It is not always easy to find any common ground in the abortion debate, particularly when it hinges on something as fundamental as the right to life, but UK Conservative MP Nadine Dorries is seeking such ground in a recent blog post.

She writes that vocal activists at both ends of the spectrum have failed because of their often questionable tactics. She points to the example of advocates posting silicone foetus models to MPs as an example of  pro-life advocacy that works against the cause for human life.

She likewise criticises abortion activists: “So terrified have they been of any threat to a woman’s right to an abortion, that the union-funded pro-choice organisations have suppressed debate and lobbied for industrialised abortion to such a point, that women no longer have any choice whatsoever”.

The results of the industrialisation of abortion, Ms Dorries argues, is that women are denied basic information about the risks of abortion, rarely have an opportunity to fully consider their options, and are denied a genuine choice.

Ms Dorries argues that adoption should again be provided as an option if women are to be given a real choice. She also counters the pro-abortion claim that abortion is ‘just another medical procedure’:

“Abortion is not a medical procedure. It does not heal a disease or an infection. Ironically, if it were a medical procedure, much more thought, care and consideration would be given to the ‘patient’. But a woman seeking an abortion isn’t ill. She isn’t regarded as a ‘patient’. She is someone whose pregnancy, or more accurately the ending thereof, contributes to the multi-million pound abortion industry.”

The suggested solution is to legislate a ‘cooling off’ period between the time a woman receives information and when she is allowed to obtain an abortion. This, she says, has reduced the rate of abortion in countries where the practice is accepted. Perhaps this sensible policy could also be imported to Australia?