So, after reading 24 reasons for 24 weeks, I thought I should read the list to which the former was a response, 20 reasons for 20 weeks. I must say, I was rather underwhelmed.
1. Public, parliamentary and medical opinion is changing on late abortion. 63% of MPs, two thirds of GPs, nearly two thirds of the public and more than three-quarters of women support a reduction in the 24-week upper age limit.
Maybe it’s just me, but "lots of other people think it’s a good idea to change" doesn’t sound particularly convincing. I’m not going to support your cause simply because 63% of MPs do (supposedly — the Tory scum who put forward the amendment claims that 2/3rds of Labour MPs have never voted on abortion, so they can’t be all that strongly in favour of it; maybe the Tories and Lib Dems are overwhelmingly in favour to make up for Labour’s apathy?).
On the other hand, I do accept that Parliament must take public opinion into account — but I’d point out that it’s likely that the less-than-a-quarter of women who don’t support the reduction are the ones who really do need it. Would you ban, for example, Judaism, just because "more than three-quarters" of people support the ban?
Update: apparently, the claim that "three-quarters of women support a reduction" is only true if you tell the women you’re polling that doctors can save the lives of babies born as early as 13 weeks. This is a lie: the world’s most premature baby was born at 21 weeks and 5 days, so I don’t really think we can trust the anti-choicers’ statistics.
- High profile cases of babies surviving well below 24 weeks like Manchester’s Millie McDonagh, born at 22 weeks, and the world’s most premature baby, Amillia Taylor, who was born a week younger, both in October 2006.
Some babies are born before 24 weeks, true, but these are exceptional cases — extremely exceptional. According to one study, 52% of babies born at 24 weeks died in intensive care, and 22% didn’t even make it that far. Of the babies who survived to be discharged, 21% were severely disabled, 16% moderately disabled, 26% mildly disabled, and 10% were normal (25% were "lost to follow-up").
- High resolution 3D ultrasound images, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell, have shown babies in amazing detail ‘walking’, yawning, stretching and sucking their thumbs in the womb.
Um, so what? How the bloody hell is this relevant to whether abortions should be allowed at any given point? Is the argument "babies are cute! don’t have an abortion!"?
- In top neonatal units, such as in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 80% of babies born at 24 weeks and 66% of babies born at 23 weeks will survive. Recent figures from University College London are similar.
Firstly, that’s at top neonatal units. The average figures are much lower, and the number of premature babies who survive to have a normal life, without disabilities, are lower still.
- Recent research, such as that by Professor Sunny Anand from the University of Arkansas, has shown that fetuses are well enough developed to feel pain down to 18 weeks gestation.
Has research also shown that they feel pain during abortion? If not, then this is completely irrelevant (and why reduce it to 20 weeks anyway? surely it should be 18 weeks, or do we not care about the suffering of babies at 19 weeks?).
- Mothers first feel their babies kick at 19 weeks in a first pregnancy and at 17 weeks in a later pregnancy.
Again, why does this matter? Cuteness is not medically relevant.
- Stories of babies born alive after botched abortions, as young as 16 weeks, are increasingly common and have understandably shocked the public.
So because the methods aren’t perfect, the practice should be banned?
- The number of abortions carried out between 20 and 24 weeks has been rising in recent years. Lowering the limit to 20 weeks for normal babies will save almost 2,300 young lives per year.
Correction — lowering the limit to 20 weeks will force almost 2,300 more women per year to have a baby that they don’t want and quite possibly can’t support. Talking about "saving young lives" makes it sound as if abortion is murder. It isn’t, because a foetus isn’t a person and isn’t alive.
- Leading public figures including Opposition leader David Cameron are calling for a cut to at least 20 weeks.
So because somebody (reasonably) important says we should do something, we should do it? The reason he’s the Leader of the Opposition and not the Prime Minister is that his party didn’t have the support of a majority of voters.
- Britain has the most liberal abortion laws in Europe. A termination can be obtained up to 24 weeks of pregnancy - double the limits in France and Germany and six weeks later than in Sweden or Norway.
So? Because other countries do it differently, we should change? You fail to show that France, Germany, Sweden, and Norway are actually right.
- The methods required to abort a post 20 week baby are abhorrent. To avoid a live birth a lethal injection is given into the baby’s heart through the mother’s abdominal wall. The baby is then delivered stillborn or is surgically dismembered and removed from the uterus limb by limb.
Again, just because the methods are bad, the practice should be banned? Why not improve the methods? Also, it has to be said that the methods used to abort a baby without medical help are even worse.
- A recent Royal College of Psychiatrists report acknowledges a link between abortion and mental illness. This is worse with late abortions, especially those for fetal abnormality.
You don’t say what the link actually is, or what mental illness — depression? Schizophrenia? Obsessive-compulsive disorder? The fact that it’s worse in cases of foetal abnormality suggest that maybe the foetal abnormality has something to do with it there, not the abortion (or not just the abortion, at least).
This sounds like a variation on "the methods are bad, so ban the practice altogether". The reasonable solution would be to make sure that women who have abortions receive the proper support afterwards.
- The vast majority of late abortions (after 16 weeks) take place in private clinics but are classified as ‘NHS Agency’ (ie charged to the NHS). Abortions over 20 weeks cost from 1,300GBP to 1,600GBP each and there are inevitably financial vested interests involved.
Again, not seeing why this is important. MRIs are expensive, let’s ban those too!
- Babies are now undergoing surgery in the womb under 24 weeks, the photograph of Samuel Armas having surgery at 21 weeks for spina bifida has received international attention.
I don’t see why this is relevant, either. Is this a variation on the Argument from Cuteness?
- Very few if any UK graduates are now willing to perform abortions beyond 16 weeks. Almost all doctors performing late abortions in the UK, in BPAS clinics, are from overseas.
So because some doctors refuse to do it, it should be banned?
- A Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline, supporting an upper limit of 24 weeks, was published in 2004 and needs to be updated in line with the latest evidence on fetal sentience, ultrasound and neonatal survival.
Because the recommendation doesn’t agree with you, it needs to be updated. Right.
- The British Medical Association’s opposition to lowering the limit is not supported by the majority of its members and almost 1,000 BMA members recently signed a petition against attempts to further liberalise BMA policy.
Citation needed. There’s surprisingly little outcry about it, if this is the case — indeed, I couldn’t find a single mention of it, apart from here.
- Pregnancy testing kits are freely available at chemists and there is now little excuse for not diagnosing pregnancy long before 20 weeks.
So if someone doesn’t find out they’re pregnant until it’s too late, they deserve everything they get?
- The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s report recommending retention of the 24 week upper limit was heavily influenced by pro-abortion witnesses.
And of course, you’d rather it was heavily influenced by anti-abortion witnesses. Of course the witnesses will influence the outcome, that’s what witnesses are for. This sounds, again, like "some influential, impartial group disagrees with us, but they’re clearly in the wrong so they should rethink their decision".
- (a picture of a baby) All evidence is telling us that it is time to slow down and cut the limit. Please support our campaign.
I can’t tell whether that last point was just the picture of the baby, or that and the line of text beneath it. If it’s the former, then it’s a blatant instance of the Argument from Cuteness (look at the cute baby! vote against abortion now!). If it’s the latter, then it’s a statement without any evidence — again.