Categories: random
Tags: abortion, Christianity
Date: 22 October 2007 12:41:52
(Warning, non-silly post following)
The other night I stayed up and watched the Dispatches programme on abortion. Partly because the subject is of some relevance to my research, and partly because I'm still trying to figure out where I am in terms of what I think about it as an ethical and moral issue. Having (as I mentioned last month) recently been living in a very conservative environment where abortion as an issue is a complete no-brainer - it's just wrong, full stop, the end - I wondered how the usually rather liberal Channel 4 would treat the subject. Interestingly, although it seemed to claim it was just an objective look at abortion law in the UK, it seemed to have made up its mind beforehand that the gestational age should be lowered (in the UK abortion is legally available up to 24 weeks' gestation, one of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe - in many other countries it's only available up to 12 weeks) and treated the liberal pro-choicers much more harshly and rigorously than I expected. Of course they showed the obligatory prayer meeting/picket outside an abortion clinic but apart from that the Christians shown didn't seem to come across as too loony at all, and it was some of the pro-choicers who came across as defensive and with arguments that weren't up to the challenge.
Partly I think this was a bit unfair and sneaky on behalf of the programme makers. They were particularly pushing a particular doctor's research (on foetal pain), and I have to say that whilst the research is rigorous and interesting and possibly - probably - crucial to the debate, basing an argument on just one piece of research is not wise (just look at what happened with the MMR vaccine - I won't get started on that as it will make me froth at the mouth, it wasn't even good or remotely credible research which this foetal pain study looks like it could well be, but caused a ton of damage).
However, I do also feel that, with this subject where views are so polarised, with so little airing of the grey areas in between the “I'm right, you're wrong” “No I'm right and you're wrong” bits of the debate which are the only bits which seem to get heard, it is good in a generally liberal environment for the liberal view to be challenged as well as the conservative one. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the issue - I guess if you need a label I'd probably say I'm at the more conservative end of the liberal perspective, and in general I'd probably sooner share a pint with the pro-choice lot than the other lot (I suspect many would be more likely to buy a round, quite apart from anything else), but quite where on the spectrum I am I'm really not sure. I don't think it's exactly News At Ten that very conservative arguments make me cringe (particularly when they're couched in God-speak so as to end the discussion without starting it), but I'm finding that the very liberal ones do as well and are often just as shrill and unsophisticated. I realise with such an emotional subject, with people's lives at stake (mother AND child), often an impeccably argued debate is the least wanted, needed or compassionate response, and what comes out as a gut-level reaction is absolutely heartfelt and real, and I also realise that I do have a bit of a tendency to idolise impeccable argument and need to deal with that and not despise the heartfelt gut reaction. I just wish that the heartfelt gut reaction, on both sides, wasn't so shrill and bitter.
Over at Of Course I Could Be Wrong, MadPriest has been hosting a very interesting debate (yes I know it's from last month, there's more recent stuff on his blog too) on this very subject. I wish some of the secular discussions were this respectful and genuinely grappling with the issues and open to the thought that their position isn't the only Right one. I took a look at the Dispatches forum and found their discussion quite depressing, just as polarised as the usual religious debates.