Phrases like ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ have escaped their meanings in the propaganda warAND THE conversation about abortion continues. What was it this past week?
Pat Rabbitte seems to have annoyed certain monsignors with his comments about the Catholic Church’s attitude to the issue.
“I think it would be a retrogressive step if we were to go back to the days of the Catholic Church dictating to elected public representatives,” he dared to say.
Columns appeared in this place.
Angry letters were written.
Observing the continuing hubbub, one is, yet again, reminded of the oblique euphemisms beneath which the combatants assemble.
If the proverbial visiting Martian were to glance at the coverage, he, she or it could be forgiven for shaking his, her or its several heads in weary confusion.
Most of us have become used to the fact that the tribes refer to themselves as “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Not everybody is happy about the fact.
Indeed, the current edition of The Irish Times stylebook – an admirably eccentric document – contains the following, frequently flouted recommendation: “pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Also anti- abortion, not pro-life”.
(Don’t blame the columnist if the stylebook’s orders are, for the most part, followed throughout the following 600 words.)
This is very slippery territory. The polished puritans at the Plain English Campaign would surely demand that everybody stop shilly-shallying and say what they darn well mean. The situation is, however, not so straightforward.
Of course, it’s hard to express an opinion on this matter without betraying one’s own attitude to abortion (and, quite possibly, to life and choice).
One can, nonetheless, see what the compilers of the stylebook were getting at. Neither hyphenate satisfactorily – or even vaguely – communicates its brandisher’s attitudes on the abortion issue.
Only sociopaths are opposed to life; all of us like the idea of choice. But, whereas those in favour of maintaining a ban on terminations are unambiguously “anti-abortion”, it is not quite accurate to state that the other side is “pro-abortion”.
Anti-abortion campaigners have often argued that the term “pro-choice” was inveigled into the conversation to distract from the unattractive realities of the procedure. There may be some truth in that. But there are rational objections to the term “pro-abortion”.
The phrase suggests the termination of pregnancies is something to be savoured earnestly. It implies an active enthusiasm for those medical procedures. No sane people take that view.
The current campaign seeks to grant women the right to exercise control over their bodies. It does not argue for abortion as a means of personal expression or a route to liberation.
Of course the phrase “pro-choice” is somewhat unsatisfactory. Few entirely honest, wholly comprehensive alternatives would, however, fit on a badge any smaller than your average bin lid.
It is harder to understand why any anti-abortion campaigners should object to being so identified. The decision to prefer “pro-life” over our stylebook’s alternative suggests no obvious motivation aside from a compulsion to propagandise.
By adopting that hyphenate you imply that your opponents are anti-life (if not pro-death).
This is – to rebut the immediate, inevitable rejoinder – a somewhat more serious business than suggesting your enemies are not altogether in favour of “choice”.
The business of naming campaigning groups is fraught with peril. When the National Spastics Society changed its title to Scope few reasonable people argued with the move. The s-word was long ago corrupted into a term of abuse on the playground.
On the other hand, there is something admirable about the US National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s decision to stick with the hugely unfashionable penultimate word in its own name.
Several generations of African-Americans walked beneath the NAACP banner. It would be a shame if, for the sake of politeness, that name was forced to vanish.
Elsewhere, the desire to euphemise away unattractive realities has led to lack of clarity and (ironically) triggered genuine offence.
In 2006, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, the UK’s leading campaign group in the field of assisted dying, took the decision to change its name to the impossibly vague, linguistically unhelpful Dignity in Dying.
Once again, as with “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, we are left with a phrase that describes the desires and opinions of all sane people.
Yet, as the Association of Palliative Medicine argued at the time, the choice of name does rather suggest that the only route to dignified death lies via euthanasia.
Moreover, each time a representative of Dignity in Dying appears in the media, some presenter will be forced to explain exactly what the organisation is for.
No such confusion existed when the body had the word “euthanasia” in its title.
By way of contrast, “pro-choice” has escaped its literal meaning and gained a secure place in the lexicon of contemporary controversy.
To be fair, “pro-life” has achieved the same feat.
But “anti-abortion” would do just as well.