The Abortion Debate Does Not Exist
This is the constitutionally correct move. It is a convention that the front bench should not introduce legislation on what we traditionally constitute as matters of conscience, and this has served the nation well. It should never be the prerogative of a government to introduce legislation on matters of conscience that could find any justification for the employment of the whip.
It is also the correct move for another reason: it reflects reality. The reality is that the “debate” in public life over abortion has failed to exist for some time. The last round of debate on the Bill was a noble exception to this, but in public discourse we effectively see two camps completely unable, some might say unwilling, to understand the views of the other. Each shouts its own language parallel to, rather than cognisant of, the other. They are the “two nations” of our times.
Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planet.
Nowhere is this more evident than the names of the camps: “Pro-life” and “Oro-choice”. Two entirely separate axes that work to smear the opponent. Pro-lifers are not anti-choice: they believe that the unborn child is a living thing and therefore there is no valid choice to make. It is also unfair to suggest that they are all basing their ideas on the Book of Jeremiah: the Church of Rome argues that when there is uncertainty (as there is), the benefit of the doubt ought to lie with the potentiality of life. Likewise the pro-choice camp are not anti-life, but believe that life does not begin at conception. It all ultimately centres around the fundamental question of where life begins, and a failure to address this basic first principle where people disagree renders any subsequent discussion meaningless.
Then there are those who try to work through a frighteningly complex moral issue and disagree with articles of faith of both sides. Those who may not accept that life begins at conception, but believe that abortion has undermined traditional values, or those who believe that abortion is little more than infanticide, but nonetheless support legalised abortion as more compassionate than further deaths through the backstreet clinics. Those who . They do not feel comfortable with either side, and get villified for dissenting on some of the basic articles of faith of the two camps. Theirs is a sorry lot, neither pro-life nor pro-choice, their heresies lead to villification by both sides.
As it stands however, the “debate” often feels more like two rival camps preaching to their own side and doing little more than villifying the other. It is not debate, it is enmity.
As a means of testing this principle I put out a statement on my facebook page today declaring myself to be “pro-life with some exceptions”. This is, naturally, an illogical statement: you are either pro-life or you are not. It immediately aroused the anger of many a person who would consider themselves to be “pro-choice”. With one notable exception who noticed this inherent contradiction, people launched for the jugular. It did not matter that in the subsequent discussion I had expressed support for legalised abortion, declared that a foetus is not the same as a human being, or rejected the idea that life begins at conception. It took a significant amount of time for any calm discussion to emerge having raised the red rag of the “pro-life” label. An immediate characterisation of opinion emerged that was at complete odds with any sort of case I wished to make.
In some senses this is inevitable: there will always be those who believe that life begins at conception and will be unshakeable in that belief. This is where majoritarianism proves essential: on a question of an irreconcilable clash of conscience, the opinion of the majority, within some constraints, will have to prevail. Far from being the tyranny of the majority, it is an ethical consensus. As the science changes, abortion will have to be revisited by Parliaments for ever more, and rightly so. There are those on both sides who are open to persuasion. Reactionary characterisation and a refusal to engage in a sensible and intelligent manner to what remain legitimate concerns does neither cause any good.
The problem with the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” labels are that they immediately raise straw men to the other side. They are representative of the worst of political language in that, far from providing an illuminating descriptive label, they are pejorative expressions that serve to restrict debate. Pro-lifers are not against the autonomy of women, nor do pro-choice campaigners support infanticide. Both are moral movements. The discourse however does not acknowledge these basic realities. We ought to do away with them in the name of mature discussion. It is soundbite politics at its worst.
Sphere: Related Content
