Terms of Engagement: Abortion, an Example
The nature of political and social discourse is rarely honest. Opponents often choose issues and words that intentionally put their side or position in the better light by making the other side look bad. The abortion debate is a good example. It starts with as simple a thing as names. Although one side calls itself “pro-life,” the other side chooses to call it “anti-abortion,” giving the position a different character. The other side does the same, calling them “pro-abortion,” even though they prefer “pro-choice.” In fact, it is easy to spot the biases of those reporting on the controversy, by the labels they use. Most of the media use “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion,” showing themselves to be on that same side. Conservative or Christian reporters will say “pro-life” and “pro-abortion.” The rare but objective reporter[1] will respect all parties, using “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”
The divergence and duplicity extends throughout the controversy. The pro-choice supporters insist that their adversaries’ intent is to limit the choices that free women can make. At the same time, they refuse to address the question of when life begins, which is a critical argument for pro-lifers. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, argue that their opponents have an agenda that favors the killing of the unborn. The sides never actually debate the questions raised by either side.
Interestingly, both sides claim to want to reduce the number of abortions, though for different reasons. Given that point of seeming agreement, why don’t they get together to find ways to achieve something they both say they want? Could they want so much to defeat their opposition that they refuse to work together? Furthermore, it doesn’t take long to discover, whatever position you hold, that advocates use the highly emotional controversy to fuel their respective fund drives. Non-profit, political, and governmental bodies share a common thirst for money that often subverts their stated goals to meet a need or solve a problem. Could it be that divisive rhetoric sometimes conceals simple greed or agenda beyond the obvious?
Parties in a dispute of any kind often see their opponents as wrong, close-minded, extreme, and even evil. People must learn that these judgments are part of waging war. A person may start out with a close or friendly relationship; but, once a disagreement has occurred, that friend, partner, or spouse becomes the enemy. Human (i.e. sinful) nature typically and quickly sees the bad and forgets the good. Nicknames reflect the change—“that b--------!” or “those b--------!” Cultural distinctives become slurs, like “kraut” or “raghead.” Slightly more polite are the character assassinations. The opposition is not merely wrong; it is sneaky, dirty, and dishonest. These are the reasons court battles and politics can become so dirty; as in war, the goal is to win, at any cost.
To further confuse matters, sometimes parties in a disagreement are wrong, evil, close-minded, and extreme. They may start that way, or they may have been driven to it as they were drawn into the war. Minor disagreements easily become shouting matches, during which people say things they later regret. Escalation is a common part of the process of war. They don’t all begin with a Pearl Harbor or 9/11; indeed, even those attacks were preceded by warnings and build-ups.
Returning to the matter of abortion, pro-choice advocates are often people who oppose big business. Yet, they ignore the enormity of the abortion business. Pro-life supporters are generally conservative, politically, and they oppose big government. Yet, they ignore the intrusion of big government into the personal lives of pregnant women. What would happen if even a few pro-choice and pro-life leaders actually sat down together and really listened to each other? We all tend to listen to our own voices to the exclusion of others, even those we love. Adversaries rarely actually listen to opponents except to shape the next argument or rebuttal. In fact, even people having ordinary conversations with their spouses, children, friends, and co-workers often don’t listen well; such is human nature. People have to learn to listen; it is hard work. It is even harder to listen, really listen, to an adversary. If things are bad, we say, “I have nothing to say!” but we really mean, “I don’t want to hear anything from the enemy!”
The abortion debate seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. Both sides are judging their respective positions—“Are we winning/losing?” Over thirty years of history might be called the “30 Years’ War,” for neither side as surrendered. One side’s victory with Roe v. Wade” was merely the beginning of the next phase of the war. Shifts in the make-up of the Supreme Court may finally turn the war around, but that wouldn’t be the end. Until a mutually agreed solution is found that satisfies the majority on both sides (The evil, the greedy, and the terribly stubborn will never surrender!), the war will go on.
The only victory that ends a war is one that breaks down the barriers between former enemies. Sometimes, that requires “post-war reconstruction.” Sometimes, the way is “peace negotiations” to end the war. Usually it depends on the willingness of the parties in conflict to deal with each other. For example, when I was in radio, I once schedule a certain freshman legislator for a talk show. She was pro-choice by party, but I learned that she was actually quite unfamiliar with the issue. Her appearance was to discuss a program she supported related to agriculture; she was not prepared or even able to discuss abortion, at that time. Nevertheless, several callers insisted on challenging her support for abortion. Their manner and tone were disrespectful and accusing. One of them said, “Why do you favor abortion?” but it wasn’t a question. Understand, I am pro-life, and I found the caller unpleasant. She wasn’t helping the cause; she was fighting a war. Regrettably, such behavior doesn’t win supporters or recruits, very well.
The same legislator actually co-sponsored a bill to restrict topless dancing, as I recall; she was showing herself to be a friend to conservatives on that issue. She could have become a valuable ally, at least on some issues. Unfortunately, some ardent citizens used an appointment to force her to watch a tasteless video (pro-life or anti-porn). They succeeded only in alienating a potential friend. This is not the way to win a war!
Unfortunately, people often invest so much in fighting a war that they cannot afford to end it. I personally have pretty clear opinions, but I am careful where and how I express them. Even the slightest indications of interest virtually guarantee an avalanche of requests for money. I have worked much of my life in non-profit venues, so I realize that organizations need to let people know their needs. I have also learned that many groups become so invested in their organization that they lose sight of the cause they set out to remedy. Too often it becomes only about the money! Many things I believe in fall into this trap. Part of the temptation is to believe a little more money will enable them to do a little more good. Money is very impersonal, and the things that money can do are similarly impersonal. More guns and ammunition may destroy the enemy, but do we really want to win a war that way? That’s why no genuine “pro-life” person would ever support blowing up an abortion clinic or killing an abortion doctor, despite the opinions of some on either side.
The processes of ending a war or winning the peace, of authentic, effective peace making, is one of finding and using positive terms of engagement. That begins with one simple word—respect. People may not agree with each other, but that can choose to respect each other, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, liberal or conservative, or Islamic, Christian, or atheist! Respect is revealed by words, not by foolish actions. A wise officer doesn’t holster his weapon when threatened by an armed assailant, but he may use words in an attempt to defuse the situation (unlike many popular crime stories). The process isn’t simple or easy. It begins by giving up calling the adversary names. It proceeds by showing respect for the person and his opinions. If we could get more folks to do just that much, we might be surprised by where it could go from there.
[1] Objectivity in a reporter, judge, or mediator does not imply they have no personal opinion, but they choose to act in a neutral manner for the sake of the work they do. Being objective or neutral is difficult, and people may fail to recognize their own failure to be objective. Main-line media seem not to be aware of their biases that are apparent to others, making it difficult to identify intentional slanting in the news.
The divergence and duplicity extends throughout the controversy. The pro-choice supporters insist that their adversaries’ intent is to limit the choices that free women can make. At the same time, they refuse to address the question of when life begins, which is a critical argument for pro-lifers. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, argue that their opponents have an agenda that favors the killing of the unborn. The sides never actually debate the questions raised by either side.
Interestingly, both sides claim to want to reduce the number of abortions, though for different reasons. Given that point of seeming agreement, why don’t they get together to find ways to achieve something they both say they want? Could they want so much to defeat their opposition that they refuse to work together? Furthermore, it doesn’t take long to discover, whatever position you hold, that advocates use the highly emotional controversy to fuel their respective fund drives. Non-profit, political, and governmental bodies share a common thirst for money that often subverts their stated goals to meet a need or solve a problem. Could it be that divisive rhetoric sometimes conceals simple greed or agenda beyond the obvious?
Parties in a dispute of any kind often see their opponents as wrong, close-minded, extreme, and even evil. People must learn that these judgments are part of waging war. A person may start out with a close or friendly relationship; but, once a disagreement has occurred, that friend, partner, or spouse becomes the enemy. Human (i.e. sinful) nature typically and quickly sees the bad and forgets the good. Nicknames reflect the change—“that b--------!” or “those b--------!” Cultural distinctives become slurs, like “kraut” or “raghead.” Slightly more polite are the character assassinations. The opposition is not merely wrong; it is sneaky, dirty, and dishonest. These are the reasons court battles and politics can become so dirty; as in war, the goal is to win, at any cost.
To further confuse matters, sometimes parties in a disagreement are wrong, evil, close-minded, and extreme. They may start that way, or they may have been driven to it as they were drawn into the war. Minor disagreements easily become shouting matches, during which people say things they later regret. Escalation is a common part of the process of war. They don’t all begin with a Pearl Harbor or 9/11; indeed, even those attacks were preceded by warnings and build-ups.
Returning to the matter of abortion, pro-choice advocates are often people who oppose big business. Yet, they ignore the enormity of the abortion business. Pro-life supporters are generally conservative, politically, and they oppose big government. Yet, they ignore the intrusion of big government into the personal lives of pregnant women. What would happen if even a few pro-choice and pro-life leaders actually sat down together and really listened to each other? We all tend to listen to our own voices to the exclusion of others, even those we love. Adversaries rarely actually listen to opponents except to shape the next argument or rebuttal. In fact, even people having ordinary conversations with their spouses, children, friends, and co-workers often don’t listen well; such is human nature. People have to learn to listen; it is hard work. It is even harder to listen, really listen, to an adversary. If things are bad, we say, “I have nothing to say!” but we really mean, “I don’t want to hear anything from the enemy!”
The abortion debate seems to be hopelessly deadlocked. Both sides are judging their respective positions—“Are we winning/losing?” Over thirty years of history might be called the “30 Years’ War,” for neither side as surrendered. One side’s victory with Roe v. Wade” was merely the beginning of the next phase of the war. Shifts in the make-up of the Supreme Court may finally turn the war around, but that wouldn’t be the end. Until a mutually agreed solution is found that satisfies the majority on both sides (The evil, the greedy, and the terribly stubborn will never surrender!), the war will go on.
The only victory that ends a war is one that breaks down the barriers between former enemies. Sometimes, that requires “post-war reconstruction.” Sometimes, the way is “peace negotiations” to end the war. Usually it depends on the willingness of the parties in conflict to deal with each other. For example, when I was in radio, I once schedule a certain freshman legislator for a talk show. She was pro-choice by party, but I learned that she was actually quite unfamiliar with the issue. Her appearance was to discuss a program she supported related to agriculture; she was not prepared or even able to discuss abortion, at that time. Nevertheless, several callers insisted on challenging her support for abortion. Their manner and tone were disrespectful and accusing. One of them said, “Why do you favor abortion?” but it wasn’t a question. Understand, I am pro-life, and I found the caller unpleasant. She wasn’t helping the cause; she was fighting a war. Regrettably, such behavior doesn’t win supporters or recruits, very well.
The same legislator actually co-sponsored a bill to restrict topless dancing, as I recall; she was showing herself to be a friend to conservatives on that issue. She could have become a valuable ally, at least on some issues. Unfortunately, some ardent citizens used an appointment to force her to watch a tasteless video (pro-life or anti-porn). They succeeded only in alienating a potential friend. This is not the way to win a war!
Unfortunately, people often invest so much in fighting a war that they cannot afford to end it. I personally have pretty clear opinions, but I am careful where and how I express them. Even the slightest indications of interest virtually guarantee an avalanche of requests for money. I have worked much of my life in non-profit venues, so I realize that organizations need to let people know their needs. I have also learned that many groups become so invested in their organization that they lose sight of the cause they set out to remedy. Too often it becomes only about the money! Many things I believe in fall into this trap. Part of the temptation is to believe a little more money will enable them to do a little more good. Money is very impersonal, and the things that money can do are similarly impersonal. More guns and ammunition may destroy the enemy, but do we really want to win a war that way? That’s why no genuine “pro-life” person would ever support blowing up an abortion clinic or killing an abortion doctor, despite the opinions of some on either side.
The processes of ending a war or winning the peace, of authentic, effective peace making, is one of finding and using positive terms of engagement. That begins with one simple word—respect. People may not agree with each other, but that can choose to respect each other, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, liberal or conservative, or Islamic, Christian, or atheist! Respect is revealed by words, not by foolish actions. A wise officer doesn’t holster his weapon when threatened by an armed assailant, but he may use words in an attempt to defuse the situation (unlike many popular crime stories). The process isn’t simple or easy. It begins by giving up calling the adversary names. It proceeds by showing respect for the person and his opinions. If we could get more folks to do just that much, we might be surprised by where it could go from there.
[1] Objectivity in a reporter, judge, or mediator does not imply they have no personal opinion, but they choose to act in a neutral manner for the sake of the work they do. Being objective or neutral is difficult, and people may fail to recognize their own failure to be objective. Main-line media seem not to be aware of their biases that are apparent to others, making it difficult to identify intentional slanting in the news.
Comments