The Implications of Reviewing the Abortion Act of 1967

There is ongoing debate at the moment concerning what path the review the 1967 Abortion Act should follow. Central to the debate is the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology who have just published a report on their findings concerning options that could be considered when government gets round to reviewing the act. At either end of the debate we have the pro-choice and pro-life lobbyists. It is encouraging that the question of whether a law that was passed 40 years ago is in need of review is not one that is being debated. And rightly so. The British society has seen enough progress and development since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed into law to render many aspects of it obsolete.

There have been quite a few articles written over the last month with regards to the ongoing debate. For example, Ellie Lee, in her article in the Pro-Choice forum, puts forward a list of reasons – all of which I agree with, why the abortion law is in dire need of a review.
Lord David Steel, in his interview with the Guardian puts forward the notion that abortion is being used as a kind of contraceptive pill. This notion is naïve in many respects, key of which is that it seems to suggest premeditation on the part of the women who decide to terminate their pregnancy. Studies have show that this is categorically not the case. The majority of pregnant women who decide to terminate do this for any number of reasons, most of which are influenced by socio-economic reasons.
Jennie Bristow, in her article in the spiked-online website, questions the usefulness of science in its ability to understand the complexities of the pre and post abortion process that every pregnant woman who decides go through with an abortion is faced with. Jennie Bristow blames what she calls “bad science” for creating more confusion in the abortion debate and giving pro-life lobbyists a lifeline with which to wage the war against abortion. It is easy to share the sense of frustration that comes across in her article at the pivotal role that seems to have been given to science by all involved in the debate. Nevertheless, referring to “bad science” is a bit naïve because there is no such thing as bad science. There is just science. It is simply a tool - language if you like, that we use to try to understand the dynamics of our own existence and that of the environment in which we live. Science is a process of collecting and analysing data by comparing it with an expectation that is founded on a logical and rational premise. Thus, the results of science can be interpreted in as many ways as there exist an expectation of what the results should be. This is where it becomes a potentially dangerous tool in the hands of lobbyists with narrow-minded agenda.

It is interesting to note that in all the articles written, all the questions that were put forward revolved around the theme of who should have precedence in deciding how the existing abortion laws should be changed – government, doctors, science or the pregnant women themselves. However, not one of the articles has asked probably the most important question of all; What role does our current understanding and indeed definition of the term “life” play in influencing the debate. This is a complex question that requires careful consideration. It is obvious that our perception of the world we live in is a direct reflection of our understanding of the human being, the environment and the dynamic interaction between the two. In other words it is our experience of the self and the external environment that defines the world around us. And it is this understanding that colours our moral and ethical outlook and places boundaries on what we define to be right or wrong, good or evil.
To complicate matters further, it is generally agreed that whilst science defines to a large extent our understanding of the world we live in, it is not yet advanced enough to understand thoroughly the complexities of the Mind and how Mind works with Matter to define how we realize our own existence. Consequently, it is difficult to arrive at a general consensus of what is meant by the term life. At what point is a cluster of Matter – which is what the human being really is, said to be alive? When it breathes in air for the first time and cries out loud as in the case of a newborn baby? Or when it kicks in the womb? The reality is that science currently associates life with the exhibition of certain properties of Mind – cognition, response to stimuli, and so on.
This is a limited view of a limited picture of the nature and reason of our existence and should not be used as a primary argument to influence what direction changes to the 1967 abortion act should take. Yet, it is the backbone of the arguments used by pro-life lobbyists.
The good news is that over the years there has been a change in public perception of what is meant by the term life. Thanks to the combination technology, the media, the advent of oriental philosophy and so on, this change in awareness has accelerated rapidly over the last ten – fifteen years. Increasingly the human being isn’t just seen as the sole repository of life... this has also being extended to the environment around us. Holistic Medicine and Alternative therapy are two examples of educational disciplines that advocate the use of therapies like Acupuncture, Feng Shui, Meditation, Neuromuscular Therapy, etc, all of which have the goal of harmonising on some level, the link between the human mind, body and the external environment. In other words, we are forced to redefine our understanding of the concept of life.

With regard to the law itself, to my mind, any argument on proposed changes by government must place emphasis on protecting the rights of the individual to free choice. The question of morality and ethics must always come second – not an easy task because of the entanglement between all three; human beings almost always make choices that are influenced by their moral and or ethical outlook. This however doesn’t alter the fact that in any democratic system, any law that is passed must accomplish the twin tasks of taking into account the rights of the individual and aligning it with the goals of the system - harmony, growth and development. This is the essence of democracy. This has to be the backbone of any argument presented by pro-choice lobbyists. Of course if the implementation of that freedom of choice has the potential to impact negatively on the system, for example, too many unwanted births would place unbearable burden on the resources of the system, then it is to be expected that the system will take steps to prevent this by curtailing to varying degrees the rights of the individual. Luckily in the UK today this is not an issue. The system in place to counsel, guide and provide a medically safe environment for pregnant women is more than adequate enough to accommodate abortions should they choose go down that path.

To summarize, yes the 1967 abortion law is in dire need of review primarily because it curtails the right of choice of the pregnant woman. The government can only raise its head proudly if it upholds the principles of true democracy at all times which is to ensure freedom of expression and equal rights to every citizen within the limits of its resources.