Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Pro-choice, pro-life, pro-compromise?
Today I attended a hearing at the Albemarle County Office Building regarding a proposed Planned Parenthood building. The debate is centering on zoning technicalities, but as might be expected, the government center was overflowing with pro-life and pro-choice citizens (literally overflowing; not only did they have to clear the aisles, but the lobby was a zoo as well). Also as might be expected, a room full of people either wearing pro-choice circular stickers or pro-life square stickers led to quite a few heated conversations. It was clear from watching one pair going at it that the sun could go down and up several times and they would still be there, unwavering and without an ounce of progress. Observing ideological gridlock in action got me to thinking: Is there a possible compromise in the abortion debate?
Obviously there is no natural "middle ground," because the issue isn't that one side wants 4, the other wants 6 and everyone can meet happily at 5. Rather, the very assumptions of each side make a synthetic solution highly improbable. If you believe that life begins at conception, then yes, abortion is murder and should not be permitted. If you believe that life does not begin at conception and the decision should therefore by left up to the woman, then abortion should always be allowed. However, this duality does not preclude any agreement whatsoever.
There are two major methods through which to make substantive progress on abortion: One, find points of agreement on issues that spin out from abortion and work towards solving those; Two, have each side negotiate a softening of their positions.
With regards to the first method, abortion is but a pillar about which many agendas turn. Pro-choice and pro-life alike can agree that there is major work to be done in the areas of foster care, sexual assault, pre-natal care, maternity/paternity leave and child care, just to name a few. Both sides care deeply about the health and well-being of mothers, families and children, and these are points where they can unite to get at the core of abortion without having to pass through the gates of contention.
Not only does coming together to fight for the common good breed amicable connections among the varied supporters and opponents of abortion, but they also present solvable issues which can prove there is room for movement within each camp; in other words, this method dispels the myth of "baby-killers" and "women-haters."
Of course, even if you perfect the areas I mentioned above, the issue of abortion is still on the floor. As one of my friends likes to say: ignore controversy all you want, but after a while the dead elephant starts to smell. So, what can we do in a veritable standoff with two sides bitterly engaged and armed to the teeth? There's only one thing we possibly can do: start small.
Each side needs to realize that in order to make any progress, there must be negotiation, and negotiation entails sacrifice. This is in everyone's self-interest because it advances their currently stalled agenda and mollifies the terrible acrimony which is pervading our communities.
Let's take the pro-choice camp first. Opposition to abstinence education, though perhaps at times overstated, is an easy chip to throw in the middle. As shown unimpeachably in Uganda, one of the true AIDS success stories, abstinence education is a helpful tool in the fight against STDs. Furthermore, as that old saying goes, abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid unintended pregnancy and those nasty germs. At the same time, accepting abstinence education into the pro-life platform does not entail giving up safe sex ed. For little cost and significant gain, there's one point of compromise.
How about the pro-lifers? Opposition to contraception is an appealing counterpart to the abstinence education. Half of all pregnancies are unintended, and half of all unintended pregnancies result in abortions, so embracing contraceptive availability programs (in conjunction with the newly acceptable abstinence education) prevents any number of abortions. If you ask most pro-lifers what they would prefer, no abortions or no contraception, most would answer no abortions; thus, this should not be too bitter a pill to swallow for the pro-life camp.
So there we go: One point softened by each side, one step taken towards a compromise. You know those Strongest Man competitions where these hulks of men carry entire buses down the street? It's not so hard, really -- it's getting the bus to move that first inch which is nearly impossible. Throw in a united front tackling family-related issues which there is agreement on, and you might just get some serious inertia.
It's doubtful that abortion will ever cease to be the divisive topic it is today. As I pointed out at the beginning of this essay, there is simply an axiomatic clash to which there is no end in sight. Nevertheless, instead of screaming, cajoling, shouting and generally accomplishing nothing at all, the pro-life and pro-choice bodies should begin to find creative ways to compromise -- and who knows what will develop from there.
What do you think?
-Elliot
Related Link
Comments:
<< Home
I think you underestimate the level of the "pro-life" movement's conviction. These are, first and foremost, religious convictions in which the very legitimacy of society is at stake. For a member of the Christian Right, no compromise is possible because abortion is a matter of Right and Wrong (Good and Evil, if you will). No compromise is possible if you believe that the God who saves you from Hell Eternal opposes something. This God works only in absolutes- and so will any of His followers worthy of the name.
You are right that abortion is the flagbearer for a great many other issues, including especially fornication. Yet again, if one believes that accepting a certain practice defiles the community at large, making it impure before the Throne, no compromise is possible. There can be no readily available contraception if illicit (non-marital) sex is absolutely wrong. Period.
The problem that most people in the Blue States have in dealing with the Red States is that liberals assume that in some sense, the Right must be joking. Or been duped. Or is simply stupid. Christian Conservatives are none of the above. They are deadly serious, extremely cognizant, and often very intelligent. But they also interpret the doctrines of their faith in absolute terms. Their problem is their theology, which leads directly to their view of politics and society at large. They want their theology served up nice and neat, in easily digestible portions; they want their politics exactly the same way. If the two are identical, so much the better- it makes for less ambiguity in a world that is already quite confusing and overwhelming.
Just as Islam is currently embroiled in a theological civil war over interpretations of modernity, so Protestantism is divided into Evangelicals and Mainliners. The Republican Party has embraced the Evangelicals and have adopted their speech patterns and eschatological understanding of human society. The Democrats would do well to bring the Mainliners into full participation and give them some influence over marketing strategies. The vast majority of Americans- Right, moderate, and Left- are religious and want their politics served up as theologically meaningful and coherent, not a loose association of policy statements and wonkish proposals.
Post a Comment
You are right that abortion is the flagbearer for a great many other issues, including especially fornication. Yet again, if one believes that accepting a certain practice defiles the community at large, making it impure before the Throne, no compromise is possible. There can be no readily available contraception if illicit (non-marital) sex is absolutely wrong. Period.
The problem that most people in the Blue States have in dealing with the Red States is that liberals assume that in some sense, the Right must be joking. Or been duped. Or is simply stupid. Christian Conservatives are none of the above. They are deadly serious, extremely cognizant, and often very intelligent. But they also interpret the doctrines of their faith in absolute terms. Their problem is their theology, which leads directly to their view of politics and society at large. They want their theology served up nice and neat, in easily digestible portions; they want their politics exactly the same way. If the two are identical, so much the better- it makes for less ambiguity in a world that is already quite confusing and overwhelming.
Just as Islam is currently embroiled in a theological civil war over interpretations of modernity, so Protestantism is divided into Evangelicals and Mainliners. The Republican Party has embraced the Evangelicals and have adopted their speech patterns and eschatological understanding of human society. The Democrats would do well to bring the Mainliners into full participation and give them some influence over marketing strategies. The vast majority of Americans- Right, moderate, and Left- are religious and want their politics served up as theologically meaningful and coherent, not a loose association of policy statements and wonkish proposals.
<< Home
