There have been many attempts by the pro-life movement to prevent abortion altogether. So far they’ve failed which has caused them to focus on winning small battles such as this. If we let them legislate over a woman’s right to choose in this instance they will move on to winning the next battle until abortions are illegal again.

Ninety-nine percent of abortions take place before 22 weeks. Reducing the limit will affect only the most vulnerable women; those who may be pregnant and not know, those nearing the menopause, those whose files the NHS has mislaid or those in denial about their rape.

The second scan is when any birth defects which are present are revealed. We cannot ask women and their partners to make an immediate decision about aborting a baby a week or two after that. We need to give them time to carefully examine the impact and the consequences of whatever decision they take. This includes talk to friends and family and the simple act of quiet reflection – which cannot be rushed.

According to the 1967 Act, its purpose is not to legalise abortion but to provide legal protection (or defence) for those forced to abort their babies given the special factors as presented in section 1 of the Act(1)The special factors hence provide the underlying reason for the legal defence provided by the law. Medical evidence is uncertain as to the ability of the child to survive at 23 weeks or even less as many do not abort at that stage and tests have failed to show any significant increase in survival at 23 weeks (2)Furthermore most severe abnormalities are depicted in prenatal scans at 20 weeks of pregnancy. Reducing the limit equals reducing the ambit of the law to provide that protection to women looking to make such grave and life changing decisions. If the law reduces the limit to 20 weeks what happens to the pregnant woman who finds her baby is abnormal at 21 weeks and wishes to terminate? Consequently I ask, what then is the relevance of the law to such vulnerable women?
(1) Abortion Act 1967 (c.87), also see Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 s.37
(2)http//news.bbc.co.uk- BBC NEWS |Politics| Q&A: Abortion law

A participant on the website mentioned that abortion has become a form of contraception and women foolishly choose to abort unintended pregnancies rather than use contraceptive methods hence it is preferred that the limit be reduced to make them think twice of what they do but I argue that it would make them think less of what they do. Say for example, an 18yr old pregnant girl finds out her baby is severely abnormal at 18 weeks; she has less time to assess the situation hence she makes a hasty decision to abort. However if the time limit is preserved at 24 weeks, the law is providing her with more time to think through the decision and its consequences. Also, it gives her more time to research any governmental support available for her and the baby. Surely, one must agree that the life of such a baby is more at stake in the hands of a pregnant teenager constricted by time than in the hands of one operating under the 24weeks limit. Pro-life groups should find that the 24 weeks limit more favourable to their cause than a lower limit in such a case.

Many pro-life campaigners use the idea of an unborn foetus’ ‘right to life’ in order to state their views on abortion. However, this idea makes little sense – if every potential child has a right to life, then surely every man and woman must attempt to procreate at every moment, and would have no choice as to whether or not they want to have a child. Even if the child has some human rights, the ultimate decision as to whether ot not it should be born lies with the mother and father, who decide on whether they want to raise a child.