Considering the interest in Obama’s remarks at Notre Dame, one might be tempted to believe that the president has found a solution to the bitter controversy over abortion.
But in fact his address was not about abortion, it was about dealing with conflict in a democracy—and it avoided the central question in the conflict over abortion: how do those with diametrically opposed views live peacefully together when one wants to vanquish the other? It’s not a new question, but President Obama is seeking a new direction, which may be troubling.
The president asked:
As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
And he gave this answer:
…open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do [because] that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
My experience of 13 years in the pro-choice movement is that “common ground” has become another term for compromise on reproductive choice. In other words, achieving common ground will be accomplished by diminishing the ability of women to make decisions about abortion, whatever the personal cost. That’s unacceptable.
It’s unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased.
In our democracy, we believe in standing up for the rights of the disenfranchised, the vulnerable, those without power; we don’t compromise them away. We should not sacrifice women’s lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.
When I, a pro-choice Christian pastor, counsel a woman about abortion, I try to help her search for the decision that is right for her and, if she wishes, others in her life. Her decision is private and individual, a matter of conscience, personal circumstances that she knows best, and medical facts that only she and her doctor know. The last thing on my mind is “common ground.”
The president rightly wants us to lower the decibel level of the debate over abortion, to stop using loaded terms such as “right-wing extremist,” and to treat each other with fairness and civility. But he also acknowledged that, “at some level” there were “irreconcilable differences” over abortion between the “two camps.” Now, if you accept that women are full persons in the eyes of God and the law and if you understand justice to include equality, then you cannot stop working for women’s control over childbearing.
“Irreconcilable differences” over abortion are just that. And the question now, as the Obama administration attempts to work out policies to reduce unintended pregnancy, is how to reach a respectful agreement that honors these differences, not how to back down gracefully.
President Obama’s call for reducing abortion by reducing unintended pregnancies and making adoption more available ignores the complex emotional and psychological reality of sexual relations and personal decisions. Finding common ground about abortion is not the same as finding common ground about global warming or economic stimulus. Abortion is about an individual woman’s life—her decision, her destiny—and there can be no compromise when it comes to her conscience.
The president went to Notre Dame to promote understanding and cooperation and he openly addressed the issue of abortion while anti-abortion demonstrators protested outside. He spoke to the United States and to the world about finding a way “to live together as one human family.” That’s admirable, but he should also have recognized the individual woman who stands alone, needing to make a decision of conscience. For her, there is no question of easing tensions between opposing camps. There is only her decision; and that is what we must honor in any attempt to find common ground on abortion.
Tags: abortion, abortion reduction, common ground, obama, pro-choice, pro-life
Choosing to solve a problem, most typically created by a person's personal choices, by allowing that same person to choose to now kill another human being to solve her problem, can hardly be considered wise by even the most unwise. And choosing to define that situation as anything but what it really is, is simply ignorance or evil.
This makes no sense. A fetus is not a human being but the potential for one. I am not ignorant or evil.
Would that be the same ignorance that only sees abstinence as an answer, instead of Plan B, condoms, and sex ed? The same kind of ignorance that fails to recognize that hormones arrive in people incapable of solid judgment yet? The same kind of ignorance that would demand a raped woman to carry a child foisted upon her as the South Dakotan fundies tried to legislatively force on all?
Are you talking about that ignorance, or is that what you selectively call some god's "wisdom?"
Indeed, we must maintain as unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order to appease opponents of abortion. During the early forties, my mother knew Margaret Sanger. She went to her clinic for birth control. I grew up admiring Ms. Sanger.
My parents had seven children and tried to have at least one more. Because they practiced birth control, my parents made the decision to conceive each child. My parents chose to have us. During the fifties and sixties, my parents were Southern and old school Republicans. Support for the right to birth control was part of their worldview.
Just as society determines property rights as good for both individuals and communities, we affirm reproductive rights. For equality of women and for freedom to create families, reproductive freedom is fundamental to our free society. It might be that we live now with a conflict between absolutes. I admire Catholicism. However, making one religious point-of-view –the one from the largest religious denomination --the basis for denying reproductive freedom is unacceptable. On this matter, we cannot compromise. Thank you for this excellent article.
I deeply admire Catholicism. I own Catholicism for many boons, but there are problems with Catholic teachings on sexuality.
No common ground without erroding reproductive rights?
I would define common ground as something that furthers reproductive justice in areas other than abortion. Abortion is one reproductive right, but there are women every day who have unwanted abortions because of barriers to them accessing their first choice of abstinence, birth control, parenting, or adoption. These women also deserve justice, and their rights are where common ground may exist. Off the top of my head:
-Single-payer healthcare ensuring that every American can protect their reproductive capacity, making pregnancy possible and preventable.
-Transforming a culture of rape and violence against women, giving women back control of their sexuality, eliminating abortion for the sole reason of sexual assault and domestic violence, and making pregnancy safer for millions of women.
-Family wage jobs, workplace flexibility for mothers, and quality childcare making parenting a safe, sane option for working class families as it once was in this country.
-Ethical, accessible adoption that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and rights of birth parents.
-Scholarships and subsidized childcare for student parents, eliminating abortions for the sole reason of education access.
-Free, effective, on-demand substance abuse treatment instead of punitive drug policy that destroys families, reducing abortion for the sole reason of addiction, and making millions of fetuses and families safer and happier.
-A viable social safety net that ensures no American child goes without basic needs, eliminating abortion for the sole reason of poverty.
-Public relations campaign to transform the cultural shaming of poor, single, and young mothers, affirming the beauty and potential of all families, reducing abortion for the sole reason of shame.
Those are just a few ideas of what common ground might look like. It is time for reproductive rights advocates to put forward a common ground agenda, not because it is politically advantageous, but because it is morally just. We need to hold the pro-life movement accountable for the social conditions that contribute to our high abortion rate. What do they want to do about these things that are making even women who do not want abortions feel forced into them?
Meanwhile, those who care about abortion access can continue to advocate for this without the support of the other faction.
Excellent response. I appreciate it.
Thank you Rev Veazy - you have named the disconnect I have struggled with in recent weeks over the almost universal praise for Pres Obama's speech on abortion. It wasn't about abortion at all. As you say "abortion is about an individual woman's life - her decision, her destiny. I still believe there is room for common ground but not when we treat a woman's decisionmaking in the abstract.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.