19Imagine that your daughter came to you one day saying that she was pregnant, and didn't know what to do. One option she would consider would be abortion. If this was forty years ago, to have an abortion she would have to go to a 'back street' clinic, where she would have endured the horrors of an unhygienic old wifie who would have disposed of her 'disgrace' by means of a knitting needle and a bottle of gin. Nowadays, although there are many more options open to a girl who is unwillingly about to become a mother, there are also many more barriers.
Pro-life organisations present one such barrier. They believe that the mother should carry her baby to full term. One of their arguments is that even before the abortion act of 1967, the numbers of woman in danger because of the back street abortion practise was falling. Pro-lifers generally believe that "it is not where, or how badly they [abortions] are performed. Wherever or however they are performed, one life is ended, sometimes two." (Taken from 'LIFE' website.) They rationalise that if our country legalises abortion, it will be like legalising hard drugs, because there will always be drug users, so will there always be abortions whether they are 'back street' or not.
One term of the abortion act states that a mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy because of a handicap. This can be, and is interpreted badly by pro-lifers and disabled people, who deem the term handicap out of date, a criticism that is upheld by pro-choice groups as well. They also call the term cruel and unfair. They agree that a disabled child and its family need additional support and care, but not that the mother has the right to choose whether she feels she could provide that additional care. Pro- choice, however, believe that it is the mothers right to choose, therefore if she believes that she could not cope with the burden of a disabled child, and does not believe that she could give it a good life, then it is her right to choose to terminate the pregnancy.
One potentially good argument for the pro-choice groups, is that of a pregnancy culminating from a rape. However, the pro-life groups have an answer for this as well. Although it may be believed that in general, mothers who are expecting because of rape, would want to either terminate their pregnancy, or if they want to carry the child to full term, give it up for adoption, this, according to pro-life groups, is not the case. Just as rape is a violation of the woman, so is abortion, thus the woman could become more stressed as a result of an abortion than otherwise. Pro-life groups would also suggest that, contrary to popular belief, some women may in fact want to keep the child themselves, as a sign of something good coming out of a bad situation. In any case, they argue, the child is innocent, so why punish them for something that wasn't their fault? Pro- choice groups counter the arguments laid before them by saying that although some women may choose to keep their child, however it had been conceived, they may later regret their decision, and take it out on the child. Especially if the woman doesn't want to keep the child, but has to, due to circumstance, then surely the child will suffer, If it is not brought up in a loving environment?
The circumstances which the pro-choice groups are talking about may be familial ones, whereby the woman carrying the child is underage and so her parents force her to carry the child to term, or it may be that the abortion act prevents her from seeking an abortion. There are several ways in which the abortion act of 1967 can prevent a woman from seeking an abortion on the NHS. To gain an abortion a woman must be certified by two doctors, i.e. two doctors must believe that either her physical or mental health would be in jeopardy if she were to continue with the pregnancy. The strengths of this part of the act are that the woman can get medical advice before proceeding with her decision. Also because the judgement of doctors is central to the decision to proceed, the practise has become more respectable.
However there are several weaknesses, such as the fact that the woman has to "pretend to two doctors that her health, mental or physical, would be at risk."(Extract from a speech given by Polly Toynbee, at an all-party conference.) Doctors become the moral arbiters in these cases, which oversteps their training and their job description. Also, anti-abortion NHS doctors do not have to acquaint the patient with their views on the subject, they are also under no obligation to refer the patient to a doctor who is not anti-abortion. This causes stress for the woman, as she has to search for another sympathetic doctor. Many doctors deliberately obstruct the free choice of the patient, because they are, for personal or religious reasons, against abortions. Sometimes, if the woman cannot afford to pay to go to the private sector for her abortion, (this option would cost her around £250 in total, (including the operation) to be guaranteed a consultation by two sympathetic doctors, within one hour.) the doctor she consults may obstruct her path until it is no longer feasible for her to abort, as she has reached or passed 28 weeks. After which time she is no longer allowed to abort, unless there is serious risk to either her life, there is a foetal abnormality, or there is "Risk of grave physical and mental injury to woman" (taken from the abortion act 1967). However, these clauses are open to a very wide range of interpretation depending on each individual doctor.
Many women who are forced to give birth to an unwanted child may end up relying on the state for support, both for herself and for her child. Some women who want to get an abortion are poorer, and cannot provide adequately for the child, therefore, instead of voluntarily relying on the welfare state, they try to negate the problem by having an abortion, but they cannot, for any of the reasons mentioned above.
It is a common misconception that the largest percentage of abortions carried out are for women under the age of twenty. However, evidence shows that only 2% of all abortions in Wales and the UK, were for girls under sixteen, this statistic hasn't changed since 1969, two years after abortion was first legalised. Whilst it is true that the numbers of abortions for woman aged between sixteen and nineteen have risen, it is only marginally, from a quarter of all abortions to just 27% in 2001. This is by no means the largest for a group, indeed although the numbers have dropped slightly since 1969, from 40% to 37%, the largest group is that aged twenty-five to thirty-four. This shows that teen pregnancy isn't the biggest factor in the increasing demand for more freely available NHS abortions.
One last major argument for the pro-choice groups is that if a woman, who is pregnant with multiple children, feels in any way endangered by her situation, then she can ask for, and receive selective termination. This means that if any woman who would have otherwise suffered from her pregnancy can be assured of a safer birth, wherein there was a greater chance that she and her children will come through the birth alive and healthy. This gives women who are in danger because of their pregnancy a much better chance of survival, along with their babies.
I believe that women should have the choice as to whether they terminate their pregnancy. I believe that it is up to the individual, and others should not judge them as a result of their decision. I think that as long as the person has considered all the possible ramifications of their actions then they should be free to choose. I believe that if there is no other option for the person in their circumstances, then it is their decision. In the end, it is their decision to make, and no one should be able to take that away from them.
The sources I consulted were
(pro-life website) . (pro-choice website) National abortion campaign, through the links on the voice for choice page. (Helped with the abortion act information)