We were disappointed to read the evidence free and emotive piece published on this site last week by Marko Atilla Hoare.
By Emma Burnell and Christine Quigley
We were disappointed to read the evidence free and emotive piece published on this site last week by Marko Atilla Hoare.
If those who wish to present a case against abortion wish to do so on a site that prides itself on producing evidence based analysis, they will have to do better than simply asserting abortion is “tragic”, “monstrous” or invoking Ammonite Gods requiring child sacrifice.
Emotive words are easy when a subject is emotive. They have their place in campaigning, in the pulpit and in pulp fiction.
But when it comes to public policy we would prefer to stick to the facts. We could write a pro-choice piece about the tragic choices women are forced to make. About backstreet alleys and coat-hangers; about thirteen-year-old rape victims and fatal foetal abnormalities; about women on the boat from Ireland escaping a repressive and theocratic regime.
But we’re not going to do that, because this blog isn’t the place to. Instead, we’re going to present you with some facts.
Marko tells us that “it really is a baby” and that those of us who don’t see a twelve-week old foetus as a fully-fledged human being are “in denial”.
This isn’t the opinion of the medical community, the law of the land and the general public.
He tries to make the point that abortion is a class issue. It is, but but not in the way he thinks. Working-class women across the world find it harder to access safe legal abortions. For example, in Northern Ireland, where abortion remains illegal, women are being forced into buying unsafe “abortion pills” over the internet because they can’t afford to travel to the mainland for an abortion.
So this illegality is not stopping women from wanting to terminate unwanted pregnancies, but is forcing those on low incomes to resort to more dangerous methods in an attempt to do so.
We believe that all women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to terminate that pregnancy. However, Marko’s characterisation of two adults conceiving a child through consensual sex being a norm deserves challenging.
As Left Foot Forward so graphically demonstrated, 78,000 estimated annual rapes result in an average of just 1,153 convictions. That leaves 76,847 women who can’t legally prove they have been raped if asked to do so when seeking an abortion. In Northern Ireland, where as we have said, abortion remains illegal, just one if five people think abortion shouldn’t be available to rape victims.
Marko is absolutely right when he says that no woman should feel she has to have an abortion. He’s also right to say that our society must do more to support pregnant women. But this sort of emotive rhetoric stigmatises and patronises women and obscures the real questions we have to answer as a society.
We have a continuing national conversation about abortion, and both sides need to evidence their case if the debate is to avoid hysteria. We hope that is what we have done in refuting Marko’s piece. If anyone would like to provide an evidence-based – rather than emotive, judgemental and patronising – case against women having a right to choose, we welcome that contribution to the debate.
Emma and Christine are women ready to defend their right to choose with evidence-based analysis.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
25 Responses to “Abortion: How about some evidence-based blogging?”
Bethany
Good piece, but it doesn’t address the most thorny issue in the abortion debate – at what point does a fetus become a human? The vast majority of pro-choice campaigners would not support the abortion of a healthy fetus at, say, 7 months, so this is a debate that we should have.
What science is available that helps us draw the line between say, 5 months and 6 months? Or4 months and 5? How should developments in medical science effect the abortion time limit, given that very premature babies can now survive when previously they couldn’t? Addressing the development of a fetus at 12 weeks ducks this issue.
Philosophically, we then get into a very difficult position if we say that at 6 months a fetus is a human, and we have e.g. a 12-year-old rape victim who is 6 months pregnant. Emotionally, every part of me would like her to be able to have an abortion but that is not intellectually consistent with accepting that the fetus is a child.
Mick
Good piece and basically agree.
Two things though; firstly, the below paragraph is a bit “I could talk about my opponent’s massive heroin addiction and penchant for hookers, but I’m going to stick to the issues.” Not totally sure you’ve dodged the emotive bullet.
“Emotive words are easy when a subject is emotive. They have their place in campaigning, in the pulpit and in pulp fiction. But when it comes to public policy we would prefer to stick to the facts. We could write a pro-choice piece about the tragic choices women are forced to make. About backstreet alleys and coat-hangers; about thirteen-year-old rape victims and fatal foetal abnormalities; about women on the boat from Ireland escaping a repressive and theocratic regime. But we’re not going to do that, because this blog isn’t the place to. Instead, we’re going to present you with some facts.”
Likewise, you say “78,000 estimated annual rapes result in an average of just 1,153 convictions. That leaves 76,847 women who can’t legally prove they have been raped if asked to do so when seeking an abortion.” Which is sort of implying there would be a massive army of 76,000+ women walking around with unwanted babies were abortion to be made illegal. But presumably not all these women get pregnant. The percentage that do would indeed be in a tragic situation – and to suggest they should be denied an abortion is obviously crazy (that’s right 1/5th of Northern Ireland). But again, I’m not sure how evidence based it is.
I agree with all the sentiment here, but I do think a piece that makes such a thrusting point about evidence base could do better of that. Still, the general rebuttal is worth making, and well done for making it.
GO
“Emotionally, every part of me would like her to be able to have an abortion but that is not intellectually consistent with accepting that the fetus is a child.”
Not necessarily. It’s at least arguable that *even if* the 6 month fetus is a human child, that does not place the mother under a moral obligation to allow it to use her body to sustain its life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Peter Den Haan
Bethany, you are precisely right about the thorny issue of the start of human life. Hiding behind “evidence” and “the opinion of the medical community”, as Emma and Christine are trying to do, is ultimately fruitless because at its root it remains a purely moral judgement, not a medical or factual one: what makes you human?
For sure, evidence can inform your decision, but it cannot make your decision for you. For example, why change your mind about abortion simply because we can now keep very premature babies alive? If abortion at 24 weeks is suddenly wrong now, surely it was wrong all along. Or, you might decide that full personhood starts only when higher brain functions unfold, and then consult medical professionals to learn when that might be (answer: after birth, which has led some ethicists to suggest that infanticide might be morally perfectly acceptable).
The case of a 12yo rape victim who is 6 months pregnant – assuming you accept the humanity of the fetus – is one of those very hard cases where you have to weigh up two gut-wrenching evils and decide which one is worse. I wouldn’t like to sit in judgement of that. But it seems to me that it is pointless to consider such problems until you’re more clear when an unborn possesses full humanity in the first place.
I agree with the authors on one thing. The quality of public moral thinking around abortion is highly emotive and of poor quality. That is, if you ask me, because truly consistent moral thinking often leads you in one of two directions: infanticide, or the full humanity of the unborn from a very early stage. Both are politically unacceptable. So we shy away and muddle on.
Claudia
The distinction is made on the point of viability independently of the mother. Hence a woman’s right to choose. It is her body and her decision until the point the foetus can survive alone. Some find such an expression of a woman’s autonomy difficult to deal with as it contradicts the way many societies work. So few women are culturally autonomous and require the tacit permission of dominant males within it. There is no debate necessary. It is the woman’s body therefore her choice.