Could we choose to dialogue?
“Choice” is perhaps the most hotly contested term in the right-to-life debate, and as their self-description suggests, it is the pro-choice side of the argument who consider their understanding of it as the most accurate, principled, and pro-woman. Hence their increasing use of “anti-choice” as a description of pro-life advocates.
Recent events in Britain, however, would suggest that the divide is not quite as clear-cut as they might think, and that if fruitful dialogue is ever to take place between those with opposing views on the morality of abortion, a good deal more openness and goodwill is required.
Take the example of Finding Hope, a campaign run by the pro-life charity LIFE. Launched at the end of last month, Finding Hope aims to encourage awareness of the association between domestic abuse and crisis pregnancy, and to raise funds to support expectant mothers trapped in an abusive relationship.
LIFE runs counselling, care and support services to women who are undergoing crisis pregnancies or struggling following a termination, providing, in their words, “practical, positive and compassionate alternatives to abortion.”
Given that 50,000 women per year who seek abortion in the UK are in abusive relationships, and are not given adequate opportunity to disclose this or seek help during the termination process, there is clearly a pressing need to provide compassion and support to women who find themselves in these horrendous circumstances.
But anyone who thought that this campaign would be a starting-point for dialogue and collaboration between pro-life and pro-choice feminists turned out to be sorely mistaken.
LIFE were labelled as by one feminist organisation and by another, as well as being accused — as they describe in this blogpost — of dishonesty, disingenuousness, and of implying that women who seek abortion are bringing domestic violence upon themselves.
Loading ...
