TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 10 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Column: Abortion is too important an issue for disrespectful debate

Fighting each other will get us nowhere – Ireland needs to have a genuinely respectful and mature debate about this serious issue, writes Laura Larkin.

Image: Zurijeta via Shutterstock

CRASS VERBAL INSULTS, precision food missiles and mean-spirited Facebooking sound like the hallmarks of particularly belligerent school yard bullying. They are, however, the manifestation of a ubiquitous tension between campaigners on opposing sides of the abortion debate.

Deliberation over the issue of legalised abortion has reared its head many times in Irish society; most recently it was pushed into the limelight once again with the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar and the subsequent national consideration of this age old issue.

Passion creates a platform

It is the work of passionate activists that create a valid platform for the debate on abortion to take place. Activists who are effusive in their commitment to their chosen cause provide information, organise public events and create a space for insightful discussion – or so the tagline reads.

Being moved to activism is not a decision made in haste, so what is the catalyst that propels people to take their opinions from the safety of their living rooms and coffee breaks and demonstrate them with vigour on our streets?

I have strong personal views on abortion, in fact I don’t know anyone who doesn’t – abortion is not an area where many sit on the fence. Yet I have never taken part in a demonstration, I have never painted a banner and sometimes I am simply ‘too busy’ to stop to sign a petition. Is it laziness? Apathy? An unwillingness to have my personal beliefs challenged in a new setting? Am I too comfortable in the knowledge that there will always be people willing to argue my point of view on my behalf?

The only way I could explore these questions was to move away from the fringes and into the fray.

A sense of responsibility

I asked Rachel Nolan, a spokesperson for Galway Pro-Choice, what propelled her into pro-choice campaigning. She says “I wasn’t always active but the guilt just gets too much – I could never not be doing something now.” This sense of responsibility is echoed by many of those who have taken to the streets in recent months.

Sarah Malone a teacher and Pro-Choice Network member thinks that it is frustration that eventually proves unbearable; she concludes that “people are more inclined to get angry about the [abortion] issue now and are moved to take a stand.”

The most prominent, and obvious, reason behind people getting active is a genuine conviction that theirs is the right, and only, solution. I saw this materialise time and again in the form of lost voices at the end of every street event. Activists want their voices heard loud and clear.

Devoting time and effort to campaign for something that you believe in is laudable and publicly taking a stance on such a sensitive and divisive issue as abortion is brave. Those who do so recognise that it is not always easy.

Negative reactions

During the course of a campaign things can often take a turn for the worst. Michael O’Brien is a Dublin member of the Socialist Party has been campaigning for legalised abortion since the X-Case 20 years ago. Two decades later he stood for four bitterly cold hours outside Leinster House on 28 November while Clare Daly’s Bill relating to X-Case legislation was debated in the Dáil. He recalls being physically intimidated by overzealous pro-life advocates in UCD 15 years ago while campaigning. “I’ve been told I’m going to burn in hell several times… my friend has had a ham sandwich thrown at her,” he tells me.

Negative reactions are not always confined to rallies and vigils, these problems can leak into other areas of an active person’s life. Cathy Doherty remembers being thrown out of a hardware store on Dublin’s Capel Street while trying to purchase high-visibility vests for members of the Pro-Choice Network.

Aoife Godwin, a Pro-Life campaigner, has numerous tales to tell about her experiences with bias and unfavourable reception in her college. The NCAD student has had Youth Defence posters she had placed around campus taken down, demonstrating what she called “an obvious Student Union bias.”

Tim Jackson, a member of Youth Defence, whom she had invited to speak at the college, was subject to a barrage of expletives and abusive comments while showcasing the organisations material. Ultimately, the Youth Defence activist was asked to leave.

Things get very personal, very fast

Social media provides an important window to fully gauge the intense reactions that follow somebody’s decision on abortion rights. Facebook and Twitter is awash with messages that make it clear that your view on abortion, whatever it may be, is unwelcome and a valid target for harsh criticism from those who disagree with you. It can get very personal, very fast.

Those not directly invested in the campaigns are not the only ones who take such pains to illustrate their disapproval. Members of the public who are disruptive and insulting often have more against the idea of protest than the issue being protested. “Get a job,” shouted one woman to pro-choice activists at a recent march.

Campaigners were quick to assure me that it is not all torrents of abuse and heated arguments in the arena of political campaigning. Sarah Malone praises the sense of community she has encountered since she has begun campaigning “it is amazing what can be achieved when you pool a wide range of resources and diverse talents,” she says. Rachel Malone goes further “you draw empowerment from other people and it keeps you motivated on even your most disillusioned days.”

There is an equally strong sense of community among the Pro-Life campaigners and many feel emotionally overwhelmed when they consider the strong sense of commitment behind the movement.

I was perturbed by incidents of intolerance that were relayed to me with a wry smile or with rolling eyes but, moreover, I was impressed by the undercurrent of resilience.

Negative experiences, it seems, do not act as a deterrent. Aoife Godwin says that she will never be intimidated to the point of silence about her Pro- Life beliefs, nor will her colleagues. Rachel Nolan is not deterred but rather heartened, she says “my hope is that that the more the opposition shout and cause scenes the more likely they are to be laughed out of existence.”

Logical, informed debate is the only way forward

There are two important lessons that I have gleaned from conversations with activists and demonstrators. Firstly, there are few words that can capture the sheer energy and momentum that is tangible when people come together in this way. Activism is not merely a matter of proclaiming your discontent; it is an act that recognises that ordinary people have the capacity to harness real power. While not everyone may feel the urge to partake it is important to respect those who do.

Secondly, logical and informed debate is the only vehicle that will take us forward, and activism is necessary to promote it, but perpetuating a culture of ‘he said she said’ is not the avenue to travel.

As Evelyn Fennelly, a Pro-Life activist, points out “alienating people before the discussion has even begun means that you are losing by default. Human dignity, however it is interpreted, is too important an issue to be coloured by disrespectful tactics.”

It is very easy to dismiss offhand those views that strike discord with our own. It is far too easy to make snap judgements about others. Easiest of all is to allow ourselves to be blind-sided by our personal beliefs in a way that effectively locks us out of the very issue that means so much to all of us.

True progress on the matter of abortion is never going to be easy.

Laura Larkin is a freelance journalist and student at Dublin Institute of Technology.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (52 Comments)

  • Having posters taken down in a university has nothing to do with bias. Usually, poster space is reserved for clubs and societies within the college and, at least in the case of DCU (and I’d imagine others), the posters must be approved and stamped by union officials. If you put up unstamped posters, they get taken down.

    Reply
  • Good article…

    We never hear the views of people who want a solution that is in the middle… Personally I believe
    First trimester : Close to On Demand
    Second trimester: Rape and endangerment of the mother’s life only
    Third trimester: Endangerment of the mother life only

    I would like to see where in the bible that abortion is banned… The evidence seams a bit of stretch considering Jesus lived in a time when abortion was common and never commented on it.

    Rather than looking at the polar of two arguments, maybe we should look at a compromise

    Reply
    • Good summary, and sober, logical assessment.

      Reply
    • Sure the Bible is pro Abortion

      2 Kings 15:16
      Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah:because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

      Hosea 13:16
      Samaria shall become desolate;
      for she hath rebelled against her God:
      they shall fall by the sword:
      their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
      and their women with child shall be ripped up.

      And I’m sure there was plenty a foetus aborted in the actions of Joshua covered in Joshua 10:28-40 and summed up in 40 as
      So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings:he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.

      Reply
    • Yes, but that’s because they couldn’t think of a worse thing to visit on their enemies than to kill their unborn babies. This is murder by soldiers officially sanctioned by their leaders.I can’t think of an instance where abortion by an individual woman is encouraged in the bible.

      Reply
    • Correction. Officially sanctioned by god. And much like the pro-life campaign god didn’t distinguish between foetus and child either. He actively encouraged the termination of both. Come to think of it he treated the life of mother and foetus equally too – ended both. Though he did regularly encourage his people to take it easy on the girls who ‘did not know man by lying with him’. Apparently they had their uses.

      Reply
    • The official Catholic church position is that “ensoulment”, i.e. the point at which a human being gains a soul is not necessarily at conception. However, as we can’t be sure as to when this happens it states that we should act as if it happens at conception in order to avoid the grave sin of killing a person.
      Therefore, the Catholic pro-life groups equating abortion with murder should reform their position to say “abortion MAY be murder but we can’t be 100% sure”. So my point, after all this, is that even the Catholic Church’s official position is much more nuanced than the extreme pro-lifers are projecting it to be. The Catholic Church’s position is essentially a precautionary one due to the greyness and ambiguity of the area, and like the author of this piece I wish both sides of the debate would recognise the lack of a clear black or white answer to this issue.

      Reply
  • I can totally understand both sides. However what I can never do us wear the shoes of another. I can’t truly understand her, have her history, her upbringing, her challenges, her life stage etc therefore I simply cannot tell her what to do. Because the child is in her and of her, only she can make the decision. How can we tell her what to do? Hardly a decision she will make lightly. . Really do women not know women and therefore get how enormous any decision on this matter would be. How gigantic it is. Why do we make things so hard on ourselves? Why do we incessantly follow the guidelines of a prehistoric church that does not really care for life? Perhaps in words but not in action or deed. Nobody should tell another how to live. Wipe the fleck of dirt from your own eye first and perhaps you might see clearer.

    Reply
    • Are the ‘Life Institute’ and Youth Defence permitted to solicit donations from overseas fundamentalist organizations in America as they appear to de doing to fund their lavish campaigns in National Newspapers and running ads in local newspapers which include the contact details for TD’s ?

      Is this type of fundraising illegal ? Another one of their members was recently on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News far-right Network in America ( ‘Huckabee’) seeking donations and advise on how to intimidate Irish Politicians ( Huckabee Show, December 15th – Niamh Ui Bhriain founder of the Life Institute in Ireland and Lila Rose of Live Action ). They are a lobby group – they are NOT a Charity and their websites and literature are full of over the top claims and smears against anyone who isn’t an extreme right wing fundamentalist zealot. They said nothing when the Church Paedophile scandals were being exposed.

      This unregulated organisation and Youth Defence seems to have an endless stream of Money and no-one knows anything about it. The Life Institute spent a fortune before Christmas, distributing anti-abortion leaflets to 1.4 million homes. It is also took out advertisements in 25 newspapers targeting Fine Gael TDs – yet we know nothing about where all this cash is coming from – especially in the current Economic environment.

      Last Summer, Labour Senator Ivana Bacik called for the Advertising Standards Agency to be given a remit to act on complaints about anti-abortion ads and the National anti-abortion billboard campaign by Youth Defence in conjunction with the Life Institute. Who funded this and why isn’t the Life Institute and Youth Defence held accountable for their fundraising, lobbying and bullying tactics.

      Reply
    • Frank, you begin by saying you “totally understand both sides” of the abortion debate. But then you go on by stating very clearly a pro choice view, completely overlooking the fact that in every abortion there are 2 lives and 1 of those will end in death as a result of the abortion. You seem to think people are only pro life because of their adherence to, what you call, “the guidelines of a prehistoric church [presume you mean the Catholic Church] that does not really care for life”. So you are in effect saying that if you are not a person of Catholic faith you must be pro choice because that is the view of the rest of the population. But there are plenty of people who are pro life but not Catholic. Also, the reason Catholics are pro life is precisely because they “care for life”. Many, many women spend the rest of their lives regretting their decision to abort their babies. It damages them and they realise too late that there was subtle but strong pressure on them to have an abortion. Many on the rest of the world are beginning to realise the harm abortion can do to women, not just babies. You may wish to take Laura Larkin’s advice about really reflecting on what abortion is and how we might help pregnant women better by supporting their pregnancy rather than getting rid of it.

      Reply
  • Tolerance is the key…. I am one of those people sitting on the fence but only because I’ve seen both sides of this debate in real life…. We need our healthcare professionals to be protected by the law to do their jobs properly and without fear.

    Reply
  • for me personally, i shouldn’t have a right to preclude a women to have an abortion if she wishes……I really think Ireland has to catch up with the times…women will just go to England and do it anyhow…id imagine it would be hard enough get an abortion in the first place instead of the added hardship of going abroad for it. also if a survey was carried out of people under 35 i think the majority would support abortion… its the older generation set in their ways are stopping it. ..only my opinion so don’t kill me over it

    Reply
  • B 22/02/13 #

    This is quite simple

    Supreme Court gave a decision (whether right or wrong, they gave it) now we need to legislate for the decision or have a referendum to change/annul their decision.

    Sticking your head in the sand and avoiding either is not an option, from either side.

    Reply
    • As Pat Spillane said famously on the Late Late… A woman is dead because of our laws here in Ireland . Says it all really .. Not rocket science .

      Reply
    • Do you mean Savita Halappanavar? She sadly died because of a catalogue of systems failures, not “because of our laws here in Ireland”. You seem determined to overlook the facts and focus on the aim of using this tragic death to achieve many more deaths.

      Reply
  • Well said Ms Larkin.

    Reply
  • Kind of difficult for any reasonable person to negotiate with religious bigotry.

    It’s not enough that they wish to nullify an individuals right to choose where the above subject matter is concerned. They also wish to impose their fundamentalist christian world view upon every other conceivable aspects of our lives.

    A nation cannot afford to give these nut jobs an inch. They had an inch here in Ireland not so long ago and they made a mess of it. They have a broad agenda and it does not begin or end with a girls right to choose.

    Reply
  • Since it was decided by anti-choice campaigners that a woman is less important than the foetus she’s carrying, the “wife swapping sodomists” have always been at odds with the “god botherers”. It has never been civil and it never will be when one group is determined to force their control over another.

    All the passive agressive, handwringing “won’t somebody please think of the activists!!” articles isn’t going to change that.

    Reply
    • “Since it was decided by anti-choice campaigners that a woman is less important than the foetus she’s carrying”…… the lies are strong with this one.

      Reply
    • Lies? Ask Sheila Hodgers whether her life, after the amendment passed, was given precedence over her foetus? Oh wait, you can’t because she died in agony having been denied cancer treatment as soon as it was discovered she was pregnant.

      Reply
  • When the debate from through pro life side is all scare tactics and lies, well what are you supposed to say to it.

    Reply
    • JayK 22/02/13 #

      “Abortion is too important an issue for disrespectful debate”

      “(T)he debate from through pro life side is all scare tactics and lies”.

      Good work raising the tone.

      Reply
  • Most comments on here for or against abortion are full of mud slinging. Pro abortionists are baby killers and anti abortionists are religious fanatics. It is such an emotive subject that sensible debate is usually impossible. I am not a religious person, I don’t go to mass. I am a young open-minded woman. I have lost a baby to miscarriage (because for me at 11weeks 3 days in the womb, it was my baby not a bunch of cells as is often insensitively remarked in comments on here) I don’t agree with abortion on demand however I do agree that legislation needs to be in place for cases that arise like Savita’s. I also think abortion should be allowed in such cases as those highlighted by the campaigners for Termination for Medical reasons.

    Reply
    • I can fully appreciate that you saw your baby as your baby, you had a hope that it would be born and I am truly sorry that this did not come to pass.
      I too have had miscarriages, one at 7 weeks and one at 8 weeks. By comparison, I was relieved. In one instance a condom had split and I had vomited due to drunkenness so my pill obviously didn’t work. I didn’t want to be pregnant and when I miscarried I burst into tears of joy.
      The second time I was in an abusive relationship and I had been raped. Again, I was relieved not to be having that monsters baby – I was on anti depressants at the time too, they would have had a negative effect on foetal development.

      In this sense, whether or not it’s a baby or your worst nightmare is entirely subjective. I was lucky, I was spared that awful decision. I didn’t have to try and get myself to the UK, I couldn’t have afforded it anyway. Not everyone miscarries, and I’ve known girls who kept the baby, some have made the trip, other girls who have tried to end it all, and one who did.

      I know that it’s not something everyone agrees with, but ultimately each of us is different and I don’t think I have the right to tell another woman she must stay pregnant if she doesn’t want to.

      Reply
  • Well considered and balanced article-clearly it regards the debate not the journalist’s personal views on the issue itself. Many of the comments here prove Laura Larkin’s point that “Easiest of all is to allow ourselves to be blind-sided by our personal beliefs in a way that effectively locks us out of the very issue that means so much to all of us.”

    Reply
  • Most comments on here for or against abortion are full of mud slinging. Pro abortionists are baby killers and anti abortionists are religious fanatics. It is such an emotive subject that sensible debate is usually impossible. I am not a religious person, I don’t go to mass. I am a young open-minded woman. I have lost a baby to miscarriage (because for me at 11weeks 3 days in the womb, it was my baby not a bunch of cells as is often insensitively remarked in comments on here) I don’t agree with abortion on demand however I do agree that legislation needs to be in place for cases that arise like Savita’s. I also think abortion should be allowed in such cases as those highlighted by the campaigners for Termination for Medical reasons.

    Reply
    • 110% agree with what you’re saying. I dont see why there can’t be a middle ground found which I think most pro-life supporters would like?

      Reply
    • There is a middle ground and the country voted for it but the anti choice brigade are suffering from selective memory loss.

      Reply
    • Ahh come on now Will. Most pro-choice commenters on this issue using the journal call for abortion on demand every chance they can get. Most of the cooments I see from the pro-life side (with the exception of the loons) say the same as Eimear above but are scared of what the extemist pro-choicers are trying to achieve.

      Reply
  • There’s no debate needed. It’s already been voted for. Besides it’s a womans body and her right to choose.

    Reply
  • Why isn’t there the same concer with men masturbating, as this is the loss of millions of potential lives. A human being is the result of a combination of egg and sperm. Both are equally vital to produce a baby.
    Why can men get away with spilling their seed all over the place, at great human cost, yet women are utterly restrained. Who makes these laws?….oh right. This is a valid argument and highlights the ridiculous stance of the anti choice brigade.

    Reply
    • And by way I have occasionally masturbated

      Reply
    • Thanks for sharing, William!
      Agree with the premise though. Ever read about Onan, in the Old Testament? He was smitten with a great smite for “spilling his seed”! Careful now!

      Reply
    • JayK 22/02/13 #

      From a religious standpoint masterbation is just as terrible. God struck down Onan for spilling his seed on the ground. Of course virtually everything is a terrible sin from a religious standpoint.

      “Have you ever actually read this thing? Technically we’re not allowed to go to the bathroom” – Reverend Lovejoy.

      Reply
    • JayK 22/02/13 #

      Damn it, that’s twice I’ve been beaten to the punch while typing this week. Mary got the jump this time.

      Reply
    • Carl, why become abusive to me, why call me names. Is that your way, is that your solution, sure looks that way.
      Research suggests 80-90% of people masturbate, now that obviously doesn’t include you as you’re too busy abusing others to actually play with your self.

      Reply
    • I think many of the comments here, – illustrate exactly the point of Laura’s original article (above). The toxicity, nastiness, & hatred – is not necessarily all confined to one side of the debate!!
      Some ‘pro choice’ people, – not exactly models of liberal tolerance!

      Reply
  • The pro-life lobby consider that the foetus is a human being. They consider that abortion is indistinguishable from murder. The posit a moral duty to protect what I would call a foetus but what they call an innocent baby, an innocent child. Consequently that means that all methods of prevention of abortion are morally justified.

    Reply
  • The author of the article should get out into the real world. The aspiration voiced will never be more than that……….an aspiration. Abortion is an emotive issue and , human nature being what it is, there will be disrespect shown. Indeed ,on reflection , it might not be such a bad thing , if it gets all issues aired.

    Reply
    • JayK 22/02/13 #

      Actually, the best solution is generally to exclude those people from the discussion. They don’t add anything valuable. That applies equally to both sides of the argument.

      I’d also exclude religious organisations from the discussion as their views are generally baseless and irrelevant but that’s a more dubious assertion.

      Reply
  • Unless too ill, too poor or too dependent, the debate is irrelevant to women with a crisis pregnancy. They will properly avail of the right to travel and the right to information.

    I say let the pro-life lobby indulge themselves. They need to vent. Challenge them on some of their sillier arguments and false statements and read their incensed responses. It’s quite entertaining unless it’s Youth Defence with Hurley sticks.

    Reply
  • Very one sided article… the poor pro-choicers being picked on… sure the pro-lifers are nothing more than bullies as this article paints… yet another pro-choice article being pushed by the Journal… I have yet to see a pro-life article on here.

    Reply
  • I think the pro lifers are just as justified as the pro abortionists!

    Reply
    • This “pro abortionist” thing..
      No one thinks abortions are great and everyone should have one. It’s a very difficult thing to do, it’s not pleasant, as a means of “contraception” it’s the most unpleasant and expensive one available and if a woman were using it as same she has problems well beyond the general abortion debate..

      All of us, “pro life” and “pro choice” alike would prefer to see as few abortions happen as possible. We all agree that it’s not the ideal, however those on the pro choice side realise that sometimes it’s necessary, sometimes it’s the best option for that specific scenario. We see that making abortion illegal doesn’t stop women having them, it does make it more risky for them though, and we would prefer to remove that risk.
      The only thing that really reduces the prevalence of abortion is to reduce unwanted pregnancies from occurring. Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will however is a huge demand and one I am very uncomfortable with.

      Reply
  • Meh 24/02/13 #

    It’s clear and simple, nobody has the right to willfully end the life of another. It takes some level of manic ego and a crass devaluing of human life to cherry pick who gets to have a shot at life and who doesn’t.
    “Stop shoving your old fashioned morals down our necks! ” – that’s the type of response that usually accompanies any criticism of the pro-choice movement.

    But as you can see the very stigmas and morals and values in relation to these issues that have been underlying societies for centuries and transcending various different epochs of “enlightenment”, are the values that attempt to structure implicit protections for women by using ideas such as commitment / stability / abstinence from competitive and materialistic casual sexual activity. (This being the ideal behind those values)
    The obsession with “rape culture” and the concurrent sexual liberation and hyper-sexualisation of youth and society leads to these social problems that require a cure rather than prevention.
    There are rape victims , there are terrible situations and that cannot be denied, but for the vast majority of women seeking abortions, it is lifestyle based decision because they or their sexual partner were reckless not in the act but in the value they ascribed to their own bodies by engaging in sexual activity with a high risk of procreation being the outcome and the immaturity of regard to possible long term outcomes. So telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her body is obviously wrong, yet for the vast majority of unplanned pregnancies , it’s exactly that issue that women should take responsibility for how they use or let their bodies be used for casual sexual gratification knowing there is a pregnancy risk.
    Sometimes the old values if you listen and try to understand them are actually telling you exactly what you need to hear, they don’t have all the answers but they are a useful guide if you are willing to listen or live by them.

    Nobody has the right to willfully end the life of another.

    Reply

Add New Comment