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.
25 Responses to “Abortion: How about some evidence-based blogging?”
JR
You are right to highlight the gut wrenching realities of extreme cases. This is what the law is for, and why it must be based upon fact. As I note above in my response to Bethany, in law it does not matter ‘when’ a foetus becomes a child because it does little to change the balance of rights that the law should consider.
Ascribing full human rights to a foetus emphasises the need for equal treatment of those human rights and the mother’s human rights. By making a foetus equal, it is much easier to see why the mother is legally, morally and logically allowed to choose what happens to her own body.
I agree that the quality of public debate is emotive and of poor quality. I also must apologise, as I am not trying to be overly critical, but in this vein I feel it important to point out that the two directions you highlight are actually the same. If the child does not have ‘humanity from an early age’ (i.e. it remains a part of the mother as is currently the medical definition) then it will not be ‘infanticide’ if an abortion takes place, but a medical proceedure.
However, I do strongly agree that people shy away from real conclusion to this issue because it is politically sensitive.
I just have a feeling we may not see the real conclusion as being the same.
Noah Smith
And the evidence for this is?
Noah Smith
From what I can gather from Marko’s article and his responses he’s actually pro-choice but, as you point out, he likens abortion to child sacrifice. What a deeply confused and cowardly position, I would have more respect if he argued for greater restrictions or an outright ban.
grahambc1
I am not sure that this subject can ever be one that is solely based on evidence, because it is so emotive. I don’t think this article is nor the previous one. The original article made some good points but spoiled the effect by using emotive language. I agree that a lot of the discussion is really about when does human life begin, although I can see some of the contributors here take this further and this is the first time that I’ve heard people say that it does not matter even if the fetus/unborn baby is considered human if it is reliant on the mother then it is the mothers right to choose the termination. Morally I find that very dodgy ground, because where does this stop. With freedom must come responsibility and here there can be a moral division between children conceived in rape and children conceived in consensual sex. If you consent to sexual activity, having the freedom to choose then perhaps you should be consenting to the consequences.
I personally along with many other Christians believe that life begins at conception and therefore believe that abortion is to be avoided if at all possible. However if that is not your belief then I can understand why there is a different line but where that line is, is extremely difficult to ascertain.
As a teacher and in everyday life I have known a lot of people and have indeed come across people who have used abortion as a means of contraception. One person had two abortions before there 18th birthday. I am not commenting on how widespread this is and i have only anecdotal evidence, but I know it does happen.
Jacko
Who cares what Marko Atilla Hoare thinks about abortion? He’s an Oxbrdidge educated historian with a specialism in Yugoslavia. You may as well ask the postman. It’s just self-publicity to further his ‘career’ as some sort of social commentator. The thing these people are most scared of is being ignored.