The abortion
debate has been long, emotional and fundamentally tedious. There has been a protracted
and involved argument – or series of arguments – in newspapers, talk shows,
radio programmes, social media, blogs and on lampposts where the same points have
been repeated and repeated and repeated until practically everyone engaged in
the question could recite them by heart.
A Battle of Words
Fundamentally,
the debate has been about language and terminology. It has been a battle of
words. Whose words would win, whose words would people believe and accept and
start using, and whose words would they make fun of and laugh at. And when it
came down to it, it was about two little words, two of the most powerful in the
English language; No – the ultimate negation, and Yes – the word of positivity,
acceptance and affirmation.
Each side
had their own vocabulary that the other side wouldn’t even use or utter. It was
like they were speaking two dialects of the same language.
For the No
side, the key word was “baby”. The No representatives had obviously been
coached on and had practiced the correct, emotive pronunciation of the word, and
endeavoured to get it into any and every conversation. Every sentence had to
contain at least one “baby” – they said the word “baby” more than Barry White.
The other
key words for Retainers were “human being” and “person”; the central, and
practically only argument that they had was that the embryo and the foetus is “a
baby”, “a person”, “a human being”.
The Yes
side, on the other hand, generally avoided the B-word like the plague. They said
“foetus” and “embryo”, or else focused on the pregnant woman rather than what
(or who) was in her womb.
For the No
side, their opponents are “pro-abortion” – or in some more extreme cases, “baby-killers”
or “murderers”. They describe themselves as “Pro-Life”.
For the Yes
campaign, they themselves are Pro-choice, and the other side are Anti-choice or,
being kind, Anti-abortion.
Parallel Conversations
Neither side
uses any of the other side’s words or even acknowledges the validity of the
descriptions that their opponents use. They have been having parallel
conversations that don’t even cover the same ground or use the same vocabulary.
So the vote
was always going to come down to a question of whose words would win. If you
accepted the use of the words “killing”, “baby”, “murder” and “die”, then the
No-side had you. If these words seemed extreme, absolutist, inaccurate, hysterical
or preachy then there was a good chance you were turned off the No message.
Babies, Babies, Babies
It is clear
that the Irish electorate has rejected the No-side’s words. They did not buy the
constant, unceasing repetition of the word “baby” to describe a two-week old
embryo, a six week old foetus; entities that are clearly not ‘babies”, as we
know them, or in any way full “human beings”, as they made out.
And they did
not accept the utter and complete inflexibility of that word – No. “No”
allows for no grey areas, no compromise, no surrender. “No” means No – no to rape victims,
no to women carrying unviable pregnancies, no to any woman who is not ready to
be a parent. It means no debate, no discussion, no wriggle-room, and fundamentally,
no compassion. It represented the old order, where you did what you were told
and obeyed the words that your elders and betters said to you, because that was
your place.
Basically, the
No side lost so badly because they way they used words, and the words that they
used, failed to convince people. In fact, the biggest ally of the Yes vote was
the No campaign – it was lecturing, whiny, self-righteous, repetitive, preachy and
treated people like children. They had one approach, and that was to bang on
and on and on about babies, babies, babies. If someone didn’t buy the
baby-tactic, then the No campaign had nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Monstrous
On RTE after
the result had become clear, there was an indication of the gap in the
vocabulary that still exists between the two sides. Noel Whelan, political
commentator and Yes voter called the Eighth Amendment “monstrous” – a word of
such power and accuracy that expresses what a lot of people were feeling.
Meanwhile, Senator
Ronan Mullen continued to say that the Eighth was something “beautiful”. After
listening to the stories of women throughout the campaign, and about all of the
heartbreak that the Eighth Amendment has caused, he still felt able to use that
word to describe it. It is a sign of how deluded and far from reality the No-side has been
and of how utterly their words have failed them.
No comments:
Post a Comment