In defence of Danny Kruger

It’s symptomatic of the unhinged nature of the abortion debate that an MP can be heckled in parliament – and lynched online – for stating an obvious if embarrassing reality. Such is the lot of Danny Kruger, who had the further accolade of a kicking from JK Rowling.

On the Roe v. Wade question, which frankly is no business of Westminster, Kruger observed that his colleagues – including Conservatives, mark you – 'think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy in this matter, whereas I think in the case of abortion that right is qualified by the fact that another body is involved'.

'I would offer to members who are trying to talk me down that this is a proper topic for political debate. And my point to the frontbench is I don't understand why we are lecturing the United States on a judgment to return the power of decision over this political question to the states, to democratic decision-makers, rather than leaving it in the hands of the courts.'

But it’s not the secondary point, about devolved decision making, that got people worked up. It was that obvious point, that in an abortion, 'another body is involved'. It’s that which got up the nose of Kruger's critics. 

JK Rowling's response was magnificently beside the point: 

'More proof, as though it were needed, that women’s rights are under attack across the developed world. #Roe v Wade'. 

Sorry, JK, is another body involved, or not? 

Meanwhile, over in California, the Duchess of Sussex has surfaced to say that Harry's response to Roe v. Wade was 'guttural' and that men should be 'more vocal' about the issue. But presumably only if they're channelling Meghan. Danny Kruger, a Tory MP, is a man and is vocal. Cue applause? Nope.

For all their feistiness, their frankness, their explicit sloganising, some pro-choicers are curiously weaselly about what an abortion actually entails. It involves the death of the foetus in an unwanted pregnancy. You may think that the foetus doesn’t really count as a human person, though I can’t see any argument for suggesting it’s not a human being. You might think a foetus is merely a potential person, which invites the question: what else has it the potential to turn into? Or you might believe it only acquires personhood with viability, the ability to survive outside the womb, or whatever. What you can’t pretend is that it is not a separate human entity from the woman, not something like an inconveniently burgeoning appendix.

That’s why the slogan 'abortion is healthcare' is so disturbing, and so dishonest. It is trying to present the procedure as a mere matter of women’s bodily autonomy. 

Kamala Harris, the US vice president, once tried to floor Brett Kavanaugh, one of the Supreme Court judges, by asking whether there was any other procedure than abortion which had an impact on just one gender. To which the obvious answer was the counter-question: is there any other healthcare procedure which entails the death of another human being? This is not emotive language; this is the fact of the thing, though I freely concede that it takes on a very different aspect early in gestation rather than later, when scores of pregnancies in the UK are annually aborted. And I also concede that this is a separate issue from the question of whether abortion should be legal, and if so, on what terms.

Anyway, thank goodness for Danny Kruger. Because unless someone is brave enough to state the obvious about abortion, we’ll delude ourselves with euphemism. Amanda Milling, a Foreign Office minister, did just that when she echoed Boris Johnson’s view that last week’s Supreme Court ruling had marked a 'big step backwards'. She told MPs: 

'The UK’s position is that women and girls in the UK should have the right to access essential health services, including those relating to sexual and reproductive health, which includes safe abortion care.'

It’s still a matter of life and death though, Amanda. For the foetus.

There was an interesting piece in the TLS the other week by a philosopher, Regina Rini, who declared that 'we should accept that the ethics of abortion depends on the extrinsic properties of the foetus, not on its intrinsic properties…the difference between a foetus and a child isn’t a matter of intrinsic properties such as brain development or bodily structure. The difference comes down to extrinsic properties: what makes something a child is the right combination of welcoming attitudes from those who give and sustain life'.

In other words, the standing of a foetus, with all its legal and moral implications, is all in the mind, the woman’s mind – 'welcoming attitudes' etc. And this is a moral philosopher?

We need more parliamentarians like Danny Kruger, a politician who is prepared to face the consequences for stating the obvious. He's a brave man.