the lowering of the time limit, only 6% want abortion banned; 47% favour keeping the law as it is and a further 4% would support extending the limit beyond 24 weeks.
Of those who want the limit lowered, the majority only want it taken down to between 18-20 weeks.
Here in the US, 51% (and rising) of the population is pro-life, and 41% (and declining) identifies itself as "pro-choice".
More and more restrictions are being placed upon this holocaust over here. It seems like we're just more progressive than you guys are. :/