Member

I have one point that I do not think I have heard from anyone. I recently asked proponents of the clause whether, by the same logic, the killing by a woman of her living child or her partner, which of course nearly always happens in distressing circumstances, should be pre-emptively legitimised irrespective of the particular facts. On this point, I got no answer at all. I fear the uncomfortable truth is that it is simply easier to sway people to give mothers’ interests absolute priority when the child harmed has as yet no face and no voice, so that the very real conflict between the child’s rights and needs and those of the mother—the mother absolutely does have rights and needs too—can be denied. I find it startling that people can ignore that conflict and argue that abortion is merely a matter of women’s healthcare and so its decriminalisation should be uncontroversial.