I would suggest that the Abortion Act provides exactly the opposite message from that which Chris Snowdon argues.
Yes, it is true that there has been a modest reduction in the time limit due abortions since the original enactment in 1967. The issue however is that the constraints in the Act have been largely ignored since Day 1, as opponents of the Act warned would happen. The Abortion Act is not supposed to provide abortion on demand; it permits abortion where the continuation of the pregnancy would cause serious risk to the physical or mental health of the mother; Parliament was told that these would be relatively abnormal circumstances giving rise to about 6,000 abortions per annum. The law hasn’t changed but today 1 in 3 pregnancies are ended by abortion. The mental health condition has been used to allow anyone who is careless with contraception or just regrets a pregnancy to end it for personal convenience. You can argue that that is as it should be, but that’s not the law as it stands.
You can put whatever protections you like in a law but if doctors and the judiciary are minded to drive a coach and horses through them (perhaps abetted by organisations which have a financial interest) then they aren’t worth anything. I suspect the same will be true with this proposal. The intention is to push the door slightly ajar so that it can be kicked fully open afterwards.
It may be worthwhile remembering why abortion was banned in the first place. The child is created when the egg is fertilised. There is no other point where that can happen. So to kill a foetus is to kill the child, murder. Sadly it is the mother, who should love that child the most, who inevitably decides on the termination. I do not think we can go back to banning the practice. Bans did not work anyway. But we could perhaps require that the above facts are explained to people seeking abortions prior to the act.
Abortion was once banned, but eventually allowed subject to very tight restrictions. Well it is now general and the restrictions have to all intents and purposes disappeared. The same will certainly happen with assisted dying and the safeguards will be junked.
I would suggest that the Abortion Act provides exactly the opposite message from that which Chris Snowdon argues.
Yes, it is true that there has been a modest reduction in the time limit due abortions since the original enactment in 1967. The issue however is that the constraints in the Act have been largely ignored since Day 1, as opponents of the Act warned would happen. The Abortion Act is not supposed to provide abortion on demand; it permits abortion where the continuation of the pregnancy would cause serious risk to the physical or mental health of the mother; Parliament was told that these would be relatively abnormal circumstances giving rise to about 6,000 abortions per annum. The law hasn’t changed but today 1 in 3 pregnancies are ended by abortion. The mental health condition has been used to allow anyone who is careless with contraception or just regrets a pregnancy to end it for personal convenience. You can argue that that is as it should be, but that’s not the law as it stands.
You can put whatever protections you like in a law but if doctors and the judiciary are minded to drive a coach and horses through them (perhaps abetted by organisations which have a financial interest) then they aren’t worth anything. I suspect the same will be true with this proposal. The intention is to push the door slightly ajar so that it can be kicked fully open afterwards.
It may be worthwhile remembering why abortion was banned in the first place. The child is created when the egg is fertilised. There is no other point where that can happen. So to kill a foetus is to kill the child, murder. Sadly it is the mother, who should love that child the most, who inevitably decides on the termination. I do not think we can go back to banning the practice. Bans did not work anyway. But we could perhaps require that the above facts are explained to people seeking abortions prior to the act.
Abortion was once banned, but eventually allowed subject to very tight restrictions. Well it is now general and the restrictions have to all intents and purposes disappeared. The same will certainly happen with assisted dying and the safeguards will be junked.