[Image by user1505195587 from Pixabay]

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that most of my friends and peers are pro-choice. As such, I am often privy to conversations between people who support and even campaign for the removal of restrictions on legal abortion, some of which display fault lines in the pro-choice camp.

One surprisingly controversial figure amongst activists who campaigned to remove the Eighth Amendment, and who campaign still for wider access to abortion, is Peter Boylan. From a pro-life perspective, Peter Boylan was a major player in removing legal protection from unborn babies. Within pro-choice camps, however, it was not uncommon for people to be holding their noses at the thoughts of working with Boylan.

Boylan, amongst other things, was seen as undermining victims of symphysiotomy in Ireland, by suggesting that the “real scandal” was not women who were subject to this procedure, often without full or any consent, but rather the “misinformation” and “misattribution” of difficulties in delivery to symphysiotomy. Boylan claimed he was not surprised that many women who had been “led to believe” they had undergone symphysiotomies actually hadn’t, and also welcomed the Harding Report into the symphysiotomy scandal as clarifying that obstetricians always acted in the interests of mothers and babies, and “do their best at all times”.

Many campaigners for women’s rights and for maternity service improvements were pretty horrified that an obstetrician who so easily dismissed the concerns of victims, who were subject to an unnecessary brutal medical procedure that left lifelong consequences and without ever consenting to the procedure, was working so prominently in the Repeal Campaign. They couldn’t understand how someone who had such a dismissive attitude towards consent and women’s health could be motivated by concerns for choice and women’s health in his support of Repeal. Some wondered whether his motivation was more paternalistic, wanting the government to leave doctors alone, rather than really driven by a concern for women. Nonetheless, they generally rowed in behind him and the campaign, despite their reservations about his motivations. After all, if someone is working towards the same goal as you are, you should be happy to work with them even if their reasons are bad – right?

Good question. For my part, I know that the vast majority of pro-life people really do believe that the unborn are equal human beings who deserve the right to life, and they campaign for legal protections for the unborn on that basis. This is a good and noble reason to campaign against abortion. However, there are less noble reasons also. Increasingly, I hear people – who hold a wide variety of views on abortion per se – cite decreasing birth rates as a reason to oppose abortion. Regardless of how problematic we think falling birth rates are, I don’t think boosting the birth rate is a noble reason to oppose abortion – quite the opposite.

There are other, even less noble, reasons to oppose abortion. For example, the hypothetical evil misogynist who lives rent-free in certain people’s heads who just loves the thought of controlling women’s bodies clearly has very bad, ignoble reasons to oppose abortion. I’ve never met such a person, though of course some may exist somewhere, but if I did, I wouldn’t want to work with them on anything, even something as important as opposing abortion. I just think their reasons for opposing abortion would be so awful, so totally opposed to my own reasons, that I couldn’t find common ground with them.

How far do we take this position though? I don’t know, to be honest. There are so few people with whom I agree on absolutely everything, and I disagree with many pro-life activists on many, many issues, and if I let those facts dictate who I worked with, I wouldn’t work with anyone really. I think it’s up to each person to decide, for themselves, where their red lines are, and how ignoble someone’s reasons for being pro-life have to be before they refuse to work with them at all.

However, one practical thing I try to do in the meantime is try to figure out whether someone I’m talking to about abortion has come to their position for noble or ignoble reasons. I think most pro-choice people are pro-choice for good reasons, reasons to do with compassion and equality and autonomy, and have just applied those reasons badly. However, I do think some pro-choice people support legal abortion for very bad reasons. Similarly, I think most pro-life people are pro-life for good reasons, reasons to do with justice and equality and inclusion, and I think they have applied those reasons well! However, I do think some pro-life people oppose abortion for very bad reasons.

In trying to work with people, find common ground, and move the pro-life position forward, sometimes working off “noble versus ignoble reasons” is a more useful framework than working off “pro-life versus pro-choice”. It helps to highlight similarities and differences, understand where disagreement actually lies, and move the conversation forward. I think if everyone tried to use this framework, we’d have a lot more productive dialogue – and I think those who operate out of ignoble reasons will have a greater incentive to do better.

Muireann