Here we have a pro-choice woman arguing that pro-life voices should be included around the table at a government-advisory sexual health forum in the UK:
I’m struggling to understand quite why it is so terrible that the anti-abortion charity, Life, has been invited to join a government- advisory sexual health forum. Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris reckons that the presence of the group, which promotes sexual abstinence, could prevent the advisory panel from having “frank and open discussions”. I’d say that open discussions are the last thing being sought when groups of people are convened because they all share similar views. It’s not hard to be “frank” either, when addressing a circle of nodding heads.
Hats off to her for expressing this view. But she goes on to say that the pro-choice position will always win out because it is the more logical and rational one. Naturally, I disagree, and I think those who try to ban the pro-life groups from being around such tables do as well. It’s precisely because the pro-life position is very rationally compelling that some believe it shouldn’t be heard. Indeed, the ardent pro-choicers best bet in winning on this question is to make sure pro-lifers remain silent.
Jennifer adds: The group, Life, has done amazing work. Founded in a spa house in 1970, the group now runs charity shops, residential centers, offers counseling and support for new mothers and their babies. It’s a £4 million operation and provides a great template for other groups to follow.by