More than thirty years after the Lallemand–Michielsens Act, abortion in Belgium remains a subject over which political parties negotiate, canvass for votes and wage ideological battles. For thousands of women, however, it is not an abstract ethical debate, but a concrete and often difficult decision about their own lives, health and future.
The opinion piece was published in De Morgen (Dutch).
Today, Belgium has a legal time limit of twelve weeks (since conception) for voluntary termination of pregnancy. That limit does not reflect social reality. Each year, hundreds of women are forced to travel to the Netherlands because they have exceeded the Belgian time limit. Not because they take their decision lightly, but because life does not always fit neatly within legal deadlines. A pregnancy may be discovered late. Relationships break down. Violence comes to light. Medical, social or psychological circumstances change.
The question is not whether these women will have an abortion. The question is where. By sending them abroad, we solve nothing. We merely shift responsibility to our neighbouring countries and impose additional financial, practical and emotional burdens on women who often already find themselves in a vulnerable situation. Do we really expect the Netherlands to continue solving our psychosocial problems?
“The question is not whether these women will have an abortion. The question is where. By sending them abroad, we solve nothing”
This was precisely one of the findings of the interuniversity expert committee, established at the request of CD&V, which conducted a thorough evaluation of Belgian abortion legislation. After eighteen months of multidisciplinary research, the experts unanimously (including those from the Catholic universities) recommended extending the legal time limit to at least eighteen weeks of pregnancy after conception. This recommendation was not ideologically driven. It was based on scientific insights, international comparisons and the experiences of healthcare providers in the field: in this way, 75% of the women who currently travel to the Netherlands could be helped in Belgium. An extension to 14 weeks after conception would only cover 20%. Among the group who must travel to the Netherlands for an abortion, there is a significant proportion of women facing serious psychosocial difficulties. These are currently not addressed at all, and the new law would do little to improve that situation.
This scientific consensus was politically constrained even before the report was published. One day prior to publication, CD&V stated that they would under no circumstances accept an extension beyond fourteen weeks (since conception). Let us at least be honest about what is happening: it was not science that determined the limit, but a political dogma.
“When scientific recommendations have to give way to political dogma, it is women who pay the price”
Ethical objections, of course, deserve respect. Abortion touches on fundamental questions about life, autonomy and responsibility. In a democratic society, these questions must be open to debate. But a pluralistic society also implies that one particular worldview should not dictate which choices others may or may not make.
Moreover, the debate must be grounded in facts. For instance, reference is made to the foetus’s ability to experience pain as an argument against extending the time limit beyond 14 weeks. According to specialists in foetal neurological development, the neural connections required to perceive pain are far from established at 15 weeks. Those who invoke science must also represent it accurately. And, in any case, after 12 weeks the procedure is performed under general anaesthesia.
The same applies to the legally mandated waiting period. There is no scientific or philosophical basis for treating women considering an abortion differently from patients making other significant medical decisions. We rightly assume that adults are capable of making informed choices about their own bodies. Why should we suddenly abandon that trust here? A legally imposed waiting period in fact reveals a lack of trust on the part of the legislator in both women and abortion care providers.
Abortion is not a marginal phenomenon. It is estimated that one in five women will experience it at some point in her life. This is therefore not about “others”. It is about our mothers, sisters, daughters, partners, friends, colleagues and neighbours. They deserve legislation that reflects the reality in which they live. Further liberalisation of abortion law is not a radical step. It is a logical continuation of a social evolution that began decades ago with the recognition that women should be able to decide for themselves about their bodies and their futures. That does not mean the ethical dilemma disappears, but that the law must strike a balance between respect for differing convictions and the protection of fundamental rights. No one, after all, is obliged to choose abortion.
History also shows that acquired rights are never definitive. In several countries, reproductive rights are currently being curtailed once more. These developments remind us that freedom cannot be taken for granted and that continued vigilance remains necessary.
The debate on abortion deserves calm, respect and nuance. It also deserves intellectual honesty.
It is time for Belgian abortion law to reflect social reality — not out of ideology, but out of respect for women, for science and for the freedom of every individual to make their own life choices.