If you’re a student living in the UK and you own a smartphone it’s likely you would have seen the controversy flying around social media earlier this year concerning the University of Exeter’s Pro-Life society. The fallout hit close to home for many Bristol students and drew attention to our own University’s student-run group which, for the most part, holds the same set of values.
Bristol’s IFemSoc
It’s now been over 3 months since the University’s ‘Intersectional Feminist Society’ published an open letter to the Student Union in collaboration with Women’s Network calling for the dissolution of Bristol’s ‘Pro-Life Feminist Society’. While the letter gained support from over 500 fellow students in a matter of days, the group continues to operate and persists with its provocative ‘feminist’ label. Interested to see what their weekly discussions consisted of, I emailed the society’s president to find out the disclosed location of the meeting (a protective measure for their members) to attend…
To my surprise, the society’s logistics seemed largely unaffected by IFemSoc’s opposition. To align with the Union’s values, the meeting’s 8 attendees were issued a trigger warning before the showing of a graphic animation outlining the abortion procedure. While the commentary could have been considered biased, the material provided in the video and throughout the presentation was evidence-based and seemed legitimate. I agreed with the sentiment that more scientific information should be available to women in the early stages of pregnancy. However, for me, being visually bombarded with details of the procedure seemed to strip the debate of all nuance. A test of my newfound knowledge followed, and I joined members in a Kahoot Quiz – a strangely light-hearted activity for such an emotionally loaded subject. Ironically, the winning prize was a box of Jelly Babies.
Intrigued to understand how the terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘feminist’ could co-habit the same belief system I asked the group what kind of ‘feminist’ action they’ve been involved with recently. Considering the group’s name, I expected to hear the details of members’ involvement in socio-political activism as a means of helping to prevent abortion. For example, was the society fighting for increased access to sex education at a local level that would reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies? Or perhaps, looking to improve the state of Bristol’s adoption and foster care systems to also encourage women to go through with a full-term pregnancy? Such methods would ultimately value the ‘life’ of the unborn fetus without limiting the reproductive rights of women, potentially explaining their ‘feminist’ label.
It became apparent that this ‘feminist’ focus – viewing abortion through a societal lens with a long-term goal – is not the main concern for this group. At the moment, tackling what was continuously referred to as the ‘human rights violation’ of abortion takes top priority. However, the society’s president Fennie referred me to an interesting motion that the group helped to pass at a Student Council Democratic event back in June 2019, titled ‘Comprehensive Support & Advice for Pregnant Students and their Partners.’ The motion ultimately aimed to highlight the University’s duty of care to students affected by a pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion, stating:
‘Without access to proper support and reproductive choice, an unplanned pregnancy can have serious impact on a student’s continuation or success in their degree.’
Surprisingly, this motion encouraged by the Pro-Life society outlines the importance of a ‘reproductive choice,’ a notion that is inherently progressive and strongly associated with the feminist movement. Therefore, it seems as though the only ‘feminist’ activism that I was directed towards took place nearly 3 years ago and is fundamentally contradictory to the group’s values and ‘Pro-Life’ label. With this apparent confusion between actions and argument, I looked to individual perspectives for an explanation.
Members of the society were compassionate and understanding throughout our discussion. The group’s media representative, Maria, outlined her ‘trust in the benevolence of human beings,’ explaining to me her belief that everyone ‘tries and makes the best decision that they can’. The Society’s president Fennie took a more extreme stance. When asked if abortion should be limited in the UK, there was no definitive answer, but she did reference abortion laws in Texas and told that people should ‘see abortion in the same way they see slavery’ or a ‘mother killing their own child’, once again referring to the termination of a pregnancy as a human rights violation.
As with all controversial issues, there was an understandable difference in the strength of feeling from the group’s members, but also a range of foundational reasoning. Expecting to be met with overwhelmingly religious justifications, I was surprised to discover the pro-life case being mainly argued from a humanist perspective. A few members were studying science-based degrees or had attended bio-ethical talks and lectures. Most of the men attending the event were Christian, however, one attendee I spoke to explained how he prefers not to mention his religious beliefs in this context since this tends to shift the discussion from pro-choice vs pro-life to the religious vs secular debate. This attempt to distinguish between religion and ethics seems fair and understanding.
Fennie also promoted her involvement with the group CBR UK (Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform), an independent organisation that assembles public displays against abortion with the use of large banners and photos. Graphic imagery such as pictures of aborted fetuses are shown within spaces such as universities and public squares to help ‘inform’ a greater number of people. CBR UK also organises public speaking events and seminars, as well as providing ‘educational’ resources to schools and internship programmes. The president explained to me the group’s methodology, citing influence from characters within the ‘civil rights and anti-slavery movements.’ She described participation in this group as a ‘right of passage’ for any pro-lifer.
Although this organisation’s ethos clearly states it would never ‘condemn anyone for past abortions’ I believe its use of language and methodology does go against Bristol SU Code of Conduct. Operating specifically in university spaces, an area populated with young women who are potentially affected by pregnancy, miscarriage, or abortion, targets a demographic on the grounds of a ‘protected characteristic’. The group also fails to provide a ‘non-judgemental’ space for discussion through their very vivid public displays. Though CBR UK isn’t officially affiliated with the ‘Pro-Life Feminist’ society, there appears a thin line between the two groups as far as Bristol’s concerned. The president’s involvement and her promotion of CBR UK are enabled through the financial and operational support provided by the University.
My visit to this event ultimately did inform me that there remains a lack of scientific and educational resources available regarding the clinical procedure of abortion. However, the term ‘pro-choice’ is often used to suggest that the incredibly difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy is taken lightly. Pro-choice does not equate to ‘pro-abortion’ -it merely equates to the belief in a right to autonomy. Likewise, the opposing term, ‘pro-life’, is directly associated with the limiting of female reproductive rights, when it need not in a truely feminist context. I left the society’s meeting feeling sadly let down; the ‘activism’ seemingly in short supply.
Open-minded debate concerning the ethics of abortion should certainly be encouraged within Bristol University. It’s a subject where feelings understandably run high, but there can be no doubt that compassion must lay at the heart of all discussions.