Trading Placard's

Yesterday, April 15th, around 50 - 70 Pro-Choice supporters from the Brighton area descended on a local Worthing church to demonstrate their views on abortion. I am only an interested observer in this case, but found it interesting to see from a distance how it took place.

The reason given for this specific protest was the involvement of some church members in similar, Pro-Life protests at the site of an abortion clinic in Brighton, in association with the Abort67 group (though the church in question make it very clear on their website they have no connection with the Abort67 group). It goes without saying that the Pro-Life group have every right to protest publicly if they choose, and vice versa. I was concerned however at the apparent aggressive nature of their approach and some of their slogans, which were chanted at church members arriving and leaving the church meeting. This took place indiscriminately, with no prior knowledge as to who actually supported the earlier Pro-Life protests, and who supports, Abort67, seemingly without consideration given to the intimidation doubtless caused to young people, children, and other unconnected parties involved. I know that this same accusation of aggression and inappropriate use of images can be used against the Pro-Life protest in question, one which I would actually support, however that does not provide justification to continue the same methods.

In general my overriding concern is that we can very easily slip into a situation where the UK's discussion on abortion is reduced to one which takes place purely through public, opposing protests. Trading slogans, accusations, placards, and high profile supporters. Without wanting to refuse the possibility for this to take place (historically, we see huge social change can take place through persistence in such public demonstrations), I am far from convinced that this is the most helpful way forward in such an emotive subject.

Shouting my opinion across the street at my neighbour is not going to change their opinion. Surely there are more constructive conversations to be had. 

We cannot let the public image of this debate be one of two encamped groups hurling insults at each other over well made banners. The discussion must always resolve around a heart for the mother and child, not the rights of a group who support either viewpoint.  If the discussion is about anything other than the welfare of mother and child, then we have already lost.

It is to the credit of the Worthing church elders that they continued their meeting yesterday, instead of responding and rising to the baiting crowd outside.
Feel free to comment with any opinions on the usefulness or otherwise of such public stands.