JESSIE WILLMS / MERCEDES MUELLER
The Fulcrum (University of Ottawa)
Few debates are more visceral, hotly contested or consequential than those concerning sexual health and reproductive rights.
Given that one in five women — one in three among certain demographics — will have an abortion in their lifetime, a discussion regarding abortion and abortion rights is necessary within society. And yet, the nature of this debate has too often descended into one dominated by slander, rhetoric and verbal and physical abuse, turning a valuable dialogue about the provision of services — both those pertaining to abortion and child care — into a vicious battle.
One of the most detrimental aspects of this debate is the misconception each side possesses regarding who makes up the “other side.” The pro-choice movement has been characterized as a group of reckless, abortion-loving feminists, which has overshadowed their fight for choice — not strictly for abortion. Similarly, those in the pro-life camp have been written off by their opponents as fear-mongering religious zealots, making their supporters appear insensitive to the needs of women.
These are unfair representations of the diverse range of individuals who make up either side of the debate, causing ignorant insults to be hurled by both sides, and ultimately stifling a discussion of the issues faced by the women these groups seek to aid.
Even the terminology we use to identify each camp in this debate is inflammatory and unproductive. To call those who do not support access to abortion care “pro-life” reinforces the notion that a fetus is indeed a fully-formed human being, painting the other side as “anti-life.”
Similarly, to call those who advocate in favour of access to abortion “pro-abortion” cheapens the discussion, because it implies that “pro-choice” individuals are advocating solely for abortions and ignores the social and political foundations that are integral to the “pro-choice” movement.
According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2008 there were 44,416 induced abortions.
Let’s get one thing straight. While the decision-making process, the procedure itself and the post-abortion experience is different for every woman, one truth stands across the board: No woman makes the decision lightly. And when a decision concerns one’s body, future and life, it is not as simple as aligning oneself with the ideas espoused by either side and subsequently making a choice.
Most women, when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, take the information given by both sides into account when making their decisions — and regardless of what they choose, women experience a sense of comfort knowing they can find support in the services offered by both sides.
But the way this debate has been framed across the campuses, legislatures and the courts of this country — as a vicious debate characterized by ideology and violence, and not an open and safe dialogue — limits a woman’s access to the information, services and support she requires.
Even when we disagree, sometimes vehemently, we can agree that if we resort to scare tactics and fear mongering, we all lose. If each side continues to rage against the other, reusing the same talking points and engaging in the same shameful tactics, the progress we need will never happen. Women will continue to feel unsafe walking into abortion clinics, and pro-life groups across the country will remain silenced.
So, instead, the discussion we should have concerns the need for safer abortion procedures, access to the clinics that give these services, protection for the doctors who provide them, and support for women after undergoing this procedure. We should discuss the lack of funding for and access to health care facilities in rural areas, the lack of support for single or full-time working parents, and insufficient access to childcare facilities.
Let’s talk about the lack of rigorous sex education in our schools and ways to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Let’s talk about how we can better support the women and men who are raising children while attending university, and how we can provide a better framework in which they can get an education. Let’s talk about how we can better support the people this “debate” is structured around — where our common ground lies.
If we can agree that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a good thing, a desirable thing, then maybe we can begin to make the progress we so desperately need. This starts by expanding our dialogue to better include ensuring access to affordable contraception, family planning, adequate childcare and access to the full scope of maternal care.
Both sides, at their core, are reasonable, and care enough about the health and well-being of women and children to engage thoughtfully with each other.
And really, if the Pope himself can make minor concessions on access to contraceptives for followers of the Catholic faith, then surely both sides of the divide on abortion can realize their common ground.
– –
image: Alex Martin/The Fulcrum