Should NI women have NHS access to abortion..?
Few Northern Irish issues have stimulated debate elsewhere in the blogosphere like the failed attempt by Diane Abbot to get the provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act extended to Northern Ireland. Over at the Fabian Next Left Blog, Sunder Katwala lays out a couple of thoughts:
(1) As well as the Commons voting, at some point in the future, on extending the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland, perhaps there is a good case to put another ‘stepping stone’ reform on the agenda at the same time: mainland MPs should also propose to make women from Northern Ireland eligible to have an abortion on the NHS in the rest of the UK, until and unless the NI law is changed(2) Secondly, there is very little good information on public attitudes to abortion in Northern Ireland – and a non-partisan study of public attitudes could help to create a more informed and less polarised debate. It may perhaps not be in the partisan interests of neither side to admit to the complexity of opinion.
He also notes:
Meanwhile, those promoting reform have this week released a poll with a clear majority in Northern Ireland for the right to abortion in the cases of rape and incest – with 60% in favour and 20% against.
I don’t know if they also polled the public on the support for the extension of the 1967 Act itself: if they did, the figures do not seem to have been released. (It would be a reasonable hunch to say that there would currently be public a majority against: it is reported (PDF file) that there was 25% to 30% support for abortion at the request of the woman in Northern Irish polls in 1992 and 1994. I have not seen any more recent information).
In the meantime, up to forty Northern Irish women a week make an often long and lonely journey to private English clinics, occasionally treated by nurses from home. Whilst, it seems, our politicians are happy to see this particularly awkward bundle of ethical questions kicked to touch by Westminster, even as Stormont remains powerless to take a decision.
Robert Keys’ contribution to that debate is worth clipping:
I therefore ask that they—and Parliament—consider changing the habits of a lifetime: they should accept that the very important issue of abortion should not be shuffled off to a private Member’s Bill but instead tackled in Government time with a Government Bill. We are mature enough in this country now to take those issues as public business; they are public business.
You can watch the full debate here:
Gari,
But I’m not suggesting that. This whole matter is chicken and egg. Another way of reading it is, why do women unnecessarily cede ground to men, when it is neither asked for, nor desirable. Fair play to Ann, for not giving up.
I am profoundly cognisant of the relevance of women’s opinions on this matter: from both ends of the argument. I don’t agree with Rory that it is somehow ‘women’s work’ to sort out the societal dilemmas around this issue. But when it comes to hard decisions, it is women who act as the backstop on this issue: either way.
Some of the men on this thread seem happiest when trying to take the discussion down a more comfortable macro political tangent.
Fair play to Ann, for not giving up.
Thank you I needed that.
Fair enough Mick. It’s just that there is an element of reverse chauvinism in lots of the commentary on this in the argument that men shouldn’t talk about this, or have less right to do so. Abortion is of concern to me. So is female circumcision, the pay gap between men and women, and the general persistence of patriarchy and inequality. I don’t here people argue men should butt out of those issues. It’s not progressive to say this is an issue for women. It’s an abrogation of responsibility.
The catholic church are managing to steer fairly clear waters on this one with their easy simplistic message.
There not in the real world mantra of being anti-abortion and anti-contraception is too simplistic for these times.
Unless some new system of controlling the fertility of young people falls from heaven this issue will spell the death of their church.
I for one will not be very upset especially if they persist with their midievel teaching.
Talk about not being able to evolve a new position on this just because in their own minds they fear that this would appear to be admiting that their previous belief was wrong and that this one admission of error would bring the whole kabudle crashing around their ears.
What kind of an institution is so insecure that one admission that everything is not rosy in the garden leads its supposed stalwarts to armageddon.
Anne,
Yes the north is a conservative society, but perhaps not as conservative as some might think. The reason these big societal issues like the right to choose, selective education, homosexuality, race, ‘mainly’ passed the north by, even when direct rule came into being, was because of the war. The last thing the British government and opposition wished to do was provoke their main allies in the north, all of whom opposed any change in the law on all three.
However once the war ended and a civil society began to emerge that looked beyond the core issues of nationalism and union. These vitally important societal issues were bound to gradually move up the political agenda. If you look at how the DUP and Brit Government dealt with the right to choice issue earlier this week, you will see they are still coming at this problem as if the war was still on. This cannot last.
Ann I was not characterizing all people from the north as being forelock tugging, conservative, etc, as I know this not to be true. I was simply pointing out that it is still a very conservative, backward looking place with some of the most reactionary politicians in Western Europe (and you yourself agreed on the conservative nature of the place) and it is time to move on.
In truth some of the attitudes expressed in the north are like those one heard in 1950s Britain. There is little doubt that the big societal issues that were thrashed out in the late 1960-70s in the rest of western Europe passed most people within the north by, not all and I stress that, but a great many people.
For example since the 1970s, Gay rights marches would not have raised a hair in England, could the same be said of the north? it is only pretty recently that officialdom have begun to tolerate such things. This is not because people in England are all tolerant and loving towards gays, but because the debate has been had; and the majority accept gay peopler for what they are. The bigots keep their heads down or only speak their minds amongst their own kind. Whether the latter is healthy is for another debate.
Unless I missed it, there has been no open and honest debate about the right to choose, plenty of nibbling around the edges of late, but that is it. This shows in the type of emotive language people use when debating this subject and which you yourself resort to at times. Although why you, an articulate woman feels the need to do so is beyond me, although I have an inkling, but I feel you are mistaken as the anti choice argument can be made strongly without reverting to calling people murderesses.
Best regards
Although the fact that we are debating this on slugger shows we are moving in the right direction.
Well Mick, I don’t know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult as we say here
perhaps we should compromise and call it a back handed compliment? As I said before, and will repeat finally, and then we can leave it, I did not call anyone a murderess, which distorts what I actually said. Now we can get caught up here in semantics but I don’t think it will achieve anything. This has happened through out this debate, distortion of language and mud slinging and personalisation, and no matter how articulate there comes a time, when articulation is thrown out the window along with the head and you get down in the mud and fight back, and fight dirty.
Anyway nuff said…..
Again I feel that you are confusing two things, a conservative society and the long war. Abortion is not legal in the republic and it wasn’t kept out by a long war, it was kept out by conservativism. It wasn’t only from the north that young men and women went to England in search of abortion and open gay life style. People here are as well travelled as the next person, but we didn’t import liberalisation of certain norms and customs here perhaps because it suited us, rather than being denied a debate due to the long war. I’ll give you that the war focused our concentration else where, but ten years after the GFA we have focused on liberalisation and debate. Gays here despite conservativism are as well funded and protected as anywhere else. Yes there are still problems but aren’t there everywhere, is Europe or Britain gay bashing free?
Infact those of a conservative disposition had to fight for their rights re the homosexual issue. For example remember if you will the guest house owners applying to courts so that they could not be forced to admit gay couples if the bed and breakfast was their home. The conservativism of the Bed and Breakfast owners didn’t suddenly change after the war.
Our sex edcuation laws in one or two instances are more liberal than England, so in some areas not only have we caught up but have gone beyond.
Abortion is an issue apart. There are many openly gay people against it for example. Most people don’t rate homosexuality the same as abortion, which involves the right to life. Different issues different groups. And while you’ve had the debate in England it looks like you need to have another, for are there not women in England being killed due to honour killings? Forced in to arranged marriages and forced consequently to have sex with men who are not of their choosing. Boys whipped due to a religious law, and yet you call us reactionary and behind the times?
What is wrong with the left mick? Why aren’t they screaming about this abuse. Child abuse being imposed on families because they are so afraid of ostracism within their own communities they will not speak out and risk beatings and death if they do…
Lets not get on our high horse yet, and point the finger accross the irish sea before you take the log from your own eye.
Re: the abortion debate, I’ve said before and I’ll say again,lets have the debate and put it before the electoarate, not imposed on us by Ms Abbott via a back door.
I want to pick up on Mick Hall’s point about language. I think that some of the most interesting points made in a debate around abortion can and will centre on how language is used, and the nature of that language.
One of the enduring arguments against abortion is the emotional damage that is done to women. That’s actually a nonsense. If you tell a woman she has done the wrong thing, or impose guilt through the kind of ‘baby killer’ talk that is used, well of course there is going to be guilt. If however, you tell a woman that not taking this particular pregnancy to term as it donest suit at this point in time, and take a much more practical approach, there is not going to be guilt mainly because there is no inherent reason to be guilty.
Someone else said that my arguments about androcentrism were dated. Actually, I disagree. We have lived in a society where men have made the rules and set the tone of society. Yes it is changing, and yes that is good. But this is not going ot happen overnight, and while we continue to live in a society that is bound in religious superstition and beleifs, we will only ever be able to progress so far. And I dont mean the ‘sisterhood’ when I say ‘we’- I mean society at large.
But abortion is not a societal problem, it has been convenient to make it one. It is a personal decision, and to be honest if I were now in the position of an unwanted pregnancy I might think twice from a heath perspective before continuing, but the idea of an amoral act or the commission of a sin will no longer be a reason to hesitate.
Precisely why I said I didn’t call anyone a murderess. However I do see doing away with the unborn as murder. Does the word murder involve morality, and are we not to use it? Where people murdered in bombings and shootings? Or is that language to emotive to use.
On the wider point, language is a gift of communication, its how we express ourselves. If a person is a moral person, or a conservative person, or even simply and idealogical person then they will use what ever language conveys what they want to say.
Lets face it Miss Fitz what you are really objecting to is the thought behind the language. Would you consider it a thought crime for anyone to call abortion murder and perhaps bann the word in those circumstances? Theres a lot of word banning and the criminalisation of our thought processes, I simply refuse to enter into the process of not calling a spade a spade, or is the word spade now racist?
All that you are engaging in is pc correctness, and the distortion of language to suit your own purposes.
How exactly is abortion not a societal issue? We can see from this debate that it is. It is an issue a society has to make a judgment on regarding legislation or not, circumstances under which it might be permissible, etc.
As for the idea that guilt is imposed on people through the language of others. I really do wonder if that is accurate. After all, terrorists/freedom fighters or whatever happily killed thousands of people here without mass guilt among them despite the rhetoric of condemnation that was the norm.
As for the lack of abortion being dictated by a male dominated society. Usually we have women complaining about men’s irresponsible attitude to sex, child-rearing, taking up their duties. I’d have thought that abortion would be more suited to any male dominated society. Such arguments are plainly silly, ignore the prominence of females in the debate on both sides, and do nobody any credit.
This debate will always come back to one crucial point. When is it determined that life begins.
As I noted in an earlier post, I cannot and will not view a non-viable foetus as a living entity, and the law supports this.
I would never kill a baby, nor condone the killing of one. However, I support the right of women to terminate a pregnancy that has not yet resulted in a baby. A potential life can mean a lot to people who would like to bring that life to fruition, but to others it is not an option that they want to consider. And they should not be forced to produce a baby because well meaning but ill informed members of wider society are sticking their collective noses into what is a private matter
and while we continue to live in a society that is bound in religious superstition and beleifs, we will only ever be able to progress so far
On this point, I’m attending a talk this week chaired by will crawley and the discussion will include malachi o’dochartai’s book ‘empty pulpits’. Society imo has lost its moral compas along with its christian heritage, we no longer live in a christian society. Wasn’t there something in Birmingham a few years back where christmas should now be called winterfest?
NI does not exsist in isolation , we are not immune from the waning and fall of christianity and its influence. And the shopping around for language that does not convey guilt is proof positive that we’ve moved away from christian values. Wider society has hardly benefited by the dumping of religious morality which hasn’t been replaced by anything, there is simply a vaccuum.
So miss fitz Iwould disagree very strongly that we live in a society that is still bound by religious superstition and beliefs.
And they should not be forced to produce a baby because well meaning but ill informed members of wider society are sticking their collective noses into what is a private matter
Who forced them to get pregnant. We are not speaking here of severe handicap to a child as that is already covered and abortion can be given on those grounds AFAIK, what we are speaking of is a woman who has decided to get pregnant through her own behaviour and then decides she wants rid of it for what ever reason.
Garibaldy
I tire of this, but to answer one point of yours. This has been constructed to be a societal issue, when in fact it is a private one. I can remember in the 70′s when the contraceptive pill was a ‘societal’ issue in the Republic of Ireland, and all forms of contraception were seen to be illegal, immoral and wrong.
As you can see, time has changed this and contraception is no longer an issue that consumes wider society, and you can get your condoms or your pill without risking jail.
Hopefully we will see a time when abortion is finally accepted as a private issue and a woman can make the choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy when it suits her, without being made feel she is commiting murder.
“when articulation is thrown out the window along with the head and you get down in the mud and fight back, and fight dirty.”
Indeed, I have been an advocate of such behavior most of my life, and I have a bump on my head to prove it, due to banging it up against a brick wall
However if possible I have also found that if a debate can be kept at a civilized level, I gain more from it, at the very least people learn to disagree and recognize that the other persons holds their views with as much sincerity as I hold mine.
The reason abortion is still illegal in the south is [Imo] totally down to the dominance of the roman catholic church and the political clout it still has in the south, I’m sure someone will put me right, but from where I sit, it appears that is simply the case.
Whereas in the north it is more complicated, as you have to factor in the long war, no matter how much you resist doing so;) and of course both a form of christian evangelism and again the catholic church have played their role in keeping abortion off the statute book. Never the less I am absolutely certain the right to choose will be on the statute book long before Ireland is reunited politically.
On the issue of young women being killed by close members of their families or are being brutalized, yes it is a problem within some muslim communities and it is a sad fact we do not really understand the scale of this problem. It is not really a religious problem but is a cultural problem.
As with ‘domestics’ it is a very difficult problem for the police; and society to deal with, but deal with it we must. There are groups springing up all over the place that are offering support and refuge to these young women; and some very courageous muslim women work for them.
The authorities in the past have been to ready to anoint so called community leaders with authority, not only within muslim communities but also in Hindi, Christian and Sikh communities.
Why should a priest or vicar at the local temple or church, or the imam at the mosque, gain precedence over any other community activist when it comes to access to politicians and governmental funds, but they do.
But I fear you are diverting me Ann.
mick I feel we shall have to differ on what component parts make up the lack of debate surrounding abortion. I fully agree with you that there has been none, and then again I fear debates for the sake of them without the issue going before the electorate. I remember the last debate we had as a community, when SF went round to ask its support base in its heartlands certain questions surrounding republicanism before the last election. I witnessed one such debate, where the microphone was controlled bya SF supporter and it was actively passed to supporters and certain faces got left out. Hence now we have some problems within republicanism…
So debate with no purpose is only so much talk, and I simply don’t know if it will serve any purpose. Put the issue before the electorate and at least that way society will get a better reading.
As for this not being an issue for society but a personal issue. I think that is wrong. There are always consequences for society from personal decisions made on a mass scale. 40 women a week adds up to quite a lot over many years, there is certainly cost involved either way, and its the tax payer they want to fund it, that makes it a problem for society rather than a personal decision paid for by the private individual.
Mick you are an interesting diversion
The bump on my head is healing and I hope yours is too and your points are well taken .
IMO, everyone should be permitted to do with one’s body whatever one sees fit, whether it be bringing another human being into the world or taking one’s self out of it – provided that it is not against the law or against the wishes and interests of those immediately concerned.
These are moral concerns which should not be dictated by others, especially states and institutions which do not have to deal with the consequences of unwanted living.
As women should be allowed a free choice about what to do with a pregnancy, provided the father does not oppose it, old folks should be allowed to vacate the place if it does not place hardship on others.
While one does not choose to enter this world, one should be allowed to leave it when one wants. And along the way, a woman should be allowed to treat the products of her body, whether they be fetuses or tumors as they see fit.
Pro-life proponents are too committed to creating problems for others – ones in the case of unwanted children often just create more difficulties for societies.
If these choices are not the fedrock of individual freedom, there is no such thing.
Panchos Horse referring to the British Medical Association as Nazis really takes the rich tea.
Mick miscontrues my argument when he says, “I don’t agree with Rory that it is somehow ‘women’s work’ to sort out the societal dilemmas around this issue.”
While I am absolutely on Miss Fitz’s side when she argues, “But abortion is not a societal problem, it has been convenient to make it one. It is a personal decision…” and reject Garibaldy’s line, ” How exactly is abortion not a societal issue? We can see from this debate that it is.” I do think that there is a societal issue, but not the one Garibaldy considers and not one that should be left to women to work out but rather one that needs to be urgently addressed by men.
That issue is whether or not men (and indeed all of society) can at last begin to treat women as free and equal human beings in society and allow them unfettered control over their own bodies or whether they may not be permitted that freedom becuse it conflicts with the religious sensibilities of others. Until women enjoy this basic freedom the rest of society will remain unfree as the locked-in mindset of those who would deny that freedom amply illustrates.
If women do not have the right to control our own bodies, then what rights do we have? Unlike most of those posting here, I have been on the streets talking to people about their views on abortion and find that most people are pro-choice. This does not mean that they agree with abortion or would have an abortion themselves, but they do recognise that it’s only when ‘it comes to your own door’ that you really can say you are genuinely anti-abortion. Also, there is a real awareness of the class element of the issue and the fact that many working class women have to go into debt to pay for abortions that should be free on the NHS. So, most people ended up saying they agreed with the extension of the 1967 Act in the interests of equality.
That’s why most pro-choice activists would be happy to see a referendum here. We are fairly sure we would win it.
As for Jenny’s point earlier that “But… there will be practical issues to address as any clinic offering abortions in NI will be heavily picketed and women using it will be identified and vilified – photos on the net, anyone?”, this is nonsense. The fundamentalists find it hard to get a handful of people together to picket the FPA or the Brook Centre. They’ve given up entirely on civil partnerships and even when they gather all their forces for the Belfast Pride march, it’s not all that many.
Last Sat (18th Oct), they had this ‘Rally for Life’ at Stormont. They promised ‘tens of thousands’ would turn out and the publicity campaign included billboards and newspaper adverts…yet, according to the BBC, they turned out only ‘hundreds of protestors’. They are a dwindling minority of society in NI.
Rory,
The question is whether it is a personal issue of control of a body or not. Society at large must decide that issue, is the point I’m making. It is not just an issue for women.
The point is, Garibaldy, that in all areas of the UK it is recognised as the right of a woman’s exercise over the control of her own body, except for this aberration (abortion?) that is Northern Ireland.
And that is the nub of the issue.
As a woman, I should have the absolute right to control my body. I am not an incubator for society at large and the choice to bear or abort is mine and mine alone.
The test of viability may be one for others to decide, but once I know that what I am aborting is not viable, and that it is not a ‘baby’, then I must be allowed to proceed with whatever I choose to do.
Ah. Cause society recognised it as such. I have no problem with people making that argument, but it is the confusion of arguments where lots of often contradictory arguments are thrown into the mix and people are told they have no right to discuss the issue that annoys me.
See GH’s post above for an example. She makes fun of the poor turnout of the anti-choice rally, but ingores the fact that there were more there than at the pro-choice rallies held across NI. Nevermind the I’ve been talking to people about this attitude.
Rory, Really sorry to disappoint you but I’m a married woman in my thirties with kids. Sorry took so long but been away a few days so didn’t catch tis earlier. obviously you’ve never thought you’ve been unexpectedly pregnant and the first palce a woman goes for counselling is her riends. Women talk ‘cos that’s the way we’re hard-wired. Counselling is a vital part of hte abortion process, we’re making a hell of hard decision, mainly without the help of a partner, often because he’s buggered off into the distance or else, in one case I know of, because he said “here’s the money get rid of it”. this was absolutley devestaitng for the woman involved as they were in a stable relationship. So please don’t lecture me on morality and the naffness of counselling. No, I haven’t had an abortion, but like most women, I would imagine, I know women who have and it’s not easy. Even less easy is the question “I’m pregnant, should I abort or keep the baby?” What do you say???
“But medical arguments were trumped by political ones. Squashing the amendment repaid a debt allegedly incurred to unionists in May, when votes from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) saved the British government from defeat on proposals to allow detention of terrorist suspects for 42 days without charge.”
(From The Economist)
So the Shinners benefit from the DUP’s support of and success in getting mini-internment pushed through as well…who’d a thought?
Graduate,
I have no objection whatsoever to any woman seeking the counsel of friends or professionals at any time she feels the need. Indeed it is something that I would encourage. Isolation is not good for any person particularly when they are in situations of stress.
What I objected to in your proposal was the idea that a woman must be obliged to receive counselling and adoption advice as a condition of exercising her right over her own body. Too often what is envisaged is that she be subject to a barrage of guilt-inducing moralising from complete strangers whose only concern is the priggish self-satisfaction of feeling morally superior to those they ‘counsel’.
It all harks rather too much to me of the niggardly philosophy of the ‘deserving poor’ which informed such practices as that of the Salvation Army’s in keeping homelees indigents locked in for prayer sessions long after the opportunity for finding any paid work had passed, thus obliging them to return to the miserable piety of the same shelters again and again, all so starkly recounted in Jack London’s The People of the Abyss (1903.)
In any case, as I have said repeatedly before, the decision must be left to the woman and she ought to be supported in that decision, certainly in the first instance by the putative father, but, failing his willingness or ability to do the right thing, by responsible society – that’s you and me!
Rory, explain to me why I have a responsibility to this woman? Explain to me why I should be forced to pay via my taxes to clear up a personal mess that this particular individual has gotten her self into when it goes against my principles to do so. Explain to me why its wrong for the salvation army to keep men at prayer instead of letting them go off to work is wrong, but its ok if its big government nannying irresponsible women and men, helping them in the long run to make stupid decisions. Why should the tax payer pick up the tab and say there there everything will be ok. Why should big government via my taxes enable anyone to make stupid choices in their personal lives.
If these women want legality over their decision what is wrong with them paying for it from their own pocket, or those of the fleeing and irresponsible partner.
That is not the role of government, to save people from their own mistakes, the government is not a parent, its role should be minimal. As govt money shouldn’t be used to bail out banks, neither should it be used to bail out woman who has made a bad decision and now want to change their minds.
It’s time to grow up ladies, no money from devolved governmet to sort out your mess, it isn’t there next time buy a box of condoms. Save us all the grief, themselves included.
Rory, I’m not saying counselling should be compulsory and I’m sorry if you got that impression. I’m saying that the counselling offered should be much more realistic and holistic than the rubbish presently offered which too often says abortion is the only option. Grief counselling and marriage counselling are acceptable, why not considered abortion counselling. I can be a sounding board but I’m not trained to deal with these issues and it’s unfair to expect women to make life-changing decisions without discussing them. Too often we give advice based on our own prejudices nad experience. a trained cousellor doesn’t (or shouldn’t) do that.
Ann, if a woman is the victim of rape is it still her fault if she gets pregnant? Your basic assumptions are skewed and quite frankly your rhetoric is becoming repetitive and does more to drive me to the pro-choice side of the argument than persuade me that pro-life is the option to take. Or have you never made any sort of mistake? Do oyu also believe that gays should be ostracised too? Sad life really
“I challenge anyone to try and take home a 6-week old foetus and try and rear it up as a child. It is nothing but a blob of bloody material. OK, maybe some googly eyes, but not viable.”
I’ve seen villages, regions, Ethiopia, and it is the same idea.
That could also be just the inside of a tank after a wire guided hollow charge, one has value ideas, about it,
Maybe the googly eyes staring out of the pit of a T72, if he could, he’d say non-violable.
absent God, we can really do anything or nothing, or whatever, was Pol Pot wrong? Or was he right until it went wrong?
A value system can be time limited, Budapest, Soviets, do you use you troops to save the garrison, make a corridor,
but maybe somebody has missed some Jews, what to do? forget escape route, a solution that isn’t final, isn’t a solution,
Without God, one tends to, have differing ideas of who or what is violable, etc.
Grad
When I make a mistake I’m not asking the tax payer to bail me out.
Homosexuality is not abortion.
My argument shouldn’t be driving you anywhere, big girls make their own minds up.
Sad life really
I hope you feel better soon.
“You have the right to do whatever you want – unless or until it affects me”.
This only works if you see existance as materially seperate.
Some people see existance as spiritually inclusive.
Who is correct ?
It seems on a whole range of issues, both sets of believers want to set themselves up legally as the civil default.
I would just add that i was also once unviable – needing the help of others.
I’m pretty sure i still do actually.