Seeing room for compromise
February 08, 2010 10:49:13
by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund
Saw a post on the City Pages Blog regarding Al Franken’s speaking appearance and a recent NARAL luncheon honoring the 37th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and I just have to comment.
The post, “Al Franken, reproductive rights, and a debate that goes nowhere”, pulls a section of Senator Franken’s speech and compares it to an MCCL press release, printed in full, to prove to its readers that “these two camps will never see eye to eye.”
This is not news: Both sides of the abortion debate are dug in tighter than a stubborn mule, each fearing any compromise will lead to hell on one side, or a return to the 18th century on the other, and claiming to represent the majority of Americans.
Having already declared this, “not news,” I’m left wondering what the point of the post was? It seems only to exacerbate precisely the problem that this writer seems to take issue with.
His assertion that each side is stubbornly refusing to compromise is overstated at best, and totally false at worst.
Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers continue to represent a range of views that do not fit into the black and white paradigm, which he perpetuates.
- -On Common Ground is an ongoing feature from RH reality check, a pro-choice website, that aims to find the similarities between pro-choice and pro-lifers to find common ground to work toward compromise.
- -Pro Life Pro-Obama is a website dedicated to reducing the need for abortion by advocating for better health care, support for parents seeking higher education, and better child care programs rather than banning abortion.
- -Former director of the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice shares her experiences during some trying times in Buffalo, NY.
- -Vice President Biden’s views on abortion further explain the shades of grey when it comes to views on abortion.
- -South Dakota voted against an abortion ban twice, not because they are a pro-choice state, but because they don’t believe the government has a role in the issue.
These are just a few of the many examples of compromise between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. This is not to say that there aren’t people who are unwilling to compromise. For example, there are countless pro-life legislators who have voted against expanded family planning services, increased access to birth control, and other initiatives that would actually reduce the number of abortion. These fervently pro-life legislators would rather spend their time trying to pass intrusive laws than actually reduce the abortion rate through positive, preventative solutions.
Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization, but respects a woman’s decision to carry her pregnancy to term just as it respect a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Senator Franken explained in his speech at the NARAL Luncheon:
Now, let me say that there are millions of people in this country who have a sincere objection to abortion, and much of that is based on strongly held religious conviction. And I respect that. In America, we respect each other's religious beliefs. But we are not governed by them.
If there are groups who don’t see “eye to eye,” it’s those who believe in the separation of church and state and those that don’t. For pro-lifers and pro-choicers who actually want to reduce abortion, there’s plenty of room for common ground and compromise.
Trackback: http://www.plannedparenthoodadvocate.org/trackback/739/vRM6cEkc/
I do agree that this debate has been shrouded for too long in a blanket of ‘black or white’- but that’s what generally can be expected by those who don’t talk about this issue day and night (another example of this is ‘you’re either hetero or homosexual’ when people who are more familiar with this debate are well aware that it is not that cut-and-dry). If you grew up inheriting your opinion from another source, the grey area is of little interest to you and the media has clearly picked up on this.
I feel as though a lot of people involved in the movement tend to get a ‘rush’ out of blatantly opposing the other side. At a Planned Parenthood fundraiser a few months ago, I was actually booed for mentioning abstinence (not abstinence-only, mind you, but simply as one method of birth control)! This is not a dirty word, and framing it as such only hurts our cause to people who have been anxiously awaiting middle-ground.
I totally agree with the blogger though; digging your heels in the sand and pushing in the opposite direction hurts the people we are trying to help-> if people want to reduce the numbers of abortions being had, endorse COMPREHENSIVE sexuality education…
I think that both sides should be able to agree with the fact that fewer abortions in the world wouldn’t be an awful thing, and that comrehensive sexuality education is a great first step to accomplish it. As far as simply outlawing abortion all together though-> one really only needs to see how well that worked for abolishing alcohol, narcotics or prostitution… oh, didn’t work? hmmm…
We really just need to ask ourselves if we’re here to solve a problem constructively, or are we going to carry on with silly talkingpoints that leave the rest of the population spinning it’s wheels looking for more.
By Rebecca on 08/02/2010
