If we could time travel back to 1950s Britain, we would, of course, find ourselves in a very different world — a country where families were traditional, many with more than two children, women mostly at home raising those children, safe streets, and Bobbies on the beat.
However, it is true to say that amidst this idyll, there were seedy backstreets — and some of those streets housed a woman or man who, for a fee, would perform an illegal operation to remove an unborn baby from a mother’s womb.
Women who found themselves ‘in trouble’ did have options: they could have the baby and give it up for adoption, or keep the baby and feign widowhood to avoid social condemnation. There was, undeniably, a problem — but it was a moral one, not a medical one. The morals of the nation were such that we found the idea of raising a child alone, or outside marriage, unpalatable. Much of the concern was for the child, not the mother. It was widely felt that a child needed two parents — a mother and a father — and there were many married couples unable to have children, so adoption served two purposes.
The 1960s then saw a raft of changes. By examining each in turn, it is possible to conclude that the Abortion Act of 1967 (effective from April 1968) was always a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
In 1961, the contraceptive pill was made available to married women. This dramatically changed women’s lives, giving them greater control over their fertility. It did not, however, address the issue of single women who were sexually active and accidentally became pregnant. Yet by 1967, the contraceptive pill had become more widely available, arguably negating the need for an abortion law before it even passed. The question should have been asked: do we still need to make abortion legal?
Next, let’s consider divorce. Until 1969, fault had to be proven — usually abandonment or adultery. A woman in an unhappy marriage could not necessarily seek a divorce. In the worst cases, she might find herself physically or sexually abused, and often pregnant, with no option but to keep having children and raising them in a violent, unhappy home. Such a woman might seek a backstreet abortion, accepting the medical risk as preferable to bearing another child.
But the 1969 Divorce Reform Act created ‘irretrievable breakdown’ as grounds for divorce — and so, another justification for legalised abortion was eliminated, mere months after the Abortion Act became law.
The original limit was 28 weeks, reduced to 24 weeks in 1991.
The introduction of social benefits — in particular, the Housing Act 1977 — saw unmarried mothers rise up the list for council tenancy and state help. Did we still need an abortion law when mothers could now receive housing?
Has anything else changed since then?
Yes. You can now find out if you are pregnant before your period is missed. Pregnancy hormones can be detected up to six days before a missed period. This gives a woman an extra two to four weeks of awareness. She has a total of roughly 20 weeks (or five months) of knowing she is pregnant in which to make a decision. Isn’t that more than enough? Doesn’t this mean the limit could reasonably be lowered again?
Pre-natal screening has also advanced significantly. Many medical issues can be identified early. Doesn’t this also suggest the limit could be lowered, since knowledge is now available long before 24 weeks? And even now, it remains legal to have an abortion after 24 weeks with doctor approval.
In 2001, the Morning After Pill became freely available. So in the case of unwanted, accidental sexual intercourse, women have up to 72 hours to take emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy from developing. Does this not further negate the need for abortion?
In conclusion: since the Abortion Law took effect, Britain has made divorce easier, made the contraceptive pill free for all women over 16, introduced the Morning After Pill, provided single mothers with housing and benefits, and removed virtually all social stigma — including any pressure to involve the father in the child’s life.
Therefore, it is increasingly difficult to find a justification for abortion in 2025, since every factor — medical, moral, or social — has been addressed. Shouldn’t a civilised society now be moving in the opposite direction — reducing the abortion limit?
I have deliberately not argued from a Christian perspective. Each of these points is practical. The progressives have triumphed — and it does not require a Christian argument to undermine the justification for abortion. Their own reforms and laws have done that for them.
Yet a Bill is due to be presented to Parliament next week, which would make abortion legal up to birth.
What possible reason can there be?
By Rachael Tearney
Follow Rachael at @WritesRachael
Image: For illustration purposes only. Image created with AI.
