Since Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue has been one of the most controversial issues in American politics. Now, decades have passed, and the abortion wars are still eminent today even though nothing has changed since the 1973 case. In Dillon’s “How to end the Abortion Stalemate,” she recommends to Catholics what is necessary to overcome this “abortion stalemate.”
Utilizing well-documented research studies, Dillon insists that all religious voters must support bi partisan efforts to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies, expanding adoption opportunities, and increasing economic supports to vulnerable women. By tying a relationship between socioeconomic realties and the rate of abortions, Dillon establishes the essential need to adopt practical solutions to prevent abortion and end this stalemate once and for all. As well, she suggests the end of opposition between the pro-life and pro-choice members of Congress and the advocates the need for these two parties to come to a consensus that offers a helping hand to women.
Dillon’s article has a hopeful, optimistic outlook of how this abortion stalemate can be somewhat solved. Maybe it’s a little bit too optimistic. I agree that the best way for pro-choice and pro-life members of Congress to work together is by a means of a pragmatic, noncontroversial approach. Without pushing for the end of practice of abortion or advocating the need for more abortion clinics, these two factions can find a means to work together by seeking to achieve for a common cause. In this case, Dillon suggests that they must collaborate together to provide women support in tough economic situations, which can then effectively reduce abortion rates. Thus, by blending moral urgency with pragmatic action, these solutions can be certainly feasible.
However, after much controversy in the past, can the pro-life and pro-choice members of Congress easily come to terms with each other and work together? Can the pro-life members drop the goal that they sought to accomplish for years and establish a moderate approach to the abortion issue? Thus, the question is not how the abortion stalemate can be broken but the actual possibility of this happening.
Posts
4 comments:
I thought that the ideas expressed in this article are interesting, but I agree with Mike that the author’s outlook may be a bit too optimistic. I think very few people will argue that abortions are a good thing and even most pro-choice supporters agree the need to reduce the number of abortions through social action. However, even if I disagree their view, many pro-life activists are strongly against abortion because they see it as a moral, religious issue. If they feel abortion should not be a private matter but rather that it should be banned in most cases, it is not because there are ways of avoiding it, like unintended pregnancy prevention, (as quite a few of those activists do not sanction birth control for religious reasons) or by expanding adoption opportunities, or by economic support. For those that seek to reduce abortion but agree women should have the freedom to choose, it is not always easy to empathize with the other view, but many pro-life activists do not seek compromises and discussions, nor are they very interested in practical solutions to reduce the rate of abortion, they want to put an end to a practice that for them has nothing to do with the freedom to choose, and much more to do with murder. Indeed, many pro-choice activists see the social problem caused by abortion but think that the right to choose outweighs the negative effects and so they wish to minimize the need for abortions through social programs while keeping the right to choose. For pro-life activists on the other hand, the equation is not the same; they are not people that feel that the problems related to abortion outweigh the right to choose. For them abortion is seen not as a regrettable by-product of our society, but murder, and so any other issues like the right to choose do not even factor into their thinking. This means that however successful those policies may be, fact is many pro-life activists will still be as strongly against abortion on demand as they were before, simply because their claim is a strongly moral and religious one.
This article probes an interesting question on the issue of abortion. Furthermore, Mike's analysis also provides an interesting response to the issue at hand. Where does the line of party voting and change really get drawn? When are members of Congress going to realize that in order to reduce the number of abortions, we need to target this issue directly instead of attacking the practice of abortion.
Our society has made it acceptable to choose a side--prolife or prochoice. Honestly, it doesn't matter where you fall, because both parties will agree that reducing the number of abortions is the goal. Whether that means making the process illegal is one thing, but educating youth and America as a whole is the solution that both parties can agree on. At this time, it's important that we look at the issues that are effecting our nation's well being and solve unnecessary splits that should have been resolved in the 1980's. Let's agree to move on and solve this, or it will exist forever.
Dillon's article seems a bit one sided to me. From what Mike indicates, Dillon advocates
that the religious voters allow for legislation that "reduce[s] the number of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies, expand[s] adoption opportunities, and increas[es] economic supports to vulnerable women ". All of these points seem like concessions that the religious side would have to make and nothing on the pro choice side. In order to have true bipartisan support there also needs to be concessions made by the pro choice group. Legislation that closes abortion clinics or advocates abstinence education instead of safe sex education may be considered concessions to the pro life advocates. I believe that legislation that includes both Dillon’s points and the points mentioned above will improve the relations between the pro life and pro choice groups and result in better care for women in need.
I agree with Limor that this article seems somewhat one-sided. Clearly the pro-life stance should not be one of empty rhetoric, but should translate values into social action, such as helping low-income families. However, pro-choice people would have to commit to actively reducing the number of abortions as well. Some ways might be acknowledging that abortion is never a positive thing, promoting other options, including adoption, and providing a strong support system for single and low-income mothers. Making concessions, like closing some abortion clinics, as Limor suggests, or supporting legislation that limits late term abortions, would be an even better step.
However, I disagree with Rahul's assessment. I really don't think this is an issue that can ever truly be resolved. If it were just a social issue maybe it could be. But even if both sides agree on how to reduce the number of abortions, as long as abortion is still legal pro-lifers will be unhappy. And if somehow Roe v. Wade is overturned, and abortion becomes illegal once again, pro-choice people will be furious. Though reducing the number of abortions is a good start, I don't think there is any way to solve this "unnecessary split".
Post a Comment