Who could not be moved by the plight of the three brave women who related their story on The Late Late Show (20 April 2012)? To be told that their unborn babies were incapable of living outside the womb. That they were incompatible with life. I can’t empathise with something so fundamentally horrific. It is tragedy on so many levels that my imagination fails me.
There is however an aspect of their story that I can grapple with. Due to the morality of others, they were forced to leave the country to seek terminations. You see Ireland is very strict about some things. What individuals may or may not do with and/or to their own bodies, is right up there at the top of things the State feels obliged to legislate for.
This arrogance did not form in a vacuum. As a former outpost of orthodox Roman Catholicism, the hierarchy of freedom in Ireland, was clear to all. At the top were good middle-class Catholic men, who were free-ish, then there were all other men, after them were foetuses and at the bottom were women and children. Don’t forget that until 1990, a husband had unrestricted access to his wife’s body and children of single-mothers were treated as State/Church property.
Thus the State has a long history of thinking itself enjoined to tell people what they could do with their own bodies. That habit of power is as difficult for citizens to break as it is for politicians to give-up. So we remain a nation which exports women who wish to have terminations. An anachronistic position protected fiercely by a loud and powerful minority.
Now I’ve explored my thoughts on abortion in an earlier post, so I am not going to dwell too much on the rights and wrongs here. Suffice to say, I am pro-freedom of choice. In saying that however, this particular case, is not a clear cut argument for abortion on demand. It is not even a cause célèbre for abortions that protect the lives of women. This is specifically about women who are carrying foetuses which will not survive.
We are in good abortions versus bad abortion territory. Abortions to end ‘real‘ suffering versus ‘social‘ abortions. It is a distinction I find nauseating, but for some it is a real moral line in the sand. I had assumed three sides to the freedom of choice debate, those for freedom, those against freedom and those who had yet to decide. Apparently there is a fourth side; those who want freedom for some, in particular situations, sometimes, here’s a list of hoops the women must jump through, etc.
One would have to be a cold cold bastard to have the capacity to feel any kind of moral superiority over those women, but those bastards exist. People who would call these women murderers. Others that speak of ‘perinatal hospices’ and think this sufficent. These are scary people and worse, they have a crawling body politic on their side.
There can be no compromise in this. It is freedom or nothing. Women are given full autonomy, or their bodies remain subject to the morals of others. But there is nothing to stop those who support freedom, to be a bit cold in their efforts. Just because I am a liberal does not mean I have to be nicey nicey all the time. Incremental steps are the key to freedom more than a revolution will ever be.
So I will wholeheartedly support the efforts of those who are campaigning for ‘good’ abortions. Let’s get that door unlocked. Let’s help the politicians eventually do the right thing, by helping them first do the easy thing, legislate for women who are forced to travel to the UK as their unborn babies are incompatible with life. It’s not heroic, but freedom is more important than heroism.
