“I’m determined to do this as quickly as possible but I’m also determined to get it right for women and get it right for doctors…”  With these words (Abortion legislation will take until the end of the year, Harris reveals, Irish Independent, 29^th May 2018), Irish Health Minister Simon Harris began the process of drafting new abortion legislation following the Irish referendum result back in May.  The unborn, whose constitutional right to life will be removed to allow this to happen, were not even mentioned.  They have been similarly absent from much of the comment and coverage in The Guardian and The Observer.

I choose to read The Guardian and The Observer because I identify as liberal (willing to respect opinions different from one’s own).  Liberalism is a necessary condition for genuine debate and as such is the only route to discerning truth.  As with so many other important issues, the will to engage in a genuine debate about abortion seems to be absent.  The result is a pair of parallel conversations that rarely intersect in a constructive manner:  people in favour of access to abortion talking about women’s rights; people against access to abortion talking about the right to life of the unborn.  It is surely the purpose of liberal media to bring these parallel conversations together and, to quote Mary Colwell (The bloody truth about conservation: we need to talk about killing, The Guardian, 28th May 2018), bring about “a civilised conversation” that uses “a common language that eradicates derogatory terms”.

It seems to have become received wisdom amongst people who identify as liberals that abortion is a matter to be debated on the territory of women’s rights alone.  This should trouble liberals on two counts.  Firstly, received wisdom is a euphemism for dogma, which should automatically be anathema to liberals.  More fundamentally, however, liberal opinion cannot be formed in an echo-chamber where only one side of the story is heard.  In a complex, uncertain world, there is always the temptation to hide behind a veil of lies and half-truths to make life seem simpler and more certain.  Liberalism exists to puncture this veil and force us to face up to the uncomfortable truths about life in its glorious uncertain complexity, but it can only do so if its proponents in the media are prepared to talk about both sides of the story.

The problem, unfortunately, goes deeper than simply ignoring the pro-life argument.  The reverberations of the echo chamber are clearly detectable once its inhabitants start redefining other people’s opinions on their behalf.  Kenan Malik (Abortion laws are not ‘pro life’ when they ignore women, The Observer, 25^th March 2018) considers the desperate plight of two South American women denied abortions and draws the reasonable conclusion that these cases show that the draconian implementation of abortion laws in these countries cannot be considered to be pro-life.  However, in making the logic-defying leap to the general statement that, “Such inhuman cases expose the vacuity of the claim that abortion laws are ‘pro-life’. They are not,” he takes it upon himself to redefine the opinions of other.  Hadley Freeman (An abortion at the age of 23 gave me freedom, The Guardian, 2^nd June 2018) should be commended for sharing her experience of abortion and for being refreshingly honest in addressing the fact that the debate about access to abortion is not just about “extreme cases” (important though it is to consider these in a compassionate manner) but about abortion as a method of birth control.  However, in referring to those on the opposite side of the argument not as pro-life but as “anti-choice” she again takes it upon herself to redefine other people’s opinions on their behalf.  In these examples, the writers take a deliberate step away from the common language that is needed to foster a genuine debate and a step towards using derogatory terms.

Those arguing against access to abortion should, of course, be challenged to face up to the question, “What about the impact on women?”  There is a reasoned, compassionate answer to this question (Abortion: A matter of life and choice), albeit one which challenges both men and women to face up to their responsibilities.  Equally, however, those arguing in favour of access to abortion should be challenged to face up to the question, “When does life begin?”  Without a reasoned answer to this question, it is impossible to discern the moral implications of performing an abortion.  To avoid either of these questions is a failure to respect opinions different from one’s own:  an act of wilful illiberalism.