Dr. Crippin takes a ‘professional’ position:

“I am not anti-abortion. Far from it. I see it as a lesser of two evils but I believe that a woman’s right to choose is paramount. Up to 20 weeks.”

On day 141 your body belongs to them (Nadine, the good doctor et al).

20 weeks ain’t happening. Not if I have anything to do with it.

Mike,

The Cripster does allow for caveats.

Hell, the same argument you’re making would apply to 24wks! He’s arguing absolutely against Dorries and her position, but admits that 20 would be preferable to 24 (with caveats).

Maybe Earthpal’s position is more contentious, she has the temerity to hint that maybe the father should have some input!

Who’da thunk it? It’s an outrage!

Hi Mike

Yes, put like that, it makes me feel uncomfortable too.

But you make the mistake of concluding that, because the line that is drawn is somewhat arbitrary in its impact, it must not be drawn at all.

First of all, then, do you want to draw a line? Would you allow an abortion up to 40 weeks gestation, up to the point where the foetus leaves the uterus? Presumably not. So, if you draw the line at say 28 weeks, then you are saying that the woman’s body does not belong to her after 196 days. Your argument only holds if you would allow a 40 week termination. Come to think of it, why not just kill the baby after it is born if that is what the mother wants. A reductio ad absurdum, surely, but it makes the point.

I believe that the line should be drawn comfortably before foetal viability and so 20 weeks is good for me.

I also believe that

(a) abortion should be genuinely and easily available for women who choose to have one

(b) the decision should be the woman’s alone – it is not our job to try to talk her out of it.

I would like to see Nadine (who, Iain Dale assures me is NOT against abortion) stand up for (a) and (b). But she won’t because, I suspect, she is totally against abortion. She has a perfect right to take that stance, but she needs to be a little more honest about it.

What would I do after 20 weeks? I would say the foetus has some rights at that stage and I would support the woman through pregnancy and arrange an adoption. I would always allow later abortions for catastrophic foetal abnormality or if the mother’s life was in danger. But not for social reasons. Is that compromising the mother’s rights after 20 weeks? Yes, it is. But the whole of life is a compromise and we just have to do the best we can.

John

It’s John Quiggin, not Joe Quiggin.

Hell, the same argument you’re making would apply to 24wks!

So? These arguments about whether the mother relinquishes what was up to that moment her ‘inalienable’, ‘paramount’ right to decide not to continue with the pregnancy at 141 days or 157 days or 120 days is the same argument as Dorries is making but with some minor calendar changes.

As for ‘The Cripsters caveats’, we should remember that abortion in this country is still illegal except under ‘extenuating circumstances’. The fact that the reality is different from the clear, legal intention is another matter entirely.

He’s arguing absolutely against Dorries and her position

Well, clearly he’s certainly not ‘arguing absolutely against’ her position on reducing the time limit to 20 weeks!! He’s supporting it!

For me it is straightforward. You cannot accord any rights (and I’m not sure what John means by ’some rights’ in this context) to the foetus without removing the woman’s right to control her body. John calls this a ‘compromise’.

Your argument only holds if you would allow a 40 week termination.

Yes, I would. It is the only consistent position for me to take and it has been my position on abortion for many years. I agree with Thomas Szasz. Call it murder, infanticide, whatever. I have no problem. I don’t get into pointless and often dishonest arguments about when life begins or when viability occurs. It’s a life. It’s growing inside another person’s body and while it’s there it’s not the business of Nadine Dorries, Dr Crippen or anyone else what happens to it. If you are ‘pro-choice’ but support a legal time limit then clearly you support a woman’s right to choose only up until that limit is reached. After that moment is reached you have to be clear that you are supporting the states legal control over that woman’s body backed by the threat of imprisonment. (At least we don’t hang them anymore).

Come to think of it, why not just kill the baby after it is born if that is what the mother wants.

John, If you can’t work that one out…