Haemadipsa picta, the Borneo tiger leech, sits on a leaf in the rainforest, waiting for something, anything to pass by: an orang-utan, you, my daughter Eve, whatever. Actually it sort of stands there like a tiny penis, using its horrid thin end as an antenna, trying to detect body heat. When it does, boing! It throws itself off the leaf and down your Calvin Kleins, there to suck your blood. I've seen it do this, but most people really don't believe it until it happens to them.
The tiger leech, however, is a monstrously inefficient parasite compared with Britain's anti-abortion movement, which - always alert to the least possibility - has somehow leapt from its bush on to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and may by this evening have won an improbable vote to curb the abortion rights of British women. While most of us were distracted, engaged in debating saviour siblings and hybrid embryos, Haemadipsa Restricta worked its way through our political underwear.
Those of us who support the status quo on abortion rights have been complacent. Specifically we should have realised just how tempting, white, soft, male and vulnerable were the parts belonging to the young men around David Cameron. They could support a “compromise” over abortion, which would reduce the number of weeks within which a termination could be carried out, but not reduce by as much as the anti-abortionists wanted. That way these new Tories could get the plaudits of the social authoritarians without losing the patina of being right down there with the kids.
So Andrew Lansley, the agreeable Shadow Health Secretary, favours a reduction to 22 weeks and David Cameron and urbane young hipsters like Ed Vaizey, MP, may support going as low as 20 weeks. And it was all there, had we been wearing our spectacles.
In February 2005, when Mr Cameron was, in leadership terms, pre-zygotic, he was asked about abortion by Sir David Frost. “I think the 24-week limit does need to be looked at,” explained Mr Cameron, “because of advances in medical science, and because I think the debate has moved on.” Earlier this year he elaborated: “I would like to see a reduction in the current limit, as it is clear that, due to medical advancements, many babies are surviving at 24 weeks.”
This is it - medical advance and the debate moving on. Moving debates are a poor reason for making life-and-death changes in the law governing personal responsibility, but medical advance should be another matter. Is there significant evidence that the foetus is now significantly more viable at up to 24 weeks than was the case in 1967 or 1990, when the law was last changed?
“No” is the answer to that. Camera technology has certainly advanced, and we can capture the foetus in the womb, and from the images sentimentally imagine that we know its “thoughts” or “feelings”, but the latest study has established that the survival rates for severely premature babies have not improved over the past 18 years. Hardly a single baby born at 22 weeks or under manages to leave hospital alive, and at 23 weeks 82 per cent fail to make it outside, the same percentage as in the mid-1990s.
In contrast to Mr Cameron's invocation of scientific advance, Professor David Field, president of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and lead author of this most recent report, concluded that the compared figures were “almost as identical as you can get it. There is no change.” The various royal colleges all agree.
Given these facts, one is entitled to ask just what on earth is going on here? If viability isn't the test - as it was claimed to be back in 1990 when the limit was reduced from 28 weeks - then the judgment must be that some folk simply don't like abortions and wish to restrict them as much as possible. Or as much as they can get away with.
Enter, with a clash of brass, from the direction of Mid-Bedfordshire, the Tory MP Nadine Dorries, “former nurse” as she is invariably described. Her 20-week campaign, bounced from its tree by the passing debate, scorns Mr Lansley's 22 weeks because, as she explains: “Cutting the limit to 20 weeks will save thousands of lives, but to 22 weeks, only hundreds.” Or, to put it another way - despite the scare stories - very few abortions are carried out between 22 and 24 weeks, but there are more at 20.
Ms Dorries's favourite prop is a picture of an operation on a “baby Samuel” - little hand and all - being carried out in utero, accompanied by the claim that, “if the 22-week amendment is passed, babies just like him will continue to be chopped up. I know it's horrible and it's not language I like to use believe me - but it's a fact.” In my experience when someone says they hate to say something, they mean the exact opposite.
Of course, what is true of 22 weeks in Dorriesland is true in spades for, say, 16 weeks, or 12 weeks. The lower you go then, in Dorriespeak, the more lives you save. So 20 weeks is clearly nothing more than an arbitrary device designed to maximise support from those who feel queasy about abortion, or pressured by anti-abortionists but who can't be bothered to look at either the science or the implications. It is an exercise in damaging hypocrisy.
Nor can there be the facile trade-off that some suggest, with easier abortion at an earlier stage - desirable though this may be. One of the overwhelming reasons for late abortion is the failure by the woman (or, as often happens, young girl) to realise that she is pregnant. Occasionally an older woman mistakes the end of menstruation for the menopause. Or perhaps the lifestyle of the woman is simply chaotic. All we do know for sure is that this person has decided that she doesn't want to take her pregnancy to term.
So this is what all this nonsense about “compromise” boils down to - telling women who are less than 24 weeks pregnant and who don't want to have a baby that, legally, they must go through with the birth. We then leave them the terrible choice of procuring an abortion elsewhere or of bearing a child they do not want.
To me, this is immoral. It is not a conjecture about lives that could be led, but an action that will damage lives that are being led. Tonight conscientious MPs should put on their leech-socks and vote against all these parasitical amendments.
My friend had an abortion on health grounds at 22 weeks, without it she would have died. The 'foetus' (now a young child, healthy with no physical or mental problems) survived the abortion against all odds. So is 24 weeks to high - I think so on my friend and her childs life.
Sarah, Brampton,
If they are allowing abortions up to 24 weeks which is 6 months then what next 28 weeks will be ok and then up to the full 9 months???? I was born at 28 weeks and am alive and 42 years old. As a mother, I can't fathom how one could carry a child that long and then discard it like it was trash!
Sara, Porepunkah, Australia
Sean, The problem is that many view that the fetus is a baby, especially when it is viable. The time of inception of life is debatable, and when someone has strong views on the matter, abortion becomes tantamount with murder in their mind. Not everyone's morality comes from the state.
Scott Pearson, Charleston, USA
renita - men should take responsibility, both in terms of looking after a child and in decisions regarding abortion. it is not simply a case of what a woman wants to do with her body, but a matter of principle regarding the right to life of the unborn. making a baby is not a solo project, sorry.
jem, london, uk
Recently I saw what a real 22 week foetus looks like. S/he's as long as my ruler, has eyebrows, nails on every toe, a button nose, probably shaped a little like his/her mother's or father's. S/he says: "I could grow up to be a beautiful human being. What about my rights: does science rule those?"
Gary L, Whiston, United Kingdom
It's quite interesting that the ones having the most to say in this matter are men. You don't ever have to go through it, you can choose to leave if you "happen" to make someone pregnant and be fine with yourself.
Women go through with this, they have the right to choose.
Renita, Tallinn,
I had an abortion at seven weeks, but the time was irrelevant for me. What was relevant was that I was 24 and I knew then that I never wanted to have children. I have never once regretted my decision because terminating a collection of cells was preferable to giving birth to an accident
Emily, London,
There is one bum note in these abortion debates, in my view, and that is the concern some people express about preserving every possible life at a stage when it has no comprehension, but pay a contrastingly casual regard for the preservation of the same life when it is sentient and aware.
Henry Percy, London, UK
You don't like abortion? Don't have one then. That doesn't give you the right to tell others what they can and can't do. Backseat moralising may make you feel like a better person, but forcing someone to raise a child that isn't wanted is cruel to the mother and the child, and will only end badly.
Dan X, Cardiff, Wales
This 'can't afford a child' stuff really really annoys me, as a socialist I say 'change the capitalist system so that people can afford to bring up their children' rather than using aborting the working class as a way of getting out of paying a bit higher taxed.
Hananh James, Cardiff, Wales
NO life does not trump all. Quality of life does . Women who make the difficult decision to abort should be supported. They are being brave and responsible. Anti abortionists just seek to make bad situations worse. We all need to have only the children we can care for and only two of those.
Gareth, Swansea, UK
Sorry Mate,
Good try, but I still think that killing people is wrong.
D. Persaud, Wimbledon, London
Dr Braden, Oxford, your comparison of a foetus to a mere inanimate body part is chilling. So would it be OK by you to extend the 24 week limit to full term, or even beyond birth to sanction disposal of any brain-damaged or demented person who no longer can be said to hold a point of view?
Gordon Alexander, Frome, UK
Taking L of London's comment as a point of reference: " I got myself pregnant at 16 even though I was on the Pill " - isn't it just all so obvious?...contraception does not guarantee protection: abstinence does. Control?...control your urges instead. Women want too much these days.
wendy, belfast, northern ireland
The fact is nearly 30% of all pregnancies in this country end in abortion. To suggest that this is the result of responsible people being the victim of failed contraception is ridiculous. What is wrong with making women carry babies to term and then giving them up for adoption.
Jason, London, UK
'An unwanted child.. can make of him/herself what they may. This outweighs any ..excuses to justify termination.'
As a single parent, even with a degree, proper job and family support it's been a real struggle to provide a decent quality of life for my child. Why force people to have children?
Isadora, London,
David, your support for pro choice has been reassuring. Contrary to some narrow minded views, abortion is not an easy get out clause for any woman. Many women choose to terminate their pregancies for compelling reasons. Politicians should stop playing God and leave women to make the right decision.
Mani Pillai, London, UK
I'm pro choice and always felt that 24 weeks seemed a reasonable upper limit for abortion. However last year my son was born at 24/25 weeks and 1lb 4oz. He was feisty and strong, and had character from day 1. He is now 15 months and 100% healthy. I think we should reduce the limit by 2-4 weeks.
Robert Stone, New York, NY, USA
I wouldn't presume to make a moral decision on behalf of a pregnant woman, but the fact that the choice is difficult doesn't mean that all choices are equally moral. Where a human life is involved there can only be one moral choice - the affirmation of that life. Existence trumps all.
Jim, Seattle, USA
Can someone please tell us where the woman's right to choose came from? Perhaps they could also tell us why it should prevail over the child's right to life.
Peter, London,
A thinly veiled attack on the tories. Question, does Gordon Brown have or have not a majority in the commons. Answer yes, ergo, any reduction in abortion limits is because of lack of labour support, not the tories.
philip riley, billingham, cleveland
I am firmly pro-choice and believe strongly in the right of a woman to choice the direction of her life, however
i still think the term limit should be reduced. We do know now that there are nervous responses in foetus's over 18 weeks and we have a responsibility to react to that.
C.Jonnie, Abingdon,
It is clear there has to be a time limit on abortion, so it is clearly right that the limit (which is bound to be arbitrary in some respects) is reviewed from time to time. I fail to see the point in David's argument - in the light of science and public opinion, it must be possible to change it.
Richard, Worcester, England
You're quite right Charlotte, a 14 year old child should be forced to have a child herself simply because she made the mistake of becoming sexually active too young. Come into reality Charlotte teenage pregnancies are rising and will continue to do so because few live lives of Victorian represssion.
Claire , London, UK
Both men and women should take responsibility for their actions. I chose to remain a virgin until I married (aged 25) as did my husband. If I had not, I would have had to accept the possible consequences.
If a woman has a 'right' to her body, then an unborn baby must have equal rights too.
Charlotte, Ewell, Surrey
Given survival rates haven't changed despite technical advances - maybe we should ask NICE to rule on whether it is ethical and cost-effective to strive to keep alive any premature baby under 24 weeks? The money could then be invested in other aspects of health care like services for the elderly
Phil, Lancaster, UK
For some to say that contraception was an afterthought is just another way of dimissing the subject out of hand. It also typifies the lack of logical tthought. We have to realise why abortion was legalised, so that women did not bleed to death on their kitchen floors or back alleys.
Susanne Mckeown, Northern Ireland,
Thousands of women having endless abortions instead of using contraception? Wouldn't they make dreadful mothers if that is how careless, thoughtless & feckless they are?
This is a nonsense. Few women have more than one abortion. Late abortion is a hard enough choice. Don't criminalise it too.
Sioned-Mair Richards, Sheffield, UK
Its not too often that I agree with you David, but you're spot on here. Not one of the people arguing for a 20/18/etc week limit actually wants a 20/18/etc week limit, its simply that they are too dishonest to argue for a ban. because they know they'd get very little support. Hypocrites one and all.
John Dale, Sunderland,
I hope all the anti abortion commentators have never had sex and never plan to. Otherwise they have been at risk of pregnancy or put some else at risk of it. Abortion is takng responsibility . A person who cannot afford a child, or is too ill ,or too old should not be forced to have one.
Edith, Sanderstead, UK
If a pregnant woman makes the difficult decision to abort, you can be pretty sure it is the right thing to do. It is not an easy process, from visiting multiple doctors, undergoing conselling, and the operation itself.
Forcing an unwanted baby to be born benefits no-one. This is so obvious.
Kay, London, UK
"got themselves pregnant...Either they don't have sex or they use contraceptives."
Geez, Bill, you make it sound like all these feckless women are impregnating each other. When are men going to take some responsibility for unwanted children beyond telling women what to do about it?
Jenny, Manchester,
I have had a happy life and 3 children because my birth mother gave me up for adoption. It must have been very upsetting for her, given what I know about my conception, but she never felt entitled to take my life, either to save herself distress or because she had prejudged the quality of my life.
annie, Brighton,
David, once again you are correct.
I for one would rather keep the limit as is than risk a return to having those who are among our most vunerable (and yes, a woman with an unwanted baby IS vunerable) being forced to seek out backstreet abortions and ending up.. well I dread to think!
AK , Pigg Hill,
The case for legal abortion has been made, but it is not an operation that any sane woman would sigh on herself. What worries me is that so many abortions are taking place. Is it really true that one in five pregnancies in Europe are aborted? This is where the debate should go now.
Kevin Straw, Leicester,
How many men are currently complaining that women see them as walking sperm banks/wallets?
So why are women now being seen as walking incubators??!!
Some disabilities cannot be seen before the 20 week scan. Are you asking a distressed mother-to-be to make a very difficult decision on the spot?
L, Bham,
there is now plenty of support now for women who are pregnant who don't want an abortion. if the law does nothing but encourage women to reconsider and weigh up the other alternatives to abortion then it will be a success.
chloe, leeds, england,
How about a mention for the fathers of these babies? Bill from China seems to be under the impression that all these immoral, feckless women get themselves pregnant.
Maybe the truth is that there are women out there who don't think they can manage to bring a child up alone.
H, Sheffield,
I fell pregnant at 16 and had the baby. I fell pregnant again 4 years later and knowing what I knew then about raising a child, I aborted it. I do not regret my decision and it puts paid to the idea that once a woman has a child it is harder for her to abort. It is the woman's right to choose.
Jackie, London,
They shouldn't have got themselves pregnant in the first place? No contraception is 100% foolproof. How fabulous to be able to be so blythe; punishing women for the inadequacies of contraception when you don't have to suffer the consequences
caroline, london,
What stop at 24 weeks, what not up to after birth if you discover you child has autism or it is not pretty enough. You have crossed the Rubican when it comes to cold blooded murder so why stop now.
Noel, Cork,
Right on the money David. It is time someone stood up for a woman's right to choose. If it carries on like this then one day medical advances will mean an embryo can survive from the moment of conception. Then where will we be?
James, Nottingham,
i got myself pregnant at 16 even though I was on the pill. I had the foetus aborted at 21 weeks when I found out I was pregnant. I was in no position to have it and would have been unable to provide the baby with any meaningful life. I stand by what I did. Keep the current limit
L, London,
It is not for others to make the difficult moral choice for any woman. They don't have the right and don't have to live with the choice.
David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK
...choose to maintain that abortion at 24 weeks (or earlier) is wrong and should not be allowed. It is not just a case of “some folk simply don’t like abortions and wish to restrict them as much as possible” – it is a matter of conscience which is a good thing.
HG, London, UK
It makes me giggle when men and the Catholic clergy weigh in on pregnancy, given that they are such undoubted experts on it.
Or at least it would if they weren't so inexplicably taken seriously.
Steven, Watford,
Can any anti-abortionists or abortion-reductionists answer this: why should a woman (and until male pregnancy is a reality, men should be very careful on this) be forced to carry a foetus (it is not a baby) to term?
Sean, Manchester,
The NHS only offers fetal viability scans at 20-24 weeks. If there is a very serious problem then parents need a few days at least to make an informed decision to terminate, or continue through with a birth that will result in an imminent and painful death. Date for termination must match scan dates
Sarah J, London, UK
Amazing how many people want to tell women how to run their bodies. There is no debate about why a woman might want an abortion, just about whether in some entirely statistical sense the foetus is viable. The next step is usually to restrict access to termination counselling.
richard, horley,
Claire They cry a lot for the rest of their lives if they have been born to Mothers without the means to parent them well. Social Services cannot and does not make it better for thousands upon thousands. It is a quality of life issue and not just about physical survival.
Isobel, Truro, UK
'Contraception' abortions usually happen before 18 weeks. The 20-24 week debate covers mainly those who found a problem in the 20 week scan. I doubt these problems would be picked up earlier, the foetus wouldn't have developed enough. Abortions this late are rare and not taken lightly.
Chris, London,
Ian as all the medical bodies and scientists do not want a lower limit presumably an earlier scan is not as effective. That and our third world NHS that cannot provide top range antenatal screens to all. And lowering the limit will leave little time for parents to think grieve and take advice.
Isobel, Truro, UK
I am 100% positive that, every anti-choice man who has had the temerity to comment on this issue, has ALWAYS either practised safe sex each and every single time, or have been totally commited to bringing another life into this world each time they have sex. Ahem. Pathetic.
KittyM, Liverpool,
Bill of Suzhou, China says it all. Too many are relying on abortion as a form of contraception , after the fact. Also, what may seem an unwanted child, often can end up a real source of joy.
margie , victoria, australia
Those who want to lower the limit should also make sure that abortion is provided more swiftly and easily on the NHS. Most women don't find out they're pregnant until they're at least 6-8 weeks. To then make them wait another couple of months to terminate the pregnancy is madness.
Laura Porter, London,
Every sperm and egg is a potential life. Where exactly would our society be if we did our utmost to give all of them their chance,and people had a new baby every nine months! The only issue is that of suffering. In fact a tasty cow suffers a lot more than an aborted baby!
David Hope, York,
Late termination is appropriate for some and that fundamental right must be reserved. I would like to see the limit reduced to 20 weeks in the ordinary course, but it should remain at 24 for those pregnancies where very severe disability is evident or where the mother's life is compromised.
Julie, Leeds, England
DA's argument hinges on some women not knowing they are pregnant at 20 -24 weeks. If you're late take a test, dont wait 5 months
At 5 months the baby is helpless - for which read "not viable" - it is not incapable of feeling. Is it ok to kill it because it is helpless? Aaranovitch seems to think so
Paul King, Stevenage, hertfordshire
"If I were a foetus...I'd rather take my chance...than face sure death"
If I were a wisdom tooth I'd rather take my chances than face extraction. A tooth is an unthinking object in my body. It does not have rights! Considering its point of view as is ridiculous as considering that of a fetus.
Dr Alistair Braden, Oxford, UK
If you eat meat (I don't) you accept that the life of something capable of suffering isn't sacred - in fact you value it below your pleasure. How then do you value a woman's right to control over her body? I say rather higher, and oppose any further restriction of a difficult choice.
Pav, London,
Dear Sir!!
What is wrong before the abdominable act of abortion seems
to be the so paramount exageration of the daily importance
of sex. The later unfortunate killing of subtle and tender life is only just a dreadful consequence. By overrating sex the mere beauty of creation is blinded.
GHW, Porto Alegre, Brasil
Mitch / Bill / Fernadez - What of those women or children who become pregnant through rape, abuse, incest etc.? Where is their right to choose? They are usually traumatised & may need time to acknowledge the pregnancy and make decisions - their body, their pregnancy, their choice! Usually not easy!
Gemma, Notts,
Whether they're born at 20 weeks or 26 weeks, they wont be fully developed and will most probably have issues the rest of their lifes... This is irrelevent and stupid. If anything it should be raised to give a girls a better chance of not ruining their lifes...
Jamie brown, Maidstone, England
>Is a child only valuable if its mother wants it?
Yes, it's a disaster for all concerned when the parents don't want the child.
>they should not have got themselves pregnant in the first place.
Nothing more weaselly than that! What of addicts/prostitutes/rape victims/broken condoms/forgotten pills?
JonB, Manchester, UK
Not every abortion is to get rid of an unwanted baby either - so many here have jumped into the argument on stereotypical 'moral' grounds without looking at the very real medical (and moral) need for abortion until the baby has developed to a certain point to assess for terminal or critical illness.
Gemma, Notts,
The unborn child's rights remain just half-recognised. Is it 200,000 abortions in the UK a year nowadays? A progressive society recognises the rights of all - it has taken horribly long for this to happen for women, working classes, immigrants, non-whites etc. The "my choice" approach discriminates
gwana, London,
The British Preganancy Advisory Service website (BPAS) talks about injecting "Medicine" to stop the foetus' heart. Evil has to hide what it does - so they call it medicine rather than poison and the baby a foetus, to hide what is happening. Doctor to mum "I'm sorry but we couldnt save the foetus"?
aidan , Wimbledon, England
Jason Mead It will not be orphanages wil it? It will be damaged babies born to Mothers who do not have the mental ,physical ,or financial health to raise them well. It will result in more children social services cannot really help however hard they try. It will result in cost and misery.
Isobel, Truro, UK
David Aaronovitch's classic liberal male side-step makes him look 'concerned' but puts the burden of responsibility 100% on 'the woman' more adroitly than any philanderer could. If we're truly concerned for women, we must reward men who face their responsibilities like men. Not cowards.
C Winn, Newcastle, UK
And in all this report and comment, not a word about the simplest social equation of all:
(equal opportunity) = (equal career time) = (less baby time)
If women choose to nurture career instead of baby then it is their choice and not up to mere male like me (or many MPs) to deny it to them.
KR, Stockport,
G. Portsmouth..."A philosopher said that the dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive. " Either you believe that when you die you are dead - in which case you know nothing at that point or you belive in life after death and that is supposedly paradise so why is it better to be alive?
R, London,
What about the life-rights of British children? Or does it not matter because they don't cry when they're being killed?
Clare, Manchester,
Interesting that most of those opposing this column aren't just interested in reducing the limit, but are anti abortion whcih proves avid Aaronovitch's point, this is a smoke screen for the anti abortion lobby, for those who want to limit abortion in all circumstances.
S.J. Pearce, London, UK
There are about 200,000 abortions a year.
1.5% after 20 wks
0.6% after 22 wks (1200)
Why do you think these 1200 were left so late? Laziness? Or because there was a late diagnosis of severe abornmalities?
I think we're arguing over babies that were WANTED. This was not a 'convenience'.
Kerry Murdock, Birmingham,
The reason abortions occur between 20 and 22 weeks is presumably because of problems highlighted by the 20 week scan. If we move the cutoff to 20 weeks the scan will have to happen sooner and the results will be the same, assuming the scan is as accurate at this stage.
Ian, London, UK
The thing that has been lost in the debate are the huge numbers of illegal abortions carried out in the rest of the EU, where abortion limits are lower than in the UK. Hundreds of thousands of abortions are carried out - up to 800,000 - every year. The rights of women should remain paramount.
Joel, London,
I repeat what I have said many times before : Why should the opinions of Rome carry more weight than the Oracle of Delphi? The real danger to secular liberalism in the coming years is not highly visible Muslim fundamentalism, but the increasing repudiation of the Reformation and Enlightenment.
Eric Skelton, Cardiff, Wales
Unless the baby is seriously mentally and physically disabled and has no hope of any quality of life, how could anyone commit an act such as abortion - especially so late into the pregnancy? The right to choose? Well why didn't they choose the pill or condoms? Inconvienience is no excuse for this.
Mitch, Melbourne, Australia
John,
I completely agree. If one baby can survive, its worth reducing the limt to 22 weeks, 20 weeks, whatever it takes.
If a baby brought out of the womb and survive or can be stabbed in the head and die, thats simply murder.
Jo, london,
That "Hardly a single baby born at 22 weeks or under manages to leave hospital alive" is not the point. It is alive when it is born at 22 weeks, which means that if aborted at that stage, and then it dies as a result, it has been killed by being aborted.
John Anthony, London,
An embryo needs a womb to survive until it is developed enough to leave. To say its ok to remove the child from its food and oxygen supply because it can't survive without it yet is wrong. You would not deprive an adult of medical necessities why a child?
Helen, Beds,
carrying a child for 9 months and suffering the pain of giving birth is certainly a burden for any woman. but does is it justify taking a life to avoid it? what other crimes could be excused on the basis of hardship as an alternative? is it simply a matter of freedom of choice then?
jem, london, uk
If any babies are 'saved' by this measure what sort of quality of life can we offer them? If they do survive they will more than likely have medical difficulties throughout their life and require constant medical care - will the 20-week lobby offer to adopt?
TW, Sheffield,
Lot of men making comments on this today... It's very easy to sit on the moral high ground as an abortion is something you will never psychically have to go through. At foetus will live from 24 weeks onwards, not before. Lower it to 23 weeks. Otherwise we're back to knitting needles & alleys
Polly, Suffolk, UK
viability should be irrelevant; unaborted babies will not be born prematurely. no one is taking a woman's right to choose, just asking her (and dad) to exercise it earlier. maybe before she gets pregnant, but surely before the foetus develops senses. her convenience should be a minor factor.
jem, london, uk
"Survival" at 23 weeks if it happens normally results in severe disability. Women who have not known they are pregnant will have put the foetus at risk of damage . Even moderate drinking can cause foetal alcohol syndrome. Let alone being exposed to viruses or drugs prescribed or not.
Christopher T, Malborough, UK
The debate about viability at 24 weeks, or any other number of weeks, is totally irrelevant.. The foetus is a human being that is surviving in its specialised environment for the first nine months of its life. I am not religious, by the way, but I object to this cavalier dismissal of murder.
Bill Rees, Exeter,
At what point does a life that 'could be led' become a life that 'is being led'? At what point must the impulsive self interest of an adult give way to the needs of a child? Is a child only valuable if its mother wants it? As a society, we have blown it, big time.
annie, Brighton,
The first thing to remember is that when the law was reduced to 24 weeks no one imagined that 200,000 foetuses would be 'terminated' each year.
First the direction of any debate has to be getting this number drastically reduced.
G, Portsmouth,
So it is possible for a baby to survive at 23 weeks Then the abortion limit should be lowered under this time.To be in favour of the termination of viable human beings is, to use your word,imoral.
Your ugly and unessasary use of leeches cannot cover the weakness of your argument.
Twenty weeks.
robert everitt, wolverhampton,
The argument about survival rates is a red herring and overlooks the point that the purpose of medicine is supposed to save lives not end lives. For some, it seems right to preserve life in the operating theatre but not to destroy life in the womb.
Mark, Nottingham,
There's a quick way of ending all this... if the changes go through, I think a few babies left on the steps of Parliment should sort it out. "You say we have to have them, well, you guys can raise them!"
Alex, Manchester, UK
A philosopher said that the dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive.
An unwanted child lives and can still make of him/herself what they may.
This far outweighs any sense of bad-timing, in-a-few-years-but-not-now, it-was-a-one-night-stand et al excuses to justify termination.
G, Portsmouth,
The categories of the debate are wrong. Classical ethical theory would not speak of 'rights', but ask "who has the greater responsibility: the woman to the foetus, or the foetus to the woman?" The problem is the rights-based language that ethical debates are currently framed in.
Jemima Boucher, Norbury, England
It's crazy to have 2 babies at the same age, and one has doctors fighting to save it and the other is aborted.18% is a pretty high percentage.The 24 week limit should be lowered.
Nicola, London,
I'd be interested to hear from those in favour of a woman's right to choose explain why *24* weeks? Why not right up to full-term? Why not any time after birth until the child exhibits full independence? Why should poor, innocent women be forced to look after babies that biology has foisted on them?
Jemima Boucher, Norbury, England
Hey Bill from China - unless there have been very significant advances in medical technology since this article was written, women do not 'get themselves' pregnant. The complacency of your language is revealing.
Maria , Cambridge, UK
Why do some Left-leaning men refuse to enter into a proper debate about abortion? Technology should not define our morality. If a foetus is alive (and if not alive then what is it? Dead? Inanimate?) then nobody has a"right" to kill it, even if it is unwanted or would make somebody's life harder.
Tim, London,
Who will pay and look after the 200,000 unwanted babies that would be born each year if the pro-lifers had things their way? Someone please tell me which political party will argue for the massive increase in tax needed to pay for the state-sponsored orphanages. The Tories?
End of argument?
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
Bill - get themselves pregnant did they? Another miracle of modern science. Never made a mistake? You lucky, lucky man.
Dannii , Barcelona, Spain
"they should not have got themselves pregnant in the 1st place."
Ever heard of rape? Ever heard of someone getting pregnant whilst on the pill?
Other current topics: the world is overpopulated, there's not enough food, increasing teenage pregnancy....
Please. Keep abortion legal at 24 weeks
E, Paris,
The flip style of writing used by David Aaronovitch is not
appropriate in discussing a subject, which for many is
deeply emotional.
I do not know Nadine Dorries, but if she is a nurse, her views have validity.To seek to dismiss her as some sort of ethical Mary Whitehouse is unworthy.
Justin Downes, London,
Even if you're pro-choice you'd still have a choice - you just have a shorter time in which to make your decision. In any case, if you don't want to risk pregnancy use contraception effectively. If you don't use contraception use the morning after pill or effect a termination in good time.
Mike Williams, Falkirk, Scotland
If I were a foetus of 23 weeks, I'd rather take my chance with an 18% survival rate than face sure death at the hands of a doctor.
JL, Liverpool,
What a shame David... one would expect someone on the left of politics to be passionate about the human rights of the most defenceless people in our society. Looks like those of us on the right will have to do the job instead.
Andrew brown, derby, UK
Indeed and it is not just about the rights of the one woman but the civil and human rights of everyone. Once they blythly clamp down on one freedom the others will follow...identity card anyone? Everyone has the right to choose.
Kathryn, Preston, UK
Isn't it interesting that the most vociferous voices here who are in favour of removing current rights of women in this country are actually living abroad?
Perhaps none of them is a British citizen ... in which case my response is politely to ask them to mind their own business.
David Garfield, London, UK
We have become a nation of baby-killers, as simple as that. Using semi-medical terminology to disguise the actual dismemberment of a human being is dishonest and nauseating. This is one of the worst pieces I have read in the Times for many years.
JohnT, Birmingham, UK
Gees do you not hear yourself? 82% don't make it out...what about the 18%, if some do survive is it not right to be 100% sure that we're not killing things that still have a chance, albeit a small chance, of living? How can you justify killing through statistics?
Phil, Guildford,
What everyone seems to have forgotten here amongst the 80% male commentators is that a woman has to carry this life form, regardless of viability - and that has to be her choice. We cannot dictate to others that they must suffer because of our beliefs - it is the choice of the potential parents.
Allan McKinley, Birmingham,
If you believe that the cluster of cells that is the foetus is a human being have you not then got a moral obligation to fight for the rights of that human being? What sort of person who believes this would not?
If we are going to talk about morality this should at least be acknowledged.
Gareth McKeever, London,
Best to err on the side of caution. If some babies can survive at 23 weeks, then the maximum time allowed for abortion should be less. And not just by one week. 20 seems sensible. It also might deter some of the 1000s of women who are having multiple abortions rather than using contraceptives.
Donna Walker, Effingham, England
Whilst claiming scientific strength, this article is scientifically weak. In University College London Hospital between 1996 and 2000, 5 of the 7 infants born at 22 weeks survived, as did 43% of the babies born at 23 weeks.
Survival is higher in neo-natal clinics; lower in ordinary hospitals.
Mike Reith, Dagenham, England
England is a moral wasteland. Under the amended law there a "saviour sibling" can be manufactured, aborted at 24 weeks - so that the organs are sufficiently developed, then the heart liver or other unduplicated spare part detached for the advantage of another child. Dr. Mengele would love it.
Augustin, Lausanne, Switzerland
What pap. The debate is changing as our knowledge has deepened. As you gain more knowledge you make better judgments....at least you should in a civilized world. If a lady has 16 or 20 weeks to make a life or death decision, by what measure is she granted wisdom by the 24th? Make it 18 weeks.
Dave H, Alexandria, USA/Virginia
We don't kill babies - do we?
Dennis Morrod, Plymouth, Devon, England
Last June, my sister gave birth to a baby girl, prematurely, at 23 weeks. Thanks to the amazing hard work of the Neonatal Unit at her local hospital, her daughter survived and is now a beautiful, happy little baby ... enough said.
Andy Enfield, Aylesbury, UK
What is immoral is killing another human being.
As for "We then leave them the terrible choice of procuring an abortion elsewhere or of bearing a child they do not want. "
Really? Didn't we leave them with buying a condom or birth control pills or the sponge or vagi condoms or depopro ...
Fernandez, Santa Clara,
`baby samuel` is not a baby in inverted commas. He is a real baby. A human child.
Lets me honest here, killing a fetus at 20 weeks is killing a human being, a very vulnerable one. One who would most likely go on to live a life.
The pro-abortionists need to be honest in their arguements.
Rosie F, Tokyo, Japan
"the abortion rights of British women"
This a weasel phrase indeed!
Look, if the women you describe here do not want to bear a child they do not want, then they should not have got themselves pregnant in the first place. Simple! Either they don't have sex or they use contraceptives.
Bill, Suzhou, China