The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Where do the public stand on abortion?

Forty nine per cent of women support a reduced time limit, compared with 24% of men.

By George Eaton Published 06 October 2012 11:17

Abortion rights campaigners demonstrate outside the House of Commons in 2008. Photograph: Getty Images.

To the likely dismay of Downing Street, Jeremy Hunt's comments on abortion are leading the news this morning, with David Cameron's restatement of support for the NHS entirely overshadowed.

In response to Hunt's call for a halving of the abortion time limit, from 24 weeks to 12, the Guardian's Katharine Viner tweeted: "If men could get pregnant, what would be the time limit on abortion?" It's a good question, but what's interesting (and to many, surprising) is that women have more conservative views on the subject than men.

A YouGov poll published in January found that 49% of women favoured a lower limit, compared with 24% of men. Of that 49%, 11% want it reduced to 22 weeks, 14% to 20 weeks and 23% to "below 20 weeks". Thirty per cent of women would like the limit to remain at 24 weeks, compared with 39% of men. However, asked if abortion should be banned altogether, eight per cent of men said it should, compared with five per cent of women.

In total, just 17% of people shared Hunt's view that the legal limit should be reduced to "below 20 weeks". Thirty four per cent said that it should remain at 24 weeks, five per cent said it should be increased, eight per cent said it should be reduced to 22 weeks and 12 per cent said it should be reduced to 20 weeks.

The unrepresentative nature of Hunt's views is further evidence of why the Health Secretary has done his party no favours by promoting them so strongly.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Abortion Jeremy Hunt Conservatives

More from George Eaton

View the discussion thread.

33 comments

Mon, 2012-10-08 02:27 — Geraint (not verified)

Don't tell the feminists that women are more in favour of abortion limits then men, it doesn't fit into their bigoted world view.

Sun, 2012-10-07 18:31 — andyg (not verified)

"i see. resort to name calling when cornered".
Pot calling the frying pan me thinks!!

Sun, 2012-10-07 22:28 — jankaas (not verified)

great, another delusional fantasist sticks her oar in.
not playing Andy, do let that sink in.

Mon, 2012-10-08 20:43 — andyg (not verified)

Oar, Yep.

Sun, 2012-10-07 09:42 — andyg (not verified)

Since when did the male species get the decision to abort in this country?

Sat, 2012-10-06 17:34 — Robert Taggart

This Bachelor / Childless Male supports abortion - ON DEMAND !...
In this overcrowded country in this overcrowded world - abortion be the 'last gasp' means - to keep our numbers in check.

Mon, 2012-10-08 20:40 — andyg (not verified)

"In this overcrowded country in this overcrowded world - abortion be the 'last gasp' means - to keep our numbers in check."

"In the UK as a whole, it is “enclosed farmland” that accounts for by far the largest share of land (40 per cent), followed by mountains, moorlands and heath (18 per cent) and woodland (12 per cent, a figure that has doubled since 1945). For those who question why UK homes are both the smallest in Europe and the most expensive, the answer is that 90 per cent of the population lives on just 5 per cent of the land."
(New Statesman: Jason Cowley 19 Sept 2012)

OOps

Tue, 2012-10-09 14:43 — Robert Taggart

OOps indeed ANDYG. If the English and Welsh lived more like the Scots and Continentals - in apartments for the most part - that last figure could come down to just 3% !

Less people = less trouble. Simples.

Tue, 2012-10-09 17:41 — andyg (not verified)

"With the exception of Spain, there is no European country in which land is more unequally distributed than Britain, with 70 per cent of acreage held by just 0.28 per cent of the population, or 158,000 families."
oops oops.

Tue, 2012-10-09 22:26 — Robert Taggart

oops oops, indeed, ANDYG. With fewer people there will be more land to share out !
Fewer persons = fewer problems. Simples.

Wed, 2012-10-10 17:09 — andyg (not verified)

Yes Robert, you are simply deluded dear.

Wed, 2012-10-10 23:32 — Robert Taggart

oops, oops, oops, ANDYG, dearest !
Abortion on demand + Sterilisation / Vasectomy on demand - all on the NHS + Capital punishment + legallising Narcotics + repealing the Seat-belt law... all this will help to bring down human numbers. Sorted !

Thu, 2012-10-11 17:25 — andyg (not verified)

Sorry dear I did get it wrong, your just simple. ooooooooppppppppsssssss

Fri, 2012-10-12 22:14 — Robert Taggart

The simple solutions are usually the best !
Had a visit from a Macmillan Cancer Charity Chugger today - the answer ofcourse was NO... - he left empty handed and scratchy-headed !
Now that was simple !

Fri, 2012-10-12 22:48 — andyg (not verified)

The prosecution rests its case.
Those that live by perfected means, are those who alone exist.

Sat, 2012-10-13 00:23 — Robert Taggart

ANDYG, dearest, meknows it be Friday night - but is it not a little early to be 'tiddly' ?!

Sun, 2012-10-14 11:18 — andyg (not verified)

Indeed Robert, there is a requirement of intoxication to be "tiddly" in order to reach an informed, clouded, obscure, and deluded simplification of a serious discussion......at least for you as a minority.

Mon, 2012-10-15 00:03 — Robert Taggart

A minority ? - in support of abortion ?? - Moi ??? - methinks not.
'Hick' !

Sat, 2012-10-06 17:29 — Spud (not verified)

As a man I see that abortion is none of my business what a woman chooses around the subject. I can only imagine it's a very difficult choice . For what it's worth I believe it's a womans right to choose.

Sat, 2012-10-06 18:39 — Indu Pendent

I'm a woman but totally disagree.

A child has two parents. A life is life, its not a womans inconvenience.

Also, the interests of the child trump the interests of the mother and father.

Mon, 2012-10-08 19:02 — John Cheese (not verified)

but, wait, Obama calls a baby "a punishment"....

Sun, 2012-10-07 09:45 — andyg (not verified)

Strongly agree Indu

Sat, 2012-10-06 14:14 — Indu Pendent

Labour has no morals, values, principles and conviction to lead One Nation.

Why have any limit on abortion? Why not allow 30 week abortions? Babies at 24 weeks stand a good chance of surviving and leading normal lives.

Shouldnt Labour define its values and then determine its policies? Instead as George proves Labour looks at where is can make gains in marginal seats and sets its policies from that.

So for the 24 week limit -- on a moral case there is overwhelming evidence that the limit is too high and results in killing fully living babies. But on a Labour political level the world is more synical and what matters is the elite wining votes and power.

Labour is not morally fit to run the country.

Sat, 2012-10-06 17:54 — jankaas (not verified)

"Babies at 24 weeks stand a good chance of surviving and leading normal lives."
this is total fantasy Indu. you are telling porkies, so stop.

so the same response as in that related thread;

survival yes, becoming "normal people" is just not true. it is most likely that surviving at 24 weeks leads to a life of severe disabilities. this is what we know about health outcomes for preterms 23 - 25 weeks;
chronic lung disease that may or may not resolve by age 2
underdeveloped heart that may require surgery to restore normal function
brain bleeds leading to cerebral palsy, intellectual, visual, hearing impairment
underdeveloped eyes that may need surgery
underdeveloped digestive system that likely needs surgery

i hope you appreciate that surgery on one so tiny is highly risky? let alone a sequence of surgical procedures...

i happen to think that surviving is not enough, and that we are forced to think about the quality of life we foist on other human beings. it is fantasy and irresponsible to suggest that at 24 weeks it is a piece of cake to ensure the survivor will have a "normal" life. maybe one day it could be possible, but as of right now it is just not so.

Sat, 2012-10-06 18:33 — Indu Pendent

Medicine is improving all the time and has moved on from 2008 and the picture for 24 weeks above.

See related thread:
- 20 weeks with 2 doctors signature
- 24 week with 2 doctors + consultant pediatrician to confirm its in the childs interest to be aborted.

The parents interests are secondary to the child's.

Sat, 2012-10-06 22:51 — jankaas (not verified)

"Medicine is improving all the time and has moved on from 2008 and the picture for 24 weeks above."

not in the field of premature births. you are making things up Indu, which is all rather embarrassing. you need to provide evidence, medical, scientific evidence, not what you imagine is going on in the real world. so where is your evidence?

"The parents interests are secondary to the child's."
their interests are inextricably linked, you can't just score it according to your personal wishes.
and we are not talking about children, that's just emotive claptrap. we have to be far more honest and less happy clappy about this area of human suffering.

Sun, 2012-10-07 09:56 — Indu Pendent

Jackass
Are you thick?

The reason 24 weeks was set was that at the time there was very little chance for 24 wk babies to survive so they were not deemed viable.

24 week babies do now have a fair chance of surviving. Medicine has improved. The same tests that were applied to determining 24 wks would now reject this date.

Just google it there is 100s of articles on it.

Sun, 2012-10-07 12:21 — jankaas (not verified)

"Jackass"

i see. resort to name calling when cornered. pls note that your username allows far more options for 'comedy' spellings....no more warnings dear.

and as for who is "thick" it is fair to say you beat me hands down in that department. you keep droning on and on about medical advances being able to ensure survival for earlier term births.note that i have not once suggested otherwise. instead i have asked you more than once now to start to grapple with the quality of life issue. medicine has made zero progress in improving the quality of life of these survivors. the medical studies, the scientific data shows beyond any doubt that immense disability is a guarantee for these survivors. you clearly don't give a damn about the human suffering you wish to foist on others.

i fear you may be too stupid to grapple with such a complex issue. for you all that matters is that we force humans to exist, irrespective of the fact are trapped inside a damaged body, destined to die young after a life time of suffering.

"Just google it there is 100s of articles on it."
yes, and all the professional bodies come to the conclusion that you are talking rubbish. even at 24 weeks you are dealing with insurmountable medical issues.

Sat, 2012-10-06 14:26 — matthew fox (not verified)

Indu you have no brains, let alone morals.

Do you mean Cynical?

Sat, 2012-10-06 18:46 — Indu Pendent

So Fox I see you are not pro-life.

Does not surprise me -- you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

You also can't ever have had kids to think you would have aborted on for heartless convenience.

Sun, 2012-10-07 09:47 — andyg (not verified)

Strongly agree Indu

Sat, 2012-10-06 13:19 — McMac

If men got pregnant the NHS would spend 1% of its budget on anti-natal care, and delivery would be achieved by us disappearing out to the shed for twenty minutes.

Sat, 2012-10-06 12:08 — christof_ff (not verified)

I'm relatively indifferent on abortion - if asked I'd probably be I'm the 'don't know' category, but I find it annoying how many on the left try to polarise the debate into male vs female or left vs right, when it's purely down to personal conviction.
If you actually look at the data, there are more people who want to reduce abortion times than those who want to preserve or increase it combined, so whilst Jeremy Hunt is at the extreme end of the argument, he's not exactly swimming against the tide.
As this article grudgingly points out a majority of women support a reduction in the limit, one myth is quashed, and there's no major difference of opinion between people of different party affiliations, quashing the left/right assertion.
One interesting thing in the data is that London (& Scotland) are the only regions tilting against a reduction, which fits with uncompromising stance of the Islington Twitterati.