A century from now, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all
Rod Liddle says the Commons vote securing the 24-week limit is no more than a craven politician’s fudge, designed to postpone the day when the law of the land finally catches up with the indisputable findings of science
As a leftie, I had always been persuaded that abortion on demand is the right of every woman, with no arguments brooked. ‘Persuaded’ is perhaps the wrong word; the rights of a woman to do whatever the hell she liked with her foetus was simply not something open to negotiation or debate with someone in possession of a penis, even if it was quite a small penis like mine. But a dark foreboding nonetheless gnawed away at me — much as, on a personal level, it gnawed away at many of the feminists who advanced this totalitarian no-surrender hypothesis. It is still, if you are on the feminist Left, an unchallengeable shibboleth, which is why the debate today is so fraught — the god-botherers on one side, the liberal Left on the other.
I may be wrong about this, but it strikes me that in a century or so, or maybe even less, we will be appalled that we allowed abortions at all. I do not mean that we should not allow them now; it is merely a suspicion that the advance of our knowledge about the life of a foetus, coupled with an improved ability to prevent conception, will mean that we will be mystified as to how such a primitive and brutal procedure could have become state-sanctioned and commonplace. I can see politicians in 2108 erecting monuments and offering apologies to the unborn dead — divorced from the reality of where we are now, and why. Apologising, in the manner of Tony Blair, with hindsight for crimes which were not considered crimes except by a furious and vengeful minority.
The scientific case — as opposed to the dubious religious case — against abortion seems to me as good as proven; or, at worst, pointing in the direction of being proven. Announcing the government’s wish to stick by the 24-week limit which Britain currently has, the health minister Dawn Primarolo said: ‘No scientific evidence shows that the survival rates [of the foetus] have changed.’ You would guess that this is a politically expedient clutching at straws and carries with it the implication that they sort of expect the scientific evidence to change at some point in the future, that where we are now is a stop-gap, a temporary measure. It is only a matter of time — and not very much time, either‚ before the sentience of a foetus at 24 weeks becomes an established fact, beyond all dispute. And a little further on, 20 weeks, and then ten. There are plenty of scientists around — not all of them Roman Catholic — who will tell you that the foetus is a sort of sentient being which can experience pain as early as eight to nine weeks, when the major organs are all formed in an albeit rudimentary manner. The majority of neurobiologists seem to cleave to the view that between 20 and 24 weeks, with the establishment in the foetus of thalamocortical connections, the unborn child can certainly experience pain. It is a deeply pessimistic outlook to define a human being merely by his or her ability to detect pain, of course. There is other stuff that makes us human. However, even by this baleful guideline, Eve Johnstone for the Medical Research Council reported in 2001 that it was ‘probable’ that the human foetus was aware of pain at 24 weeks.
More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Thank goodness we can have a run on the pound when we need one
Martin Vander WeyerMartin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
I loved Oliver Stone’s Bush film — and I know why the critics hated it
Rod LiddleThe movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
The great Tory tax and spend battle: seconds out...
Fraser Nelson and Daniel FinkelsteinIn the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Where is our inspiration when we most need it?
Bryan ForbesBryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
For a bit of perspective, try thinking Jurassic
Christopher LloydThe first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
Want to cut taxes? First cut spending. Here’s how
Fraser NelsonAfter a week of clamorous competition between the parties over tax cuts, Fraser Nelson offers a guide to paying for them: a programme of spending cuts that would preserve core services but shave off the fat of the Brown years. All that is needed is political will
Welcome to the new austerity era, Mr Cameron
Fraser NelsonFraser Nelson says that the Tory leader must not be tempted by a ‘safety first’ strategy at his conference in Birmingham. The global financial crisis has transformed the political context and left an opening for the Conservatives to promise true radicalism and to be proudly bold
If Miliband becomes PM, I’ll join the right-wing coup to topple him
Rod LiddleRod Liddle is outraged by the Foreign Secretary’s alleged comparison of himself to Michael Heseltine: like comparing a Big Beast to a stumpy little Muntjac deer. Where have all the political giants gone?
I found an undiscovered country: Great Britain
Sarfraz ManzoorSarfraz Manzoor finds a sense of liberation as he travels to Durness in Scotland, slipping out of the clothes of his ethnicity, and exploring what it means to be British
Brown has exploited immigration to hide from deep problems
Fraser NelsonThe PM’s claim to have created three million British jobs is a grave deceit, says Fraser Nelson. Strip out immigrants from the picture, and Labour has barely dented the problem of British worklessness. Over to you, Mr Cameron
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
John Thomas
May 22nd, 2008 6:08pmIt's interesting that Rod, here, writes of future memorials and apologies for the abortion holocaust(say from the descendents of Brown and Primarola? - now there's a thought). I was thinking about such possibilities only yesterday. Of course, you could not put the names of victims on such a memorial, say like war memorials. So, I suggest listing the perpetrators ("Their Guilt Liveth for Evermore"). Perhaps in the boldest letters would be cut the name of the grand old Father of British Infanticide, M'lord Steele. Apparently, his lordship has said that he really did believe, back in 1968 (was it?) that abortion would only be for last resort, and he never, ever supposed that it would become simply a means of family planning; now it used to be said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", but with Steele we have to substitute "extreme naivety".
Sean Dunne
May 22nd, 2008 8:06pmIt’s questionable whether any humans will even be alive on this planet in a hundreds years time. With a population figure due to reach 9 billion in a mere 50 years time, many areas of the world will have compulsory abortion laws as an attempt just to stave off unavoidable starvation.
alison weston
May 23rd, 2008 10:21amFor the life of me I can't understand unwanted pregnancies (except in case of rape) as there are all manner of devices, pills, to use and take to prevent getting pregnant. It's all become too easy, too callous. Perhaps we need to go back to love and marriage and work at them both.
Susan Grave
May 23rd, 2008 1:14pmA very serious indictment on supposed 'civilised' society that abortion is used as a method of contraception! We certainly live in a disgustingly disposable world!
Harry Osbourne
May 23rd, 2008 9:27pmWhen will the number of foetuses aborted (at the taxpayers expense),surpass the number of Jews killed by Hitler? Unlike the average Gernan then we do not have the excuse of a Totalitarian dictatorship determiming events over which we have no control.
It is even more distasteful that the missing four million have been replaced by a similar number of immigrants, encouraged, actively or otherwise, by our market forces dominated politicians.
Richard Manns
May 23rd, 2008 10:50pmYou don't define a human by pain. Indeed, we tend to define them by the capacity of our cerebral cortex "acting human". But consider this; children born without a functional cortex may not be recognised as such for a few weeks, so if you continue that logic, until the child's cortex becomes active and relevant, the baby is still just a bundle of primitive sucking reflexes with no "human brain" input.
Secondly, the argument against abortion still has trouble defining when the fetus is a fetus; perhaps the contact by the sperm? Penetration of the egg? The calcium release to prevent further penetration? Fusion of the nuclei? When the father's DNA begins to play a role? Implantation?
I build a trap here; most of these are spontaneously aborted prior to term in any case.
But realistically, I invite you to travel back to the 19th century here (backstreet abortions), the 1930s in Spain (dead babies in the river Turia) and the idea of giving birth to your rapist's child. This is madness to propose a return.
I do not say that it ought not to be modified; but to throw the baby out with the bath-water is not smart.
Mr Grumpy
May 23rd, 2008 10:58pmIt gets worse: the 2006 tally of 193,737 abortions is actually just for England and Wales. There were another 13,081 in Scotland.
David Medlock
May 24th, 2008 10:06amWhen a fetus is aborted, a living organism dies. Is it a human organism? What else could it possibly be?
D Short
May 24th, 2008 4:21pmI heard a nurse on R4 the other day describing how she had to take an aborted foetus away for removal, and saw the baby gasping for breath under the amniotic fluid.
It's an image I think I shall take to the grave.
john
May 26th, 2008 3:37pmWhat intrigues me about the 'pro-choice' case is the weight given to the question of the time before or after which a foetus is able to survive independently. But of course if you do remove it before that time it will indeed not survive. That so circular a form of argument is trotted out to justify this extreme act does confirm that however fatuous one's case, the more it is parroted, the more credence it gains.
There can be grounds for abortion, but claptrap for pleasing the femino-liberal left is not one of them.
Steve Stip
May 27th, 2008 12:28amHow blase some people are about pain! How can anyone with any imagination or any knowledge of the Golden Rule countenance the painful killing of even an animal much less a human? Some people make me feel very good about myself and that ain't saying much.
Catherine Hanley
May 28th, 2008 4:10pmMy uterus is nobody's business but my own, Mr Liddle. My personal issues aside with the concept of abortion, illegalising the right of women to do what they want with their own body, also legalises my ability to say I want your heart for my sick relative in need of a transplant. Pregnancy can kill and it could well kill me if I ever chose to become pregnant because of health reasons.The question is bodily integrity and choices made because of that. Not the actions of the hypothetical woman dragging a man off behind Budgens. Finally, its amazing how the loudest voices against abortion are those with penises.
Catherine Hanley
May 28th, 2008 4:10pmMy uterus is nobody's business but my own, Mr Liddle. My personal issues aside with the concept of abortion, illegalising the right of women to do what they want with their own body, also legalises my ability to say I want your heart for my sick relative in need of a transplant. Pregnancy can kill and it could well kill me if I ever chose to become pregnant because of health reasons.The question is bodily integrity and choices made because of that. Not the actions of the hypothetical woman dragging a man off behind Budgens. Finally, its amazing how the loudest voices against abortion are those with penises.
john
May 28th, 2008 7:26pmCatherine states irrefutable particular grounds for abortion. Particular. She also generalises this so far as apparently to present abortion as an absolute good, in so far as it embodies free choice. It is as well that as moral social decisions need the best thoughts of all responsible members of society, we all get a say. That is because we are duty bound to support each other in the consideration of grave matters, not because of the narrow factionalism she perhaps assumes.
Joanna
June 7th, 2008 5:53amIf we think more about why an abortion is needed, we can conclude that it's necessary for most of the cases!
Helena Wojtczak
August 2nd, 2008 11:31amTwo thoughts:
Rather a quarter of a million abortions a year than a quarter of a million unwanted children, surely?
It isn't feminists that are thoughtlessly discharging their seed inside fertile women.
Helen Smith
September 28th, 2008 4:57amCatherine, firstly, if its YOUR body, why didn't you have the INDIVIDUAL responsibility to USE contraception in the first place? Not really a choice there. Furthermore, Liddle says a child feels pain at 8 weeks, hence, IMPLYING that it doesn't take 2 MONTHS (when the child feels pain and RESPOND to external stimuli) to have an abortion, even if you are irresponsible and an insult to any women who CAN take care of themselves indepedently. An dif you were responisble and still got pregnant (e.g. condom burst)or raped 2 months (40-50 days) is still a reasonable time to have an abortion. The model has its own fludity.
Secondly, there is NO disagreement that if the mother's life is in danger an abortion is permitted. The Catholic Church ALLOWS for abortion in such contexts!