Abortion
Agree to Disagree
One of the absurdities of abortion politics is the contradictions inherent in the political alliances it creates. Pro-choice has been associated with the political left, which traditionally also advocated for more government intervention in almost everything – except a woman’s right to choose. Pro-life has been associated with the political right, which traditionally (at least prior to the ascendance of the religious right) favored less government regulation of almost everything — except access to abortion. The sad fact is that when it comes to abortion, consistency and logical rigor are rare.
If that was the limit of its effect — that on this one issue we succumb as a society to the lure of the irrational — we might dismiss it as an aberration, even laugh about it, and move on. But instead the effect spreads like a plague over our entire political process.
As I write this we are about to vote for our next President, and in this incredibly close race abortion may well be the deciding issue. Again and again over the last six months I’ve been told by people I know, and read in opinion pieces and letters in the paper by others — a few of whom even preferred the Republican proposals on almost every other issue– that as bad as Al Gore is, they will vote for him to prevent George W. Bush from appointing pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. The Democratic Party made that appeal a central part of their campaign strategy. The religious right can be counted on to vote as a bloc against anyone who declares himself pro-choice, regardless of his positions on other issues. The one question that will be asked of any Supreme Court nominee — indirectly, of course — is how he or she would vote on abortion. And the confirmation vote in the Senate will break down almost exclusively along pro-choice/pro-life lines based on the perceived answer to that question.
If this was an issue fundamental to our national survival, or a determinant of the nature of our society, or even something that could be settled once and for all, such emphasis might be justified. But it is none of those. It is a never-ending side-show to the central questions facing us: how much liberty should we trade for security; what is our civic obligation to our fellow citizens; is the individual or the society the fundamental measure of worth; can democracy survive extremes of wealth and poverty; what is law, and how should it be interpreted; what should be our role in the world?
But these questions, debated as they are, too frequently take a back seat to single-issue politics, lead by the monomania over abortion.
What can we do about this?
The primary thing we can do is to recognize the question will never be resolved. It is with us for the long-term. No election is pivotal, no gain or setback is permanent, and no amount of persuasion will change the minds of the opposition. So don’t let it consume you. Agree to disagree. Pay attention to something else for a while.
A corollary to that is that neither side of the issue has a monopoly either on truth or on compassion. The issues are not as black-and-white as they seem to you. You may disagree with your opponents, but they are not villains, and you owe them respect and consideration.
As for the debate itself, focus first on the one thing both sides generally agree on: there should be fewer abortions. Then figure out how to get there within the constraints that exist. For the pro-life community, that may mean giving consideration to better sex-education, and better access to contraception. For the pro-choice community that may mean giving consideration to education in the morality of sex, rather than just in the mechanics. For the pro-life community that may mean supporting an effective economic safety net for the poor. For the pro-choice community that may mean supporting market strategies to lift the poor out of the safety net into the middle class. For the pro-life community that may require redefining their understanding of family. For the pro-choice community that may require redefining their understanding of rights and responsibilities. For the pro-life community that may mean less reproach and more sympathy. For the pro-choice community that may mean less sympathy and more judgement. For everyone that may mean a commitment to create and support realistic alternatives to abortion for women pregnant and unprepared for motherhood.
Beyond that, be consistent. If you don’t want the government regulating your body, support the general concept of limits on government authority. If you want the government to intervene in private decisions, don’t act indignant when they tell you what to do.
And if nothing else, recognize that other issues matter. Recognize that, in the long run, you are most likely to get an abortion policy you can live with if you elect a government you can live with, with a philosophy that generally respects your values and a consistent policy agenda that fulfills that philosophy. Vote your conscience, certainly, but vote for the long-term and the broad view, and abortion will take care of itself.
© Copyright 2000, 2005, Augustus P. Lowell