Abortion and Opinion
This article comes in response to Will Saletan’s op-ed in the NY Times regarding the abortion debate, and I think it rebuts his points pretty clearly. This isn’t to say that he isn’t correct, or that this article is. The interesting thing about this exchange is that Saletan puts forth what he claims to be a new argument in the abortion debate, and the Feministe blog post effectively shows that it not only isn’t new, it’s old.
This raises the question: Given how reasonable this argument seems to be (i.e., “Abortion should be quick, accessible and rare”), and how much of the American public agrees with it….why are there such vicious sides taken in the abortion argument? Nearly everyone agrees that abortion is sometimes the best of bad options. Nearly everyone agrees that abortion is never an enjoyable or desirable outcome. Nearly everyone agrees that we should be doing more for sexual education and pregnancy prevention. Why, then, do we appear to be so far from a consensus?
The answer, I think, lies in the inevitable specialization of a two-party political system. As we come to identify with a particular side, we adopt that side’s positions. Over time, we forget the nuanced distinctions between ‘our’ position and ‘theirs’, and we know simply that ours is right and theirs is wrong. Once the nuances are gone, we slowly boil the opposing argument down to a sound byte: “Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, for example. And because of market specialization–because Democrats have blue news sources and Republicans red ones, and likewise for the political persuasions of friends, family, and neighbors–we never hear the heartfelt, complex and (all too often) shockingly similar arguments from the other side.
The irony is, of course, that I’m posting this on a blog dedicated to Democrats. The message must be that if you’re reading this, you should find a conservative to post on our other topics. If you’re a conservative, post us your favorite blogs, and please–please!–leave your opinions here for us to read.
The two-party system suffocates in its own design if we do not exchange ideas. Let’s not let that happen.
I think, also, Jon, that despite the near consensus on many “benefits” of abortion, we frequently neglect the blatant misnomers of Pro-Choice & Pro-Life that frame the debate in ways favorable to each side & perpetuate misconceptions. “Life” is not the opposite of “choice”; it is the opposite of death. How many of our pro-choice friends are running around insisting that we kill babies & carrying “Pro-Death” picket signs? Very few, I would imagine. It is, similar to the drug-dealer example from this morning/James’ post, an issue of upholding Constitutional rights despite their disagreement with some policy initiatives and personal beliefs. One can very easily be both pro-life AND pro-choice, but America’s current “party division” on abortion requires they butt heads. More than our forgetting the nuanced distinctions between ‘our’ and ‘their’ position, I think the abortion debate is a reflection of the “lazy american” streotype- we’re incapable of taking times to analyze shades of grey when it’s easier to be enraged by a soundbyte.
Yeah. So that’s my two cents on that.
Comment by Sarah Saxton-Frump — January 26, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
I wholeheartedly agree on the “lazy American” thing. But I think it’s also a matter of our desire to be right. As I’m frequently found telling anyone who will listen, righteous anger is the biggest problem in American politics today: It feels so good to be right, and to be *more* right than someone else, so we differentiate ourselves however we can, and in the process simplify the argument to the point of absurdity. Whoever had a rally for “pro-sensible abortion policy person who espouse a policy of both abstinence when it’s possible and abortion when it’s necessary?” No one. We scream for pro-life and pro-choice sides because they’re short and sweet, and if we each happen to think they mean slightly different things, well, too bad.
Yes, laziness is a pain. But we like being right, too, and the more you’re willing to include in a debate, the less room there is for unequivocal rightness. Nuance is no fun.
Comment by Jonathan Margolick — January 27, 2006 @ 8:16 am