The basic message of Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, with regard to the abortion debate, illustrates the fundamental reason why this remains such a polarizing issue. He, and many on his side of the 'argument', have never truly grasped the position that is taken by 'pro-lifers'. The 'pro-choice' crowd still, after all of these years, doesn't get what it is that motivates, impassions, and compels pro-lifers to be so unremitting. Having listened to the abortion rhetoric for decades - largely as a spectator searching for answers, as opposed to a participant trying to achieve an outcome - I sincerely believe that the opposite can't fairly be said. Pro-lifers get the pro-choice argument, they just believe that it clearly must succumb to their own.
People can argue to what degree there has been a failure by pro-choicers to listen, instead of impulsively rejecting, and to what degree there has been a failure by pro-lifers to articulate, instead of deriding. But, such an argument would be pointless - when people are told that they are evil, they often tune out the reasons why, opting just to sense general offense. Similarly, when people see what they believe to be evil, they often don't clearly specify the reasons why, opting just to express general outrage.
Before I go on, I must confess that abortion is the only issue that I have ever remained conflicted over for any significant period of time. With every other political issue I've confronted, I've been able to put aside my own interests and emotions. And, once I have, objective rational analysis and a loyalty to, and appreciation of, fundamental principles have allowed me to quickly and clearly identify a correct position (premised on my interpretation of the causal purpose of society). With abortion, I have spent long portions of my life leaning toward either side of the issue (*), emotionally at least. I've found sufficient intellectual ammunition, and fundamental principles, to support both emotional positions. However, at the end of the day, loyalty to the most basic of principles must win out - even if it yields an answer that I am not completely emotionally invested in.
Obama suggested that both sides of the debate should be more understanding of the opposing argument -
"Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words." The presumption of that suggestion is that both arguments are worthy of understanding - that neither is so innately repugnant that dismissing it out of hand would be appropriate. Let's examine that presumption for a minute.
Let's say that there was one group of people who fervently believed that it should be illegal to kill certain people, simply because they were of a certain class, type or kind of people (e.g. old instead of young, black instead of white, poor instead of rich, protestant instead of catholic, gay instead of straight, female instead of male). Let's also say that there were other people who agreed that it was wrong to do that, but took the position that it shouldn't be illegal - that people should have the right to kill someone, so long as killing them was based on them being a particular 'kind' of person. Now, I suspect that most all of us would agree that it was fair to dismiss that latter position out of hand - that it was not worthy of respect and didn't deserve any reasonable efforts to 'understand' it. Am I not right? Would any of us suggest that we should open our hearts and minds to the idea that such killings should be legal, or that we should use fair-minded words when condemning the people that put forth such a position? Or, would almost all segments of society condemn such ideas as racist, sexist, class-ist - pure evil which was appropriately met with incredulous condemnation?
I recognize that there is some difference between the scenario that I just described, and the the issue of abortion, but the point is to establish that some positions don't warrant fair consideration - some positions are so heinous that hearing them with open hearts and open minds is, in and of itself, an abandonment of conscience.
To be clear, no reasonable mind should reject the seed of the pro-choice argument, that individuals are the owners of their own body and have a fundamental right to decide what they do with it and to it, out of hand. There should be little question that individuals do have that fundamental right - and that that right should be ceded to almost nothing. But, in this regard, that fundamental right (one of liberty) often finds itself in direct conflict with another fundamental right (one of life). Both rights are of fundamental importance. But, even fundamental rights must sometimes be subordinated to even more fundamental rights - even though that subordination doesn't feel good or right, and even though that subordination makes us reflexively resist, because it resonates as such an extreme violation. When laws of nature come into conflict with each other - winners emerge - in the end, the more fundamental laws of nature prevail. When fundamental rights come into conflict with each other, there has to be a societal hierarchy that dictates the winner - there just has to be. Failing to define such a strict hierarchy leaves a flabby, unhealthy societal structure.
'... that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Right or wrong, it seems that American society has historically established and fostered just such a hierarchy. We don't let people take life from other, contextually innocent, people. That is the first fundamental right, the inviability of which we seek to preserve. Pro-lifers believe that people who have, and perform, abortions are murderers, and are violating that most basic of all rights. By and large, I don't believe that they express such sentiments for effect, or as a rhetorical trick to convey inherent impropriety - they honestly believe it to be true. Who among us would witness countless murders of innocent victims going unchecked and unpunished, and not react with disdain and inarticulable ire? Who among us could castrate their emotions, in order that they be able to fairly consider the justifications of those who sought to preserve the ability to commit those murders? One may disagree with pro-lifers about what constitutes life, but if they truly appreciate the beliefs of pro-lifers, they can't reasonably expect them to listen to contrarion arguments with 'open minds' or 'open hearts'. To suggest that pro-lifers could, displays an extreme obliviousness as to what they believe.
Generally speaking, pro-lifers don't want to deprive others of authority over their own bodies - at least, I hope that isn't the motivating desire. They just think that, when push comes to shove, that authority has to take a back seat to the right of the contextually innocent to live. We all have to sacrifice our rights, to some extent, when they come into conflict with other people's rights - managing those sacrifices is one of societies most difficult tasks. I firmly believe that most pro-lifers understand the position of pro-choicers - it is a position that many of them share 99% of the time - they just can't, in good conscience, support it when murder is the consequence. The question is, do most pro-choicers really understand the position of pro-lifers. Do they really understand it?
If there is any reasonable ground for disagreement, it is obviously on the question of what constitutes life. I'll admit, there are few questions that one could pose, that would be more difficult to answer than that. But, frankly, that's not an emotional inquiry. It is something altogether different. It is part conceptual, part scientific, part spiritual, part societally definitional - but emotion will not help us arrive at a consensus, or even a societal, answer to it. And, pretend as we might, this societal debate has not, heretofore, focused on resolving that question. It has been paralyzed by emotional investment in one position over the other, and incapable of moving on to a deliberate, reasonable, intelligent discussion of the core issue - which need not be emotional and which might be societally resolvable.
Pro-lifers are incensed that some people support murder. Pro-choicers are incensed, whether or not they admit it or are even conscious of it, that they are looked upon as supporting murderer. Is that just tit-for-tat? Are both sides equally at fault for that tit-for-tat? I don't think so. I understand how it might be easy to reflexively conclude that they are, but I don't think it is so. Both sides express strong emotions. But, as subjective as it may sound, it seems to me that, given the context, the emotions of one side are justifiable - that indeed, they are inescapable to a conscientious person with those beliefs. I don't know that the emotions of the opposite side are as justified, if we dissect their causal anatomy - and they certainly wouldn't seem to be inescapable.
By the way, I thought that Obama's speech was pretty good. Of particular note, and something that I hope doesn't get lost in the more general discussion, was his support of what he called a 'sensible caution clause' - an affirmation of the notion that health care providers who object to abortion should at least have the right not to perform them.
Okay, now the 2 people that actually read all of that can fire away at me.
(*) Whether or not people should have the right to have abortions, not whether or not people should have abortions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Digg this Thread!
Add Thread to del.icio.us
Bookmark in Technorati
Furl this Thread!
Add Thread to Facebook