CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times
# 163 Bernard
F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us
Finding Common Ground
on Abortion
Last week marked 33 years since the Supreme
CourtÕs landmark Roe V. Wade decision on abortion. And every year about this
time, I get to thinking about our complex path on abortion over the last 40
years.
Over the years, I have always considered
myself pro-life, but I have discovered that I do not always share the views of
other Òpro lifeÓ advocates. Most
public discussion of abortion quickly reduces itself to an ugly conflict
between people who have no interest in understanding one another, in finding a
common ground, or in working together to solve the challenge that abortion
poses.
That is why my best memory concerns the
conversation group I belong to.
For 11 years weÕve been gathering monthly
to discuss a single topic for entire evening, but we did not choose ÒabortionÓ
for nearly five years.
It turned out that we had been avoiding
the issue, both as individuals and as a group. Some of us assumed there was no
point in such a discussion, since most of us were Catholics and would all agree
anyway. Others assumed just the opposite: that entrenched differences would
surface immediately, so there would be no basis for dialogue. One way or
another, we were all assuming that we would suffer the same kind of paralyzing
stalemate we saw in the public forum.
But we were happily surprised by what
actually happened.
In fact, when the evening was over, we all
agreed on two things: First, we had avoided the issue needlessly and for too
long. Second, we had just engaged in the best discussion of abortion any of us
had ever heard.
What surprised us most about the
discussion, I think, was that though we had differences, none were so far apart
that we could not even communicate.
In fact, we quickly found that we had a great deal of common ground
bridging our differences.
First, we acknowledged torn feelings.
For all of us, the era of legal abortion has raised difficult
challenges, manifested many tragic stories, and left us feeling helpless to
resolve a conflict that has divided our country for 30 years.
Second, we shared a common frustration with both sides of
the abortion debate. We agreed that most pro life advocates let self
righteousness impede real communication and progress—but we also agreed us
that most Òpro choiceÓ advocates let their militancy stop communication too.
The result was that, no matter what our opinions about abortion itself, we did
not feel comfortable allying with such people.
Third, we discovered that we shared a common negative attitude toward
abortion itself. None of us thought of abortion as something good—though
some of us believed it should remain legal. We all wished there were less need
for it, less recourse to it. For all of us, in fact, the ideal seemed to be a
world in which no one would seek an abortion, even if they had the legal right
to do so.
Fourth, we agreed that resolving the conflict in our country
would probably NOT come from the victory of one side over the other. Instead,
we guessed there would be no peace on the abortion issue until both sides
uncovered some common ground upon which to build a consensus.
Fifth, we identified a key question: how does one change the behavior of an
entire nation? In other words, how does real social change occur when values
are in conflict?
We found ourselves using the example of a
behavior where dramatic change has
occurred within the last generation: cigarette smoking. We all knew that the
percentage of American smokers has been shrinking for more than 30 years. We
wondered how this had been accomplished, and whether the secret to that success
could offer some clues as to what to do about abortion.
What seemed obvious to us, on reflection,
was that over the years smoking has gone from something that people took for
granted (in their homes, in public places, in advertising, in the movies) to
something that can only be qualified as Òsocially unacceptable behavior.Ó
We all remembered smoke-filled parties, Marlboro
ads on TV, white clouds of cigarette smoke hanging over every hockey game, the
regular ritual of emptying ashtrays as part of housecleaning or car-cleaning.
Now the main image is different: smokers
huddled shivering like refugees in the doorways of office buildings catching a
quick cold smoke during wintertime coffee breaks. And we all knew that any sign
of smoking among us would bring swift scolding from our own children, who had
been raised (if not brainwashed) to see our smoking as dangerous for them.
We all agreed that this was a dramatic and
positive shift in public values and behavior. We wondered how it happened, and
whether the same thing could happen on abortion.
At the time, the Massachusetts state
government was sponsoring anti-smoking ads on television using the slogan ÒLetÕs
Make Smoking History!Ó As we discussed the success of that PR campaign, we came
to two conclusions.
The first was: those of us who wanted
abortion to be illegal admitted that, as a matter of history, legal prohibition
has not proved an effective way to change peopleÕs behavior. The obvious example
to contrast with cigarette smoking was the example of alcohol: the Prohibition Era
had not ended drinking in America but had only driven it underground and into
the hands of criminals. The unhappy truth is, the same was largely true of the
history of the legal prohibition of abortion. We admitted that no law has ever eliminated
abortion, but has only driven it underground.
The second conclusion was: it is possible to reduce or even eliminate unwanted
behavior once it becomes generally regarded as Òsocially unacceptable
behavior.Ó Once the social norm shifts, people feel pressured to find alternatives
to such socially unacceptable behavior--even if it remains legal.
We found ourselves wondering why no one
had ever tried a campaign to ÒMake Abortion History!Ó It seemed to us that here
was real potential for common ground. Many people who consider themselves Òpro
choiceÓ will insist that they are not pro abortion, and would support efforts
to reduce or eliminate abortion as long as ÒchoiceÓ remained legal. In fact,
many of us believed that large numbers of Òpro choiceÓ Americans would embrace
any social movement that would relieve them of the unwelcome dilemma of defending
abortion itself.
For this point of view, the main obstacle
to dialogue appeared to be the insistence on arguing over legal prohibition vs. protection as the key element in debating the abortion question.
We had found that discussing abortion
itself (why we did not like it and how our society could end it) produced a
much more constructive dialogue and a lot more common ground upon which to
build a consensus for action.
For Catholics, this raises a crucial
point. While Catholics are obliged to oppose abortion and seek its elimination,
nothing in our faith tradition requires us to believe that legal prohibition is
the only tool that can accomplish this goal—or it even to believe that it
is an effective tool. ProhibitionÕs effectiveness is not a matter of faith or
morals; it is simply a matter of historical fact.
One can hold that prohibition failed in
the past, and would fail again in the future, and still be a good Catholic who
believes we should find better ways to protect the unborn and build a culture
of life.
For our little, private conversation
group, the sad thing was that this: we had found common ground among ourselves,
and we even felt the clear opportunity for further constructive dialogue—but
as we adjourned for the evening we knew the progress we had made among
ourselves still seemed totally absent in the public forum.
Thirty-three years after Roe V. Wade, I am
afraid that is still the truth.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006
Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com
Dr. SwainÕs
opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.
Bernie Swain has
devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US,
Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer,
teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious
organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy
Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.
His writings include Liberating
Leadership (Harper & Row,
1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic
Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot,
Harvard Theological Review, and
Liturgy.
A lifelong layperson,
he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:
CrossCurrents
Is a weekly subscription
service for parish websites.
Individual Subscriptions
are also available.
For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183