Why are the pro-lifers always so intent on playing up fear factor?
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Print
Email
Margaret recalls: “I suffer from congenital heart disease. After the birth of my third child, I was told by the cardiologist not to risk any further pregnancies as ‘it would take 15 years off your life’.
I subsequently became pregnant and, because of my religious qualms about abortion, did not request a termination but carried the pregnancy to term. I was unwell for several months following that confinement and never really recovered my full strength.
“When I became pregnant again three years later, I feared for my life and asked about a termination. The obstetric consultant told me that my life was not in immediate danger and so an abortion would not be legal. Nonetheless, when I made an appointment in a British clinic, my doctors here consulted with the medical staff at the clinic and sent them my notes because my health was so poor.”
The debate about bringing legal abortion to the North is not about constitutional niceties or philosophical differences between pro- and anti-choice camps, but about Margaret and thousands of women like her. The question is: who has the right to decide whether pregnancies such as Margaret’s should or should not be carried to full term?
Pro-choice campaigners say that it’s Margaret’s right, and that she ought therefore to be able to vindicate that right here. Others say that Margaret had no right to choose and therefore that the question of her being able to terminate her pregnancy here doesn’t arise.
This is not the perspective in which groups which style themselves “pro-life” see the issue. They believe that a soul fuses with the zygote at the instant of fertilisation and thereby confers on it a moral status equal to that of an adult human being, including, and especially, the woman within whose body the process is taking place. This belief is, of its nature, religious, rooted in faith rather than in reason. No advocate of choice denies that ‘pro-lifers’ are entitled to their belief. What’s denied is the right which they claim through the law to impose their belief on others.
It’s rare — there are exceptions — for opponents of choice to put their argument openly, honestly, in religious terms. For the most part, they fling out fistfuls of factoids and shamelessly target the impressionable, particularly the young, with mendacious propaganda. They are assisted in this activity by schools, including state schools.
On BBC’s Spotlight last week, an unabashed campaigner against choice displayed a placard suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer. A great deal of research has been conducted over several decades to determine where any such link exists. There is nothing ambiguous or equivocal about the results. There is no such link. The US National Cancer Institute concluded after reviewing a massive range of population, clinical and animal studies that, ‘Having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer’.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says that, ‘Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk’.
But no statement of this sort, however clearly expressed, and irrespective of the prestige or authority of the body concerned, will dent the determination of ‘pro-lifers’ to insist that having an abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer. Spreading fear through misinformation is their stock in trade.
The lie about breast cancer will figure on placards at a rally against the extension of the 1967 Act planned for Stormont on Saturday. If the efforts of a number of schools to deliver students to the rally are successful, a good turnout is assured. The classroom mobilisation has included showings of the propaganda film, The Silent Scream.
The film was made in the US in 1984. Ronald Reagan gifted a copy to every member of Congress. It purports to show a real-time ultrasound depiction of the abortion of a 12-week foetus. A voice-over claims that the foetus feels pain, and screams. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has commented: “We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a 12-week foetus experiences pain.” No medically qualified person has ever been found to support the suggestion that a 12-week foetus is capable of screaming. But, again, the ‘pro-lifers’ won’t allow facts to obstruct their crusade. The discredited film continues to be shown in our schools. Last week, one 15-year-old arrived home distraught, in her mother’s words “traumatised”, from having been, in effect, ordered to sit and watch this 28-minute projection of emotional manipulation and political dishonesty.
This comes close to child-abuse — and it’s tolerated, indeed facilitated, in our schools, including schools in the State sector.
I am not aware, but would be happy to be told, of a school in the North which allows the issue of a woman’s right to choose to be discussed in an open, objective way, with both sides of the argument stated and students encouraged to explore the truth and to arrive at an informed understanding.
Our schools, with the apparent support of the Minister and the Department of Education, and with the compliance of all the main parties, allows one partisan belief supported by no objective evidence to be presented to the coming generation as the only acceptable view. Implicitly, Margaret is presented as a murderess.
Meanwhile, young men are sent half way across the world to fight the Taliban in the name of women’s rights.
Post a comment
Limit: 500 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by BelfastTelegraph.co.uk's Terms of Use.
Posts submitted in UPPERCASE letters will be rejected.
It is legal for a parent to refuse to donate blood or an organ even if that is the only way to save the life of their child. Why? Because, we, as a society, feel that a person's right to bodily integrity trumps another's right to use their body as spare parts or a life support system. A foetus will die without its mother's body- surely we should accept that she has a right to withdraw consent for her body to be used in that way (you can decide for yourself at which point in the pregnancy that right ends).
If this is about foetuses being people- well that's a religious matter. Personally, as a liberal Jew (guess what, some of US live in Ulster too!) I take my religion's view that foetuses aren't people until they're breathing and that women are REQUIRED to have abortions if their life is endangered because of the pregnancy.
If this is about abortions being unsafe- only when illegal and unsafe. 1 in 4 women worldwide will have an abortion at some point. Most of them seem to be coping.
Posted by katie | 29.10.08, 19:06 GMT
If the religious fundamentalists and their conservative fellow travellers are so concerned about abortion, then they would advocate a a comprehensive sex education programme including the use and free distribution of condoms and other contraceptive methods.
Sex education and contraception is not their concern, they just want to impose their religious beliefs on vulnerable women, just like the Taliban do. In this they become the willing dupes of Conservative Parties and a certain mainstream church.
a rich woman who has an unwanted pregancy can visit a private consultant without having go to mainland Britain. Poorer women in the same situation have to find the fare over, a place to stay and probably lost pay.
Posted by Jimmy | 26.10.08, 21:55 GMT
Laura, if you can't make a point without indulging in sexism, I suggest your point has already lost any validity. I'm a human being, hence abortion IS my business. The foetus has its own body, hence it belongs to no-one but the foetus. The argument that it is dependant on the mother so it's OK to terminate its life is a spurious one. Children continue to be dependant on their mother long after the legal period for abortion, and indeed after birth.
Posted by Steve | 22.10.08, 12:07 GMT
Steve,
Will you ever face an unwanted pregnancy? Have you ever been raped? Do you have a womb? If the answer to all three questions is 'no', then abortion is none of your business. I would never dream of telling another person what they could and couldn't do with their own body - especially a man, as I have no idea what it is like to be a man. Extend the Human Rights Act to the human foetus - an organism which is solely dependent on the woman carrying it? What about her human rights? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about - go away and do not insult us further.
Posted by Laura | 22.10.08, 02:49 GMT
I would love to know what we would do with the 200,000 unwanted children aborted every year. I am not pro abortion, just pro common sense.
Posted by Patrick | 21.10.08, 17:43 GMT
Instead of extending the 1967 Abortion Act to NI, why not extend the European Convention on Human Rights to the human foetus? That would be much more forward thinking; excuses for the abortion of unwanted children will one day sound as worthless as those to excuse the keeping of Africans as slaves. We're all to blame for this, and we need to share the responsibility of putting it right.
Posted by Steve | 21.10.08, 11:24 GMT
The other thing I have alwways loved about "pro-lifers" is the deep and abiding interest and concern that they have for the unborn foetus/baby, which mysteriously disappears as soon as the baby is born, and they might have to spend some actual, non-theoretical time/money/support on it and its mother.
It is far better for a foetus to die before it is born if its mother does not feel that she has the strength (phyical or mental) or ability to provide the very best for her baby. The scars of being an unloved and unwanted child last a lifetime.
Posted by Aine | 19.10.08, 23:56 GMT
Below the age of 16, the law does not regard a person as being old enough to make an informed decision about sexual relations. Most people would agree with the legal position that there is a dividing line at 16. Prior to that age, the person is simply a child and does not have the maturity to engage in sex. After that age, the person is deemed to have developed sufficiently to be responsible for their own sexual behaviour. The dividing line laid down by law is sensible and generally accepted.
The 1967 Abortion Act lays down a dividing line. Prior to 24 weeks, the foetus is still developing and has not reached the status of being a baby. Many weeks are needed for a fertilised cell to grow into a clump, an embryo and then a foetus. After 24 weeks, sufficient growth has occurred for the foetus to now begin to be treated as a baby. The brain and nervous system are now close to arriving at the condition of a sentient human being.
Extend the 1967 Act to NI!
Posted by Les Reid | 19.10.08, 22:57 GMT
It's actually fairly simple to determine whether at 12-week foetus can feel pain: is it's brain developed enough to do so? And the answer is simple: not even close.
And as for regrets, I regret the bowl of ice cream I had for breakfast this morning. That doesn't mean it should have been illegal for me to do so.
But if so-called 'pro-lifers' were actually interested in eliminating elective abortion, they would stop making specious arguments and concentrate on a demand-side strategy. This would including increased supports for young and single parents, easier adoption procedures, along with Dutch-style comprehensive sexual education in schools.
But 'pro-lifers' aren't actually interested in eliminating elective abortion. They're interested in slut-shaming.
Posted by Andrew | 17.10.08, 17:05 GMT
Eamon's statement that no unborn baby who was 12 weeks old in the womb has ever told us that they screamed before they were killed is complete nonsense. If the child is dead how then can Eamon know the baby felt no pain, telepathy. . Is Margaret's weak sob story the best he can do, sure even the consultant told her she did not need to kill her own baby. Do some research Eamon there is a very reputable study evidencing the link between breast cancer and abortion. I wish these lefty nutters would stop misconstruing women's rights, what about the unquantifiable number of women who daily regret their abortion. Eamon speaks of schools educating women about the facts he would rather hide from them. Eamons' conscience has been seered as if with a hot iron, (the Bible, not Shakespeare). I pity anyone who grows up in a family with cold people who rather than support her to have her baby would rather than present them with abortion as their 'choice'. When men reject God they make themselves god.
Posted by Stella Little | 16.10.08, 16:46 GMT
its not about choice, womens rights, or whatever term you use to refer to the small clump of growing cells to avoid calling it a baby. its about whether anyone has the right to decide to end another human life, and when exactly human life begins. as far as i know the only point to mark the beginning would be when the egg is fertilised and the cells divide. it may not look like a person but it is the beginning of a growing human life. if you disagree, perhaps you could tell me what species it is if its not human?
so from fertilisation onwards we are talking about a human life. now the question is, does anyone have the right to decide to end another human life? well, ending an adult, child or new born baby’s life is illegal. so what about an unborn human life? it seems obvious to me that this should also be illegal.
Posted by eranu | 16.10.08, 15:16 GMT