This may be a little incoherent.
But rambles always are aren’t they?
Or should be anyway…
Due to the nature of the abortion debate, I’d should state my biases on this issue; I would describe myself as anti-abortion, largely for personal reasons, but do not support a total ban on abortion. I think that the law in the U.K is too liberal, but not so much as to be unacceptable. I do not think that abortion should be a political (and especially not a partisan) issue. I can go into more detail as to why my views on it are what they are if anyone were to ask.
One of the worst aspects of modern American politics is the sheer dominance of the abortion debate; as abortion was legalised (and made a Constitutional right) by a dubious Supreme Court ruling, every single judicial nomination decided by Congress boils down to a vicious debate on abortion, in 2000 something like 50% of voters in at least one poll listed abortion as being a very important decision in deciding between Gore and Bush, various powerful (and extremely wealthy) organisations exist to peddle their own (inevitably extreme) positions, and due to their huge sums of money, exert a disturbing influence over politicians of both parties and activists from those parties (witness the, failed, attempt by pro-choice groups to oust leftwing (but anti-abortion) Democratic Rep. Jim Langevin in Rhode Island). Overall, the main political effect of the focus on abortion has been to greatly weaken the traditional hold the Democratic party held over the white working class, something that helped to bring about the recent decade-long Republican dominance of American politics. It would seem that the House Democrats of the Tip O’Neill era were right to try to prevent abortion from being a partisan issue.
Despite (or, in some cases, because of) this, it sometimes seems as though the language of the abortion debate in the U.K has been imported from America; the mindless labels of “pro choice” and “pro life” are thrown around like confetti, as is the use of the American language of rights (ie; right to life, right to an abortion, etc, etc) and seemingly most of the other rhetoric. And the abuse of course.
Problem is, the nature of the debate (and the law) over here is radically different to that seen in the U.S; in Britain (with the exception of the tiny fringes) the debate is not over whether or not abortion should be completely banned or whether or not it should be legal to have an abortion during labour, but over what the correct set of restrictions should be. The firey language that dominates the ghastly abortion debate in the States should not, logically, have any role in the (really quite moderate and reasonable) debate in the U.K. But, up to a point, it does. I suppose it’s much easier to rant about rights than talk about restrictions, and I suppose it’s unreasonable of me to expect people to do the reverse. But it would be nice if people, on both sides, showed more respect to the people and arguments of those on other sides, and those in the middle.
It would also be nice if M.P’s introducing legislation seeking to restrict abortion would consider the possiblity that it might be a good idea to suggest some policies that would reduce the number of abortions by more than a fraction. Better access to contraception, more money and welfare services for vulnerable mothers and so on. But I suspect that’s too much to ask for.
Yes, it is too much to ask for.
In the USA, abortion has attained a much wider and more prominent status than the actual numbers of Americans affected. That’s because it is used as a wedge issue by one end of our spectrum to polarize our politics. As such it has become a symbolic mountain in our political topography: whoever controls its heights establishes a relative hegemony. The battle has gone on so long between the anti-abortion and the pro-choice (notice I did not use the term, “pro-abortion”) that the mountain has been chiselled down such that conditions and stages of pregnancy have been added as caveats.
I feel (always) compelled to state my personal and unchanging position on women’s reproductive rights. Bill Clinton was close when he said something like abortion should be legal, professionally performed and rare (or words to that effect). What I say is that is that I am unalterably opposed to abortion excepting in those instances when a woman determines, in absolute privacy with her physician, that she wishes one, for whatever reason.
Conclusion: Abortion vs. Choice is but one mountain in the American cultural civil war. If it weren’t there, we would be contesting over the flag on some other summit. It’s really that trivial: a metaphorical flag.
[...] At the conclusion of a very readable piece on abortion, The New Jerusalem considers . . .the possibility that it might be a good idea to suggest some policies that would reduce the number of abortions by more than a fraction. Better access to contraception, more money and welfare services for vulnerable mothers and so on. But I suspect that’s too much to ask for. [...]