Sometimes you look at a news story and think: “Now why didn’t we see that
coming?” Every clue was there, every trend and current flowed towards it.
When the thing happens, you look back and see that it was obvious.
The latest example emerged yesterday, in a warning from the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists about a looming “abortion crisis”. An
unprecedented number of doctors are opting out of terminating pregnancies,
and the NHS struggles to cope.
Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, says: “Unless we can
motivate doctors to train in abortion, we may face a situation in five
years’ time in which women’s access to abortion is severely restricted.”
Some doctors, she said crossly, take a “naive view” that there is now no
excuse for accidental pregnancies, and think it low-status work.
The increasing number of refuseniks is caused chiefly, say campaigners, by the
cut in junior doctors’ hours. This means they no longer have to train in
everything, but can pick and choose. And who, given a choice, would not
gladly opt out of the one task in which doctors end healthy life?
Richard Warren, of the royal college, told a newspaper yesterday that in the
past abortion was “an accepted part of the workload”, but that it always was
“difficult and upsetting work”, so more and more doctors now opt out.
Another consultant said: “You get no thanks for it . . . who admits to
friends at a dinner party that they are an abortionist?” She, and others,
want it put in a core curriculum.
Well, OK. Probably the change in doctors’ training routines is indeed part of
the cause of this looming “crisis”. I daresay the dinner-party factor also
has some tiny effect. Young doctors are, ideally, idealists. Few of us would
want them otherwise. They have plenty of time to be worn down by pragmatic
cynicism, and to compromise with human folly, misery and selfishness. By the
time they’re 40, some of them will have discarded sufficient of their
idealism to make fortunes out of breast implants and foot surgery to fit
pointy stiletto shoes. And there is a good case for telling wavering medical
students, with harrowing examples, that abortion is not always a selfish
choice or an evil deed.
However, there is another, even stronger, current that led us to this
shortage. These young doctors have a point: if they agree to do abortions
they agree to do all of them, not just those undertaken for deep, serious,
heartbreaking reasons. They must serve not only the rape victims, the
abused, the desperate, the weak-minded, the sick and women who might be so
damaged by birth that the welfare of their existing children would be
torpedoed. No: once they’re signed up for it they must also serve the silly,
the selfish, the careless and thoughtless.
These young refusenik doctors are not stupid: they know as well as anyone that
despite vast improvements in contraception, abortions have rocketed:
doubling since the early 1970s to 190,000 a year. They know the horrifying
statistic that one in three British women has an abortion at some point.
They are in tune with their generation: they know that for too many women it
has become a back-up form of contraception, taken for granted and never
likely to be denied them.
They know that the old mantra of abortion campaigners — “No woman does this
without deep thought and heartbreaking need” — is way out of date. Plenty do
it irritably, without a pang, after a drunken fumble with a stranger. Plenty
do it because the time isn’t “right” for them, even by a factor of half a
year. Even some mothers do it, as Caitlin Moran startlingly wrote last week,
after less agonising than they put into choosing new kitchen worktops (read
Caitlin's article here).
The reluctant young doctors also know what a joke, what a legal fig leaf, is
the system whereby two doctors have to certify that there is more risk to
the physical or mental health of the mother from continuing the pregnancy
than from termination (which, itself, is shown to increase the risk of
serious depression). They know that the spirit of the 1967 Act is light
years away from the 2007 practice: they know that without ever having
debated or voted on it, we effectively have abortion on demand. And they
know that this is the dodgy result of four decades of nods, winks, strident
campaigning and secular consensus. And as the abortions increase and the
stigma apparently fades, at the same time those emotive pictures from the
womb get better and better, and passionate legal cases are fought over
minute frozen foetuses . . .
So it was going to happen, this doctorly reluctance. There was eventually
bound to be a shortage of volunteers to cooperate in what is sometimes an
act of sorrowful mercy, but sometimes one of careless selfishness or
neurotic control-freakery. Easier just to say no, and work on life instead.
It would have been better, perhaps, if the spirit and letter of the 1967 Act
(which I supported) had been more robustly followed, and couples given more
reason to be very, very careful.
But there is one awful irony. If there is to be a shortage of abortionists
there will be ever longer waiting lists, thus ever more late abortions, even
for the most deserving cases. And if there is one thing that all sides tend
to agree on, it is that the later the abortion the worse for everybody, born
or unborn.
But we should admit honestly that the change in medical education is only the
final straw. We did this to ourselves with our worship of sexual
impetuosity, our cowardly right-on attitudes to anything involving women,
and our dubious backdoor introduction of casual, lifestyle abortion. We did
this to avoid one misery, and brought on another.
Also... I think that abortion should only be available if the mothers health is seriously at risk, or the baby will die anyway if it is not aborted. I don't think that abortions should happen even in cases of incest or rape, because...is it the baby's fault who his/her father is? or how he/she was concieved? i think not
Rhiannon, Warwickshire,
I think that Doctors should be able to choose which cases of abortion they take, rather than HAVING to do ALL abortions taht are thrown on them, if they choose to do abortions. Or am I just being completely naiive?
Rhiannon, Warwickshire,
As a teacher for twenty years, in inclusive schools that had children from all backgrounds and disabilities, I have never met a child who told me the would rather not have been born. The most neglected, disadvantaged child, and I have known many, when faced with this question in abortion discussions and lessons, has never turned around and said that death in the womb would have been preferable to the life that they live. We are fooling ourselves by believing that anyone would say or think such a thing. Also, there is no such thing as a fetus, any more than there is such a thing as a geriatric, they are just descriptions of human beings at different stages in their life.
Sue Oxley, Glastonbury, UK
I must say that, in spite of being told by a doctor that I was unlikely to become pregnant naturally ( due to PCOS), using the pill and condoms, I became pregnant last year. On learning of this my partner disappeared and left me on my own. I made the decision to have an abortion, not out of selfishness but necessity as I also work in a sector that means that I would have had to leave work immediately, leaving me homeless and destitute. It was not a frivolous choice and I resent those who think they have the right to dictate to me what to do with MY life and body. I took precautions and they failed...so don't meddle in the affairs of those you know nothing about.
Sara, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire
Sarag - Paris,
In your opinion, at what point does life become HUMAN?What makes this life become human?
(Is it as you say once a baby is born, it is human?)
Sarah Jones, Wales,
In response to the debate on when the fetus becomes "life" - this misses the point. From the moment of implantation in the womb the fertilised egg is "life", but it is not HUMAN life. An amoeba is life, an ant is life, and dog is life - this doesn't mean that society accords them equal rights to a full human life.
Also, I object to the idea that women should carry thorugh unwanted pregnancies in order to provide babies for other couples to adopt. Pregnancy and childbirth entail huge physical and psychological demands on women, and in carrying a pregnancy to full term a women is putting her own health at risk. Secondly, once a baby is born it is a human life and the mother may then feel a responsibility towards it. It is an entirely different thing giving up a child for adoption, thus refusing responsibility for its well-being, and then wondering what happens to it for the rest of your life, than deciding to terminate the pregnancy before the fetus develops into a human life
Sarag, Paris,
Lauren - the idea that doctors be 'forced' to perform procedures is ludicrous. Were your recommendations to be taken seriously our society would, I fear, be rampant with extravagantly long waiting lists...and very disilluisioned florists.
Jenny, Co. Londonderry,
Thank you, KM and SPL! What determines whether in a given case an abortion is right or ethical is the individual circumstances of that case. What determines whether continuing a specific unwanted pregnancy is violence or merely a temporary inconvenience is, again, the circumstances.
That's why it matters that abortion be a legal and practical option, so each case can be decided on its own merits.
Legally, the only way to do that is to make it clearly the woman's own decision.
Women should be honoring the sanctity of human life when confronted with these decisions, and doctors providing abortion services are well-placed to help them do so.
Morally and ethically there are vast and multi-shaded gray areas around abortion. It seems to me doubly tragic that doctors who understand this are opting out of their position of influence and at the same time making even the most justified abortions harder to obtain and therefore less safe.
LTH, California, USA
As a Christian doctor I want to add a couple of things to this discussion.I am saddened at the lack of emphasis on the sanctity of human life. I believe that each human being is created by God in His image-a miracle from the moment it is conceived. Life is not ours to create,therefore it is not ours to destroy. I believe that God will judge our country if we do not pay heed to the warnings.
Taking human life as a rule unacceptable to the majority of us...why is it that some so vehemently support it when a life is sheltered by it's mother's womb? Is killing a 24 week baby in utero more acceptable that killing it after birth?
As a medic I have seen the flippant attitude of many mothers to abortion- patients discuss it as they would the weather. However I've also witnessed the physical, mental and spiritual complications that inevitably follow an abortion. That feeling of guilt that pervades each and every patient is evidence that we know,deep inside,that we're tredding a dangerous path.
Jenny, Co. Londonderry,
Yes, the child is dependent upon the mother for life, we are all dependent upon our environments.
In pregnancy a foetus is within the domain of your body. The arguement, hinges on the question of if, and why, he has the right to be there or not.
The legality of the above will differ according to the range of cutt-off points for abortion. The foetus has legal rights not to be aborted after such a time. For example, France and Germany 12 weeks, Italy 13 weeks, Sweden 18 weeks. US limits after 26 weeks.
A fist is most certainly hitting the child's face when the baby/foetus is aborted.
I realise that there can be valid reasons for choosing abortion, but I do not understand that carrying an unwanted pregnancy is equal to violence.
SPL, The North,, UK
Sarah – Most modern birth control methods are well over 95% effective. Sterilisation by the woman and/or vasectomy by the man are pretty much 100% effective. Just because a man may laugh at you, does not mean a woman cannot ask her man to abstain during the “fertile period” of her menstrual cycle. One should take advice from a doctor on how to determine when an individual woman’s fertile period is.
For a young woman with a regular 4 weekly period this is usually between the 12th and the 16th day after the start of the previous period. To minimise the risk of unwanted pregnancy a woman should NOT have intercourse between the latter half of second week and the beginning of the fourth week from the start of her previous period.
LTH – Just because something is legal does not make it right or ethical. Women could not vote before the suffragette’s direct action which made the UK parliament pass an act granting women the right to vote.
KM, London, UK
I think if you do some research you will discover that there are 500,000 abortions a day, not just190,000 as stated in the articles.
it is time someone fought for these unborn babies rights
.
Wendy Sharpless
Wendy Sharpless, Heligan, Cornwall / UK
Why not just clone and be done with it? Then pregnancy as we know it would cease to occur by 2100 or so. End of problem!
Tatiana Covington, Tucson, AZ USA
A standard description of the limit of individual rights is "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." I therefore see no circumstance which could legally justify forcing someone to keep another being (even another living human being) inside her body against her will. In the legal sense a foetus has no rights of its own when it cannot live, move, or grow without injuring someone else. And continuation of an unwanted pregnancy is an injury.
LTH, California, USA
While there is a financial incentive for women to be referred for abortions, the notion of 'neutral counselling' will remain the sham that it is.
I have the right to do as I wish with MY body, but when I gave birth to my sons, I didn't lose part of MY body - I gave birth to separate and unique people.
We need to revist our abortion legislation. Aborting 520 lives every day is not something we can continue to do.
Trude Hyde, Brixham, UK
What method of birth control is 100% effective?
Have you ever mentioned the word abstention to a man without being laughed at?
It takes two to make a baby, what about the silly irresponsible men who make babies and then walk out? Where is the condendation of them?
Sarah, Gillingham,
Contraceptives fail. Mine did twice doctors' admitted they did. I had two healthy children, but two very difficult deliveries. The second pregnancy fraught with problems. Yes I did have a termination many years ago, I just couldn't cope with ill health and a child at that time. YES, I have always regretted having to do it, and I will have to live with that guilt. People are too quick to condem, most women who go down this path, go down with heavy heart. I ended up having a hysterectomy, for womb problems and health problems. I was in my early thirties. I needed to know that my children would have a Mother and a Father to bring them up. This wouldn't be the case if there was another pregnancy.
ANV, London, England
Surely the "act" of abortion in isolation is the issue - having experienced the cold calculating almost mundane manner in which the initial consultation and so called "counselling " is conducted I believe the support for women with unwanted pregnancies is totally inadequate.
At the point at which an unplanned pregnancy is discovered a woman can find herself both very isolated and irrational - her hormones are rampant and her emotions are enhanced.
Surely investment in skilled counsellors to provide the woman with , at the very least, a sypmathetic, non judgemental ear , would provide the opportunity to talk the issue through - an option not available to any number of women who , for whatever reason, go through this appalling decision solo.
Given the advent of Nurse Practicioners within GP practices in recent years this would be an ideal role for them to fulfil as a part of their day to day function - removing the initial contact from the doctor.
Ellemmjay, York,
I had an abortion. It was agony. My fiance (who later dumped me for unrelated reasons) lived in a different country, I lived in a place that didnt allow children, I had no savings. My father would've forsaken me and I'm American and in America people don't live on welfare and drive bmw's, they are stuck in a poverty trap for life as a single mother. I also know what it's like to be raised by a single, unloving, neglectful mother. I was afraid that that is who I'd be if I had a child that would condemn us both to poverty forever. I know from personal experience adoption isnt always a great idea. It was a mistake, a failure of birth control, he was not a drunken one night stand. If I'd had the child I wouldn't be married today and working towards providing a good life for my future children. I have begged Gods forgivness and that of the child. I'll live with my guilt until I die, but the right choice was made to avoid suffering for all involved.
A, omagh,
I read Caitlin Moran's article in the paper on the day and I must say I was shocked at her attitude. I was actually quite offended by it. To say thet she does not want another child just as she does not want "to move to Australia" was possibly one of the most insensitive comments I have ever heard in my life. To compare ending your child's life to cancelling a flight down under betrays a view to abortion unlike I thought was possible. I was, therefore, pleased to read Ms. Libby's equally offended reaction a few days later. When will pro-choicers get it that us concerned people are not looking to interfere in there lives but rather to stop them from hurting another life. Being a mother does not give you complete dominion over your child's life. It is a person too and its rights should be protected from dangerous attitudes like those of Ms. Moran.
AAO, London, UK
A few years ago, a few months into a relationship, I believed myself to be pregnant. Having just started university with no steady income, I confided in some friends who spoke of how easy it was to have an abortion and not to worry. I actually found myself considering having an abortion.... for about two seconds. Then I grew absolutely shocked about how simple it would be to kill my own child and the fact that it had even entered my mind to end life due to my own carelessness horrified me.
It turned out I wasn't pregnant, but the experience made me sure of one thing - since then I promised myself never again to have sex unless I was prepared to have a child and only with a partner who would be willing to support me.
Lisa, London,
I really don't believe that women are taking abortion so lightly. I think this is a made up myth.
Jane, Hull, UK
Life is such a precious gift, much more important than life-style. My family never had a car: we had a bitsa bicyclel We had hand-me down clothes. We had seven loved kids and I wouldn't trade in any of them!
Damien Shutt, LOwer Hutt, New Zealand
I agree with the "niave" view that there is little or no excuse for unwanted pregnancy. I am a 45 year old woman who has managed for 25 years to have sex for other than reproductive reasons and to avoid conception until I was ready to have children. IT CAN BE DONE. Like it or not, women bear the ultimate responsibility for avoiding pregnancy. If a woman is concerned about contraception not being 100% sure, she can combine methods or even--unthinkable!--abstain from sex until she is willing to assume the risk of pregnancy. She might also try staying sober when considering sex. Sorry, girls, we are not men--their so-called sexual "freedom" cannot be ours. This is a simple biological fact; denial of it has consigned millions of unwanted pre-born children to death. Women: is this the price at which you are willing to purchase sexual liberty?
Skylark, Knoxville TN, USA
I'm very pleased that doctors have the courage to opt out of work they do not want to do. There are vast differences between 'cosmetic' abortions and those where the life of the child and/or the mother are threatened, and i expect that doctors will know the difference. This exercise in their rights to opt out will attract protest from the 'cosmetic' applicants, I am sure. But that should not stop them exercising this right.
Tony,, West London,
I would like to second what Dr. Zebic has said. I have seen women who won't take the pill because it is too much trouble. Some want to wait, taking it only after sex, as an ersatz "morning after pill". It is a practice called "doubling down" -- taking two or three pills after the fact. I can't recommend it, as a practice. Some women compulsively go from one doctor to another, "stocking up " on more pills than they coud use in a year. Others claim they can't remember to take the pill every day. Many who are pregnant are confused and end up getting an abortion because their friends talk them into it. A lot of these don't really want an abortion. They just don't know what to do. There is very little rational thought in any of it, to be honest. But abortion is the contraceptive of last resort, and of choice for many. It has to do with lax moral attitudes. I don't really envision more sex education will change the situation.
Tony Francis MD JD , Wichita, KS/USA
Congratulations, Britain. All the babies you aborted -- your own flesh and blood -- have been replaced by Moslems who soon will, following your example, not flinch when it is your turn to die for their convenience.
Welcome to the new Dark Age.
Joe Ames, Philadelphia, USA
"What proportion of abortions are repeat abortions on the same patient ? Shouldn't sterilisation be an option to reduce this factor ? "
From: Oberon, Manchester, England" (Below)
Never mind sterilisation as an 'option' for social abortion, it should be an obligation and a condition for receiving the abortion in the first place for those who trivialise it as merely a form of emergency birth control.
Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece
Having spoken about the subject of abortion often to my sister in law who was a midwife before she retired she said that many medical staff find abortion on demand abhorrent and leave rather than have anything to do with it. There has never been so much birth control information and means available as there is now. People are selfish and careless in their sexual habits. The destruction of potential human life on a whim (which it mostly is) by medical intervention will be viewed in the future in the same way that we perceive slavery today. People in the future will look back in horror and ask "How could they have believed that this was all right"?
Pat, Luton, Beds
Most of my patients who come requesting an abortion usually do so because of neglect of contraception rather than some legitimate medical reason. Abortion is increasingly seen as a first line level of contraception. Yes, difficult cases do arise which in some way seem to justify it; but what I can't stand is how the exception is used to justify the rule.
I have had women who have not wanted to take the pill because of the fear that it would make them fat, some have had abortions because the baby would interfere with their holidays. Others who have had terminations in their late 30's and are on IVF six months later. Sterilisations are frequently reversed once a new partner is found.
I have never referred a patient for an abortion because in Australia I have the right to exercise my conscience as a doctor. There seem to be growing calls in this country to take that right away. It's not the abortion act that requires review, rather our sexual morality and sense of responsability.
Dr Steven Zebic MBBS, Melbourne, Australia
It might just be the fact that babies are surviving from 22 weeks and abortion is allowed upto 24 weeks that doctors are shying away from killing what is a viable human being. It has always puzzled me why we make doctors take an oath to preserve life then expect them to take it when it is expedient for society.
I have been a campaigner for women's right since I knew they didn't have many but I have never been able to view it as a right to abort a foetus for any of the social reasons put forward these days. If two words were meant to be together its Rights & Responsibilities. You may not have one without the other. Rape and the serious damage to the health of a mother are special circumstances, which although I would not want an abortion for myself, I can see may be valid reasons for others.
One correspondent asked that readers walk a mile in the shoes of women who want an abortion. We could also walk a mile in the shoes of the doctors who have to do the abortions.
Mrs. M. Laycock, Surrey,
Lauren – People in other professions DO have choices. Let me quote Sarah N from London “Just as lawyers can choose criminal or conveyancing, so doctors can choose where to best apply themselves.” You don’t understand how abortion apparently = ending a healthy life. This implies that you do not consider the foetus as having any life? May I ask you when this unborn child becomes alive? Is it when it pops out into this world?
GL – If you are so sure not “raise a child in the world we have created”, would it not be wise to be sterilised or get your partner to have a vasectomy? That way not only will anyone “force” you to have a child you do not want, but also the benefit of not having to kill an unborn child.
KM, London, UK
My point was, AC,London, that with the ready availability of a wide variety of contraceptive metnods 'a woman's right to choose' *abortion* is spurious, self-centred and self-indulgent.
But your contraception failed, which brings me to my other point; why should you or anyone else think that you can put your hand in my pocket(or the pockets of any tax-payer) to solve your personal problems ? I've been there, but we neither of us even considered abortion; we married and raised our daughter and her younger sister and did not for a moment consider that other people should fund our reckless folly. It was at least as hard as you think your life would have been, but I do not regret for one moment; given the choice again I would still make the same decision, and fund it myself.
Tom Benford, Kyoto, Japan
I appreciate that men are entitled to their opinion on abortion. I do find it amazing, however, that it appears that the majority of men take the moral high ground and wax lyrical about these 'feckless women' who choose to have an abortion for any number of reasons.
Men, as far as I am aware, are still not able to carry a baby. How would you really feel if you were able to do so? It's all well and good for you to sit there, the morally righteous, and dictate how a woman should feel and behave and place restrictions on a woman's choice. Walk a mile in someone else's shoes.
I have never had an abortion. I am also pro choice. A woman's body and choices are her own. Perhaps a more sensible and proactive approach would be to offer women considering abortion UNBIASED counselling both before and after the fact to encourage educated decisions and psychological support. I can not believe that it is a decision that is entered into lightly.
C, Edinburgh,
Putting aside the moral arguments (and I think medics have the right to opt out and specialise in whatever they want to) the whole matter – like most in this world – comes down to cold, hard socio-economics. Rich/famous women have always had access to therapeutic abortion in ritzy private Harley Street surgeries – only it was referred to as gall stones or appenditicitis.
Poor women had the hazards of the backstreet abortionist. The 1967 Act just evened up their chances of survival a bit.
Of course, in those olden days few people knew how people out of their social class lived. Well, they do now and women in lower socio-economic groups expect to have exactly the same conveniences and opportunities in life as their richer counterparts. The bell can't be un-rung.
D Jenkins, LONDON, UK
I qualified in medicine in 1967, and saw as a student, the dreadful treatment of single mothers, and the horrors of septic, back street aborrtions. I specialised in Anaesthesia, so soon faced the dilemma of whether to take part in abortions. As a christian, the struggle was great. At first, as a junior doctor, I did what was put in front of me, arguing that if I didn't, someone else would have to do my dirty work. I felt, and still do, that sometimes it was the lesser of two evils.
As time passed and abortion seemed to make a mockery of the law, and become a matter of convenience and abrogation of responsibility for an increasing number, I said "No". I could no longer cope with the trauma of hearing and seeing foetuses destroyed. As a GP, I was always open to discuss and care for anyone seeking an abortion, but rarely could I, in law or conscience, sign the permission form. Other doctors would do so, and I could point patients to them. At least they had had in depth counselling.
David Hawker, BODMIN, UK
It is not 'cowardly' or 'right-on' to think about abortion rationally and to continue to allow women a choice. Bible quotations and pious statements about when the life of a child begins have no place in a sensible debate about this issue.
No one can guess what goes through the mind of a woman considering, and then deciding on, an abortion and therefore no one can judge. Doctors are supposed to be professional and non-judgemental. And as for those women Libby Purves paints a picture of, having 'casual' abortions after a fumble with a stranger, doesn't it take two to fumble? Why does she not also consider the men involved in these liaisons to be 'silly', 'selfish', 'careless' or 'thoughtless'? Please can we stop judging and condemning women and threatening a return to abortion laws from a bygone age, and instead think properly about how to protect their basic right to have a choice when it comes to their own bodies.
Jacqui, London,
Lauren, as a doctor my job is to sustain life not take it away. It's really that simple. I took my oath seriously and performing abortions for non medical reasons would contradict that oath.
By the way, "DOCTORS" is a very broad term and can refer to a number of specialities and fields. We DOCTORS often choose one of those fields and thus a select amount of procedures we perform to a high standard. Would you rather we were forced to endeavor in all of them? All of us? Jacks of all trades, masters of none? Inevitably leading to laxity and neglect in the other *life saving* fields? Just so there would be more of us able to carry out terminations? Don't be a goon.
Bonita, Birmingham, UK
Lauren – People in other professions DO have choices. Let me quote Sarah N from London “Just as lawyers can choose criminal or conveyancing, so doctors can choose where to best apply themselves.” You don’t understand how abortion apparently = ending a healthy life. This implies that you do not consider the foetus as having any life? May I ask you when this unborn child becomes alive? Is it when it pops out into this world?
GL – If you are so sure not “raise a child in the world we have created”, would it not be wise to be sterilised or get your partner to have a vasectomy? That way not only will anyone “force” you to have a child you do not want, but also the benefit of not having to kill an unborn child.
KM, London, UK
I had an abortion. I have come to feel that I murdered my child. I weep for him, I think it was a boy. I would give anything to rewind the clock. What would he have looked like? What would have been the colour of his eyes?
Jessica, London, UK
This is somewhat a response to Lauren and her comment that "Doctors should not be able to choose what procedures they will perform or won't perform." I guess by saying this we should also force doctors into specialties that they don't want to be a part of, as in choosing to be a pediatrician I have chosen not to do heart surgery.
Doctors don't just get trained to do a hodge podge of medical procedures, they specialize. Doctors are effectively making a choice for their own lives. I suppose we should force them to do whatever specialty society mandates them, without their personal consent.
Furthermore, I would like to add that life does begin at conception as this is when the life of a child begins and the necessary parts begin to grow. Stopping life from progressing is effectively ending life.
Rachel, Ann Arbor,
As prenatal technology advances, so does our understanding - and sympathy - with unborn human life. Abortion for non-therapeutic reasons (birth control pure and simple) is a violent luxury that only feeds into the cycle of society's unsustainable development , not unlike wanton pollution of the natural environment. We should be serious about making room for the lives of unborn children just as we are about making room for the lives of non-human species.
Daniel, Hillsborough, US
I shudder to think what will happen to us old folk because just as abortion has been abused, so will the the right to be put to death by the unscrupulous, if euthanasia is ever passed as it is Mr Brown is doing his bit to see us all in our coffins means testing and the like.
Abortion started out with the best of intentions but has fallen into disrepute and now is the time to only allow it in cases of rape etc
sydney hobson, Leeds, UK
Abortion ends the life of an individual, living human organism. Whether you believe that organism should be considered a "person" under the law killing is one question, but that killing in fact happens is biology.
As for whether killing unborn human organisms is justified by the future crimes they *may* commit, I wonder whether we would apply such logic to newly born human organisms.
Daniel, Hillsborough, US
i share the view and opinions of LN UK. i have never wanted children and yet if you say this to the majority of people they are horrified and simply dismiss your opinion as nonsense. i mean, take a look around people, do you really want to raise a child in the world we have created? i, like LN, am in a stable long-term relationship but know without a shadow of a doubt that if i got pregnant i would abort. there are already too many children out there suffering unnecessarily because their parents were too selfish to end the pregnancy. do you really think it is fair to force women to have children they do not want? and, i'm sorry men but when it comes down to it, do you really think you have the right to tell me what to do with my body as i'm pretty sure if the roles were reversed you wouldn't listen to the woman.
GL, NIreland,
I don't understand how abortion apparently = ending a healthy life. Unless something goes horribly wrong and the patient dies, then there is no taking of life in the procedure.
Also Doctors should not be able to choose what procedures they will perform or won't perform, they are DOCTORS for goodness sake, people in other professions haven't got these choices. If they have such qualms then they should go and become florists or something..
Lauren , London, UK
I'm against abortion in principle, and I deplore its use as a kind of feckless woman's contraception, but there is a pragmatic angle. In his book Freakonomics, Steven J Levitt points out that after the liberalisation of abortion laws in the US there was a steep fall in crime rates: fewer children destined to become criminals were being born. Should the abortion rate fall significantly in Britain, I fear that in a few years we will have a steep rise in crime as the population of the underclass swells. Support your local abortionist -- nip crime in the bud! Just a thought.
David L, Leeds, UK
Biblical paraphrasing has no place in this debate. Religion is personal; faith is not universal; society and law are not Christian, nor bound to any other brand of religion. For your own personal take on religious text to be given authority in settling a debate on medical procedures, personal moral decisions and legislation amounts to religious oppression.
Ms. Purves, at least, manages to keep her own personal faith out of the way of her argument - which is where it belongs if it is to have any relevance to our entire society.
R, York,
There is a need for birth control , abortion is the last resort ,but ultimately what right has anyone to judge whether a woman has an abortion or not ? Ok so she missed taking her pill or the condom burst or she was raped and she decides to abort and not inflict a life of misery on an unwanted child
A fertilised egg is not a human being so therefore the unborn have no right as they don't actually exist .Most anti abortionists are the same god bothering numpties that believe the world was created 6000 years ago.To them I say just look at all the misery mother theresa caused by following the catholic doctrines and forcing thousands of children into horrendous suffering and start to follow one the true christian values of not judging others when they have to make decisions you or I never have to contemplate. If they are happy with the decision and live a full guilt free life then great for them
guy, hamburg, germany
Maybe another reason for doctors refusing to carry out abortions could be that, increasingly, there are a lot more Asian-British students in medical schools and that this simply goes against their religious beliefs.
kim, London, England
Dr McLean, Bradford.
If you have evidence that GPs and other doctors are authorising abortions to take place outside the provisions of the 1967 Act, perhaps you ought to take that evidence to the appropriate authorities, rather than throwing around blanket assumptions. Otherwise we could all make accusations against you doctors as and when we feel like it!
Maz, Yorkshire, England
Frankie - that's a bit short sighted. Look at the current pensions crisis. Not enough babies being born eventually leads to there not being enough people left to look after you when you're older... in any case, we spend so much on IVF treatments, would it not be better of there were still enough children for people to adopt? People are a good thing in themselves - we shouldn't be looking at how to get rid of them just to ease the tax burden!
Catriona, London,
Abortion is the murder of an innocent child. Children are a heritage from the Lord. Those who take part in this murderous business will have to answer for their sins. The wages of sin is death.
Nicholas King, Birmingham,
Well done, Libby, spot on again. It was obvious once contraception became available that sex was expected and contraception was often left in the hands of the woman and quite often, the pregnancy too. Abortion should never be a choice of convenience and abstinence can always be a possibility.
I am not surprised that doctors are choosing not to train as abortionists - it is contradictory to saving life which is what medicine is all about.
I hope it will mean that people will think a bit harder about the natural results of sex before they indulge.
And yes, Dr. Hans-Christian Raabe, it is certainly time for a review of the Abortion Act and the way it is interpretted.
Christine, London,
With all respect and sympathy, M, Libby Purves does specifically separate rape victims and the abused from "the silly, the selfish, the careless and thoughtless".
Caroline Devitt, Zaragoza, Spain
It continues, in reading the growing and extremely impassioned views expressed as a result of this article, to astonish me that men like Tom Benford see a woman's personal choice on the fate of her body and life as something 'spurious, self-centred and self-indulgent '. How would you like it if you found yourself in my position last year; to be pregnant due to a failure of conventional contraception, with both you and your partner still living at home, with a new job, and only a £12,000 student debt to keep you warm at night, faced with the idea of bringing up a child. the choice I made wasn't easy or flippant.
I am so sick of hearing that men would make the decision to keep an unplanned child - with the morning sickness, tremendous hormonal and physical changes, financial pressure , and uncertainty as to whether you will bring the child up well. It is the choice of the woman who will carry the preganacy to term, and then spend the rest of her life raising the child. Deal with it
AC, London, UK
In short, LN, UK, no, it is not as morally repugnant. It is not even close. I'm consistently horrified when these two issues are equated so freely.
AM, Oxford,
Is it not possible that the move towards the political right and a more authoritarian society created by a right wing media and consumerist culture that doesn't want to do the "chores" of previous generations responsible for the decrease in the number of doctors performing abortions? That these doctors feel that shouldn't have to do this important job because its "too controversial" or "below them"? As a woman who has had an abortion for my own personal reasons I believe it is so important that this facility is available and accessible to those that need it for whatever personal reason they may have, its is not something that ANY woman takes lightly, and for those women that have had multiple proceedures - how about working on better contraceptive availability and education? has anyone seen the price of condoms these days? you will never stop people having sex.
How about training nurses to perform earlier abortions?
Jess, London, UK
We need compulsory sex education in schools and we need it now. If we start today within 10 years the under age pregnancy, the sexually transmitted desease and the abortion rate will drop dramatically. Within 20 years it will be much, much less, 30 years the figures will be even lower and within 40 years only babies who are wanted will be born and only abortions for health reasons will be preformed. But will we do it today or any other day, NOT A CHANCE.
Susan Ingram, Barry, S Wales
As a woman who has chosen never to have children (something I know many people are unable to understand)I feel uneasy when I wonder about what might happen should (god forbid) my contraception fail. I am in a stable relationship, financially secure and it would be very easy for an outsider to deem me selfish to seek an abortion; yet I have been honest about what I feel, responsible enough to protect myself against pregnancy, and I would be horrified to find myself carrying a child I didn't want. By the logic of some of the arguments here, I should feel obliged to have the baby anyway and put it up for adoption... is it not as morally repugnant to oblige a woman to bear a child she didn't ask for?
LN, UK,
Libby Purves is to be congratulated for raising this highly sensitive subject. I was saddened and ashamed of womankind when I read Caitlin Moran's hard-hearted defence of aborting her third child. Is this what women's liberation has come to? I also can't help feeling that a mature woman should know more about reliable contraception. As always, Libby's wise words hit the nail on the head. I too supported legalised abortion, but now that doctors are having to deal with, as Libby says, the silly, selfish, careless and thoughtless, I agree with Dr. Raabe that it is time for a review of the Abortion Act.
Marylyn Martin, London,
Dr Raabe, do you not think women already know what abortion is? Do you not understand that they DON'T WANT TO REMAIN PREGNANT? Do you understand that you cannot FORCE A WOMAN to breed against her will, for your own political and/or ethical beliefs?
Maz, Yorkshire, England
I find it dismaying to my spirit to read the articles and comments in this fine newspaper today. On one page we have the agonies associated with protecting human life from destruction by rifle-toting gunmen; on the other, we have the agonies associated with taking human life from the womb in order to have it destroyed by instrument-wielding medics.
Is there not a moral compass, somewhere, which can guide us through this ethical landscape? One that comes not from majority opinion or poorly framed law, but from deep within a wisdom before which we can all receive truth?
John, Birmingham, UK
Surely whether human life is just a couple of hundred cells, a hundred thousand or so, or hundreds of Billions, the difference is just time and numbers. We don’t kill children or babies when they are inconvenient, but they have less cells than an adult. Why is a human life with less cells ok to kill? If it is because they have no nervous system, is it OK to kill an inconvenient baby painlessly? I know as a man I have much less right to ask the questions, but they are important.
ShuggyScotland, Aberdeen, UK
if you were to call abortion what it is, controlled murder maybe people wouldn't have such a casual attitude towards it, and neither would it be so socially acceptable.
The belief that a women has the right to abortion is wrong also, accept for in serious cases such as rape.
Doctors will increasingly be unwilling to 'abort' a child as success in saving premature babies lives earlier, continues to rise.
Denver , London, England
I've no objections to paying for a child to LIVE through my taxes.
Paul, Northampton,
In response to Andrew Holliday, this is not a realistic option. too many women can't afford to pay for private terminations, so it adds an extra burden to those that are already "at the bottom of the heap".
Jess, London, UK
Every foetus has a father too. How about applying some leverage there? Making every father pay a standard amount of "maintenance" until the baby would have been 16 would discourage carelessness, and the money could be applied to the child if the mother would keep the child if relieved of financial pressures, or to children's facilities otherwise.
FH, Norwich,
"want it put in a core curriculum."
Making abortion a compulsory element would exclude Catholics from the medical profession. Such a suggestion is outrageous and I hope it will not happen.
Martin , Hereford, England
If abortions were only provided in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967, there might be no problem about availability of doctors and a great saving in expense to the NHS. Introducing the Bill to Parliament in 1967, Sir David Steel promised that it would never lead to "abortion on demand"; only for health reasons. That law still stands.
Why should the taxpayer fund operations on healthy, irresponsible mums and the butchery of healthy, innocent babies when adoption is available? Hospitals and doctors are there for the sick, not the feckless.
Nigel MacNicol, Oakham, UK
I've had a great idea. Invent a magic pill that permanently stops conception after the first abortion, until a woman decides if she ever wants kids. Even better, implant embyos into men to carry them instead! haha I bet they wouldnt be whinging then about women's rights!
Thought4theday, london,
Not true, Frankie.
It doesn't cost the taxpayer more if the woman has the baby. Last June it was reported that making fertility treatment freely available on the NHS would solve the pensions crisis. It was calculated that each IVF child contributes around £160,000 to the UK economy over their lifetime.
Using the same logic we ought to be blaming Britain's explosive abortion rates for getting us into this mess in the first place. This means that the children who would have been born in e.g. 2004, but for their being aborted would have contributed more than £30 billion over the course of their lifetime. So instead of tinkering around the edges of this problem the logical conclusion would be to start by reducing our distressingly high abortion rates.
Julia, London, England
Interesting how many of these viewpoints come from men.
I am reminded, by a friend who recently gave birth, that birth is still one of the most dangerous acts a woman will have to face. The friend in point was young and healthy- there was no suggestion that the birth would be 'at risk', and yet it was - and it was a very traumatic and 'risky' birth. In fact most of the women I know have had very 'difficult' births. NO contraceptive method is 100%, and many men still refuse to wear a condom. And so once again it becomes the burden of women to be responsible or irresponsible- however we decide to judge. In reality I don't think any woman considers abortion as trivial or just another 'easy' method of contraception- to suggest so is a fairly lazy and disingenous way of supporting a narrow minded argument. There are too many unwanted and neglected children, and to prevent there being just one more is perhaps an honest and courageous decision- but not an easy decision.
Rachel, London,
We need to go back to a system of genuine certification. If a doctor sign more than, say, half a dozen abortion certificates in any one year, he should be immediately suspended from signing any more until the BMA have investigated his criteria.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
Nothing has happened for 30 years to change abortion practices in our countries, in spite of all the arguing. Perhaps now 'market forces' might move politicians to re-examine things.
Kenneth Hutchison, Tauranga, New Zealand
Just once I'd like to see a discussion of the rights of the unborn child balanced against the rights of the mother in a sensible mainstream paper such as the Times. We've just seen the tragic loss of life in Virginia where most of those killed were in their 20s. Don't the unborn, with all their life ahead of them, deserve more than this?
Bill, Yarcombe, UK
Hmm
I normally say who I am on this, but today I am concealing it. I have had 2 abortions, not because I was one of 'the silly, the selfish, the careless and thoughtless' but because my contraception failed. The first was performed after I was beaten and raped by my partner at the time (I left straightaway) the second was performed because although I was in a relationship, we had spent all our savings getting a house together, I had just moved across the country to be with him and had only started my job 2 weeks previously.
So although I am a 'serial offender' it was not an easy choice either time. Don't criticise people with such a wide brush, I am not proud of what has happened, but individual circumstances have to be considered every time.
You try explaining to your parents that you want an abortion at 19 because you have been raped, then tell me that I made the wrong choice.
M, UK,
Privatise the abortion services of the NHS. Problem solved.
Andrew Holliday, Patras, Greece
With so many women leaving it too late to have children of their own I can't see that there is any such thing as an unwanted child. Surely adoption is a better option, unless an abortion is a medical necessity or the result of rape.
Cirep G Nol, London,
What I found interesting is that nowhere is it mentioned that the ethnic origins and religious views of young doctors might have a bearing on their attitude to abortion. Anne Furedi is deluded if she thinks that doctors should perform abortions simply because they have the technical skills to do so and because women want them. Just as lawyers can choose criminal or conveyancing, so doctors can choose where to best apply themselves. If doctors are 'refusing' to get involved in abortions, then that is their choice and we must respect it. I am surprised that Ms. Furedi, who supports a strongly pro-choice attitude to abortion seems unable to respect the choices made by doctors. I would suggest that if she feels so strongly about it, that she train as a doctor and carry them out herself.
Sarah N., London, UK
The simple fact is: the more liberal the attitudes about sex, the more abortions. There is a correlation between the emergence of the birth control pill and the massive increase in abortions. The first occurred in the 1960's, and the the other in the 1970's. In the US, no one does them (for very long), except for the money. When I was in medical school, I refused to do them. I was then sent to spend a month with a notorious abortionist, to "correct" my way of thinking. Sort of like being in the Gulag, or a totalitarian state. Well, it didn't work. That was more than 30 years ago.
Tony Francis MD JD , Wichita , KS/USA
Tom - it costs the taxpayer a lot more if the woman has the baby!
Frankie, London, UK
Why on earth should tax-payers have to pay for this spurious, self-centred and self-indulgent 'woman's right to choose' ? It costs at least 100 million pounds a year. If they, or their partners, want it then let them pay for it.
Tom Benford, Kyoto, Japan
At the end of the third paragraph the article says it all: "... would not gladly opt out of the one task in which doctors end healthy life?" AMEN. Nothing more to be said.
John Fresen, Columbia, USA/Missouri
What proportion of abortions are repeat abortions on the same patient ? Shouldn't sterilisation be an option to reduce this factor ?
Oberon, Manchester, England
Perhaps we should consider the view of Dr Nathanson, a US gynaecologist who ran a huge abortion clinic in the early 1970s but then changed his mind. He writes in 1974:
"we must courageously face the fact that human life of a special order is being taken. The fierce militants of the Women’s Liberation evade this issue and assert that the woman’s right to bear or not to bear children is her absolute right. On the other hand the ferocious Right-to life legions proclaim no rights for the women and absolute rights for the fetus. Somewhere in the vast philosophic plateau between the two implacably opposed camps- past the slogans, past the pamphlets, past even the demonstrations and the legislative threats – lies the infinitely agonizing truth. We are taking life, and the deliberate taking of life, even of a special order and under special circumstances, is an inexpressibly serious matter."
After 40 years of legal abortion has not the time come for a review of the Abortion Act?
Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, Manchester,