The Abortion Dialogue

A news story from Mississippi about a proposed anti-abortion amendment has provoked the usual responses from the extreme partisans.  The radicals on the one side are mostly well-intentioned, but persist in branding anyone who disagrees with them as evil.  Their error is mirrored by the radicals on the other side, who persist in branding anyone who disagrees with them as either ignorant hicks or conspiracy-minded control freaks.  Those of us in the middle have mostly stopped talking about this issue because the radicals from both sides tend to attack first and ask questions later. 

No, correct that.  They attack, pat themselves on the back, and never ask questions.  Asking questions might imply that they care what someone else thinks, and that is absolutely not true.

Although the intolerance is rampant, and unacceptable, on both sides, I do find more fault with one side than the other.  Despite the rhetoric, most pro-life people are genuinely concerned for the welfare of the unborn, whom they consider real persons unable to defend themselves.  Their motives are honorable, whatever you may think of their conclusions. 

I have at various times in my life been on both sides of the abortion issue, although my present (and final) position should not be difficult to determine given the preceding remark.  At this time I am not arguing whether abortion-on-demand should or should not be legal.  I am arguing for civility in the discussion, for open-mindedness, for a cooperative effort to understand each other.  I do not say that we must reach complete agreement immediately, because that will not be possible.  Our short term objective should be to listen to each other, to communicate, to restore a respectful public dialogue that understands the beliefs of both sides.  This is a necessary prerequisite to any long-term progress toward resolution of this ongoing controversy.

While I have criticized radicals of both extremes, I do find the radicals in favor of abortion-rights generally tend to be less willing to listen to those who may have a different opinion.  I find them more intolerant, more eager to shout down the opposition, and more demeaning toward other persons of good faith who may not share their political position.

Most abortion rights radicals seem unwilling or unable to grasp the idea that pro-life people have a genuine humanitarian concern for the unborn.  They consistently refuse to acknowledge the beliefs that motivate their political opponents, choosing instead to cast the controversy as a fight against oppression and for the rights of women.  They never allow the possibility that those who oppose abortion might also understand their struggle as a fight against oppression, against genocide even, and for the rights of a different group of persons.

It is my experience that most extreme pro-life supporters would be willing, given the opportunity, to sit down with an abortion-rights supporter to explain his or her position.  Most pro-life supporters would be happy to help the abortion-rights supporter understand why they feel they must oppose abortion-on-demand.  Most pro-life supporters would welcome that opportunity to persuade.  Most extreme abortion-rights supporters would not. 

It should be possible for a reasonable person, even one who honestly supports abortion rights, to understand the motivation of pro-life people who are convinced that they are working to save innocent lives.  But that is not what we see or hear.  Most extreme abortion-right supporters have such disdain for their opponents that they scoff at the idea of a civil conversation with them.  In most cases they would rather silence the opposition than have an honest discussion.  It appears to the objective observer (and I once was an objective observer) that they are afraid of an open examination of fact, afraid to allow their opponents to speak.  So they shout down, impugn motives, and demean those who disagree with them.  They seem to prefer character assassination to honest dialogue.  They seem, to this once-objective observer, to be afraid of the truth.

I understand that this issue inspires extraordinary emotion, that it does represent a debate about basic freedoms, that it is a matter of life-or-death.  In no way would I want to stifle those feelings.  I do say that if we are to move forward together, then we need to stop screaming and try to understand each other.  Would you rather silence the opposition, or convert your fellow citizen?  We need to develop a dialogue that is respectful, intelligent, and civil, or the screaming will continue.

These are my observations and opinions.  They are honestly held, and presented without anger or ridicule.  I close with a comment that appeared following the news story: 

     “Why do so many abortion rights supporters hate and slander?  Is it

     possible for you to understand that, quite apart from my denomination

     or political party that I believe an embryo is a real person?  Is it reasonable

     that IF I believe that embryo is a real person that I might want to keep him

     or her from being destroyed?  Trying to save a helpless and innocent human

     life is not something that should be ridiculed.  You don't have to agree with

     me, but you should respect the legitimacy of my opinion and stop the hate.”

Offered with respect and compassion for all.

Gryphem