Dani Garavelli: Time for change

THE problem with trying to contribute to the abortion debate is that there isn't really any point. A bit defeatist I know, but I write from bitter experience.

Any time I have tried to pick my way through the moral and political minefield, I have been met with the same response. Dozens of hysterical e-mails from people embedded in one camp or the other, who think hurling abuse is a substitute for informed debate. In among these will be one or two commentators trying to engage in a meaningful discussion, but their measured voices will be lost in the stream of invective.

So my first reaction to a challenge on the 24-week time limit by a group of MPs led by former nurse and Tory Nadine Dorries was to leave well alone. It was already clear their move was being treated not as a valuable opportunity to reassess our position on terminations, but as another battle in an ongoing war. Contradictory medical reports were being wielded as weapons, and slurs such as "murderer" and "misogynist" used to stifle rather than promote debate.

But it seems I'm a glutton for punishment. Besides, I find it impossible to listen to the usual suspects peddling the same old propaganda without sticking my nose in. I want to live in a world where I can support the abortion law without being labelled a traitor to my religion, and back calls for the time limit to be changed without being labelled a traitor to my sex.

So let's get to the crux of the matter: is the 24-week time limit defensible in the light of medical advances? And would cutting it back to 20 weeks – as the MPs want – really signal the beginning of the end of legal abortions in the UK?

The latter question is easily dealt with. The common contention that a reduction in the time limit would be the "thin end of the wedge" is a ridiculous piece of scaremongering. Hundreds of thousands of abortions were carried out in the UK last year. Anyone who believes there is a chance of the law being repealed in the face of these figures is either deluded or prepared to sacrifice all intellectual credibility in pursuit of their goal.

The issue of the time limit itself, however, is more difficult to resolve, particularly in the face of conflicting medical evidence. When does a foetus become viable? One report last week suggested that there had been no improvement in the survival rate of babies born before 24 weeks in the last 12 years. A review of 55,000 births found just 18% of those born at 23 weeks survived their stay in hospital, and none of those born at 22 weeks. "The limits of viability for the survival of premature babies have been reached," said Professor David Field of Leicester University.

These figures, however, may be influenced by the fact that doctors don't believe those born before 23 weeks will make it, and so are less likely to resuscitate them. As far back as 1987, James Elgin Gill, of Ottawa, survived, despite being born at just 21 weeks and five days – so clearly it is possible.

Then there is the question of when a foetus begins to feel pain. Professor Sunny Anand insists unborn babies respond to pain at 20 weeks, while Dr Stuart Derbyshire believes there is good evidence to show the neural pathways for processing it aren't fully developed until 26 weeks. It's all very confusing for the layman, but it doesn't really matter because it's a bit of a red herring. Even at its best, all medical research is capable of telling us is what the foetus is experiencing at different stages of its gestation. We are still a long way from establishing what it is that distinguishes a collection of cells from a human being and – since many people believe we are more than the sum of our anatomical parts – the answer may more appropriately be sought in philosophy than science.

In the meantime we have to rely on our gut instinct, and mine tells me 24 weeks is too late. Ultra-sound scans showing babies of less than 20 weeks stretching, making 'crying' faces and sucking their thumbs may not prove they can emote, but they raise enough doubts to convince me a reduction in the time limit is overdue.

I am also swayed by the profound contradiction in our attitudes to foetuses around the 22 or 23-week mark. If a mother who wants her baby goes into early labour, we expect doctors to fight tooth and nail to deliver her foetus safely. If it survives, we fete it as a scrap of humanity which defied the odds. If it dies, we acknowledge the scale of its parents' loss.

But if the foetus isn't wanted we insist it has no intrinsic value and can be destroyed. From a legal perspective, the distinction between the two is clear: one foetus is born (and so has rights), the other is not. But from an intellectual and moral perspective, it is difficult to see how a foetus of 23 weeks' gestation can be simultaneously worthy of the best care the health service can offer and the candidate for a legal abortion.

Of course, many of those who disagree with me will accuse me of carrying Catholic baggage. This is not true. If I am carrying any baggage it is that of having borne three babies myself and knowing what it feels like to have them move about inside me. They will say I am insensitive to the needs of women, although the impact of such a traumatic procedure on the already vulnerable is uppermost in my mind. And they will assume I am a pro-lifer who sees a reduction in the time limit as a stepping stone towards making abortion legal. In fact, I think we should concentrate efforts on making sure those who want terminations get access to them as early as possible.

That is the nature of the abortion debate. And, until it changes, those of us who seek a more moderate, middle ground might as well be spitting in the wind.